Ubisoft's Splinter Cell Remake Layoffs: What It Means [2026]

Ubisoft's Crisis Year: Understanding the Splinter Cell Layoffs and Beyond

It's been a rough start to 2026 for Ubisoft. In February alone, the French gaming giant announced major layoffs across multiple studios, canceled a high-profile remake, faced a company-wide strike involving over 1,200 employees, and continued a pattern of organizational instability that's been building for years. The latest blow came when Ubisoft Toronto, one of the company's largest and most productive studios, received word that around 40 of its staff members were being let go.

The timing couldn't be worse. This particular studio was deep in development on the long-awaited Splinter Cell remake, a project that fans have been anticipating since the game's initial announcement back in 2021. Splinter Cell, for those who might not be familiar, is one of gaming's most beloved stealth franchises. The original series defined what stealth games could be in the early 2000s, and the remake represents Ubisoft's attempt to modernize that legacy for contemporary audiences.

But here's where things get complicated. While Ubisoft maintains that the Splinter Cell remake remains "in development" and that Toronto will continue supporting other projects, losing 40 team members from a studio is never just a minor adjustment. It's a structural upheaval that raises serious questions about the project's timeline, scope, and whether the company is still genuinely committed to seeing it through.

This article digs into what's actually happening at Ubisoft, why the company is making these devastating cuts, what it means for the Splinter Cell remake specifically, and what the broader gaming industry can learn from this mess. We'll also explore the deeper context: why is one of gaming's most recognizable publishers in such turmoil?

TL; DR

• Ubisoft Toronto lost 40 jobs in February 2026, impacting the studio's ongoing Splinter Cell remake development
• The company claims the game remains in development, but losing that many staff members will inevitably affect timeline and scope
• This follows a wave of cuts at Swedish studios and planned layoffs at Paris HQ that could affect up to 200 more employees
• Ubisoft employees went on strike with over 1,200 workers protesting recent layoffs and cost-cutting measures
• The company canceled another major remake (Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time), signaling a major strategic shift

The Splinter Cell remake, initially expected around 2025, may now be delayed to 2028 due to the impact of layoffs at Ubisoft's Toronto studio. Estimated data.

The Scale of Ubisoft's Crisis: A Timeline of Collapse

To understand why the Toronto layoffs matter, you need to see them in the context of Ubisoft's larger 2026 meltdown. This didn't happen in a vacuum. The Toronto cuts are part of a coordinated, company-wide restructuring that suggests fundamental problems at the organization's core.

In early 2026, before the Toronto announcement, Ubisoft already made cuts at its Swedish studios. The exact numbers weren't immediately disclosed, but insiders reported significant reductions. Then came the Paris revelation: up to 200 additional people could be laid off at Ubisoft's French headquarters. That's where much of the company's leadership and core creative talent sits. If those numbers materialize, we're talking about hundreds of job losses in just weeks.

While all this was happening in the background, Ubisoft made a shocking decision: it canceled the Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time remake entirely. This wasn't a small experimental project. Prince of Persia is a legacy franchise with deep nostalgic value, and remaking The Sands of Time specifically was supposed to be a prestige project that would appeal to both longtime fans and new players. Canceling it signals that Ubisoft is in triage mode, cutting anything that doesn't fit an increasingly narrow definition of profitability.

The employee response was swift and angry. On the heels of these announcements, over 1,200 Ubisoft employees went on strike. That's not a fringe protest. That's a majority of the workforce at multiple studios saying "we're done with this." The strike was triggered directly by the layoffs and what employees described as "sweeping cost-cutting measures" that weren't just affecting headcount but changing the fundamental working conditions at the company.

Take a step back, and the picture becomes clear: Ubisoft is in crisis mode. The Toronto layoffs aren't an isolated incident. They're part of a systemic problem.

Why Ubisoft Toronto Matters: Understanding the Studio's Legacy

Before we talk about what the layoffs mean for future games, it's important to understand what Ubisoft Toronto actually is and why losing 40 people there is particularly significant.

Ubisoft Toronto isn't some small experimental studio. It's been one of Ubisoft's largest and most reliable development centers. The studio has worked on multiple major franchises over the years. Most recently, it contributed significantly to Watch Dogs: Legion, a massive open-world game that shipped in 2020. Before that, it worked on Far Cry 6, another AAA title that sold millions of copies worldwide. These aren't small projects. These are games that require hundreds of people, millions in budget, and years of development time.

The studio has also proven capable of handling the kind of technical and creative complexity that a Splinter Cell remake would demand. Remaking a beloved stealth franchise for a new generation isn't straightforward. You can't just slap new graphics on an old game and call it a day. You have to rethink level design, update the stealth mechanics to work with modern AI systems, completely rebuild the animation systems, rewrite every line of code for modern engines, and generally modernize everything while preserving what made the original special.

That's exactly the kind of work Toronto has proven it can do. So the decision to cut 40 people from this studio while keeping the Splinter Cell project "in development" creates an immediate logical problem: how are you supposed to maintain development on a complex remake with significantly fewer hands on deck?

The studio didn't become one of Ubisoft's largest by accident. Toronto has earned its position through consistent delivery of quality work. These 40 people weren't deadweight or redundant positions. They were part of the team actually making the game happen.

Estimated data shows a significant increase in both development costs and revenue from live-service games over the past decade, highlighting the shift in the gaming industry's economic model.

The Splinter Cell Remake: What We Know and What We Don't

The Splinter Cell remake was first announced way back in December 2021. That means we're now over four years into what was supposed to be its development cycle. For context, that's longer than many complete AAA game development cycles take from start to finish.

We've seen remarkably little concrete information about the remake in that entire time. No gameplay footage, no detailed mechanics showcase, no campaign structure revealed. Ubisoft has been unusually quiet about what the remake actually is. In the gaming industry, radio silence like this usually means one of two things: either the game is still in very early stages and isn't ready to show, or the game is having serious problems.

Given that it's been four years, the "very early stages" explanation is getting harder to believe. More likely, the remake has faced significant challenges. Maybe the initial approach wasn't working. Maybe the team had to pivot to a different engine or design philosophy. Maybe there were scope creep issues or creative direction disagreements. Without more information, we're largely speculating. But the consistent absence of footage combined with now losing 40 team members suggests the project has been struggling.

Ubisoft's statement that the game "remains in development" is technically accurate but tells us nothing useful. Of course it remains in development if they're still working on it at all. But "remaining in development" could mean anything from "shipping next year" to "we're rebuilding from scratch" to "we're quietly hoping this goes away."

What we do know: the original Splinter Cell games defined the stealth genre in many ways. The level design was intricate, the sneaking mechanics were precise, and the story was engaging. The remake needs to capture all that while being modern enough to feel fresh to contemporary players who've spent the last decade playing immersive sims like Dishonored and Prey, and watching stealth games evolve significantly in terms of what players expect.

That's a genuinely hard creative problem. And now it's a genuinely hard creative problem being tackled with fewer resources.

Understanding Ubisoft's Strategic Pivot: Why the Cuts Happened

Ubisoft didn't wake up in February 2026 and decide to randomly fire 40 people in Toronto just for fun. These layoffs, like all layoffs, are rooted in business decisions. Understanding the "why" is crucial to understanding what happens next.

Public company earnings and investor pressure are almost certainly part of the equation. Ubisoft's stock has been under pressure, with investors concerned about the company's ability to deliver blockbuster hits consistently. Several major Ubisoft releases in recent years have underperformed commercially or received mixed critical reception. The company has been burned by launch issues, game delays, and projects that didn't hit expected sales targets.

When a publicly traded company faces investor pressure and slower revenue growth, the predictable response is to cut costs. It's the easiest lever to pull. You can't instantly make your games better or more successful, but you can instantly reduce your payroll. So you do that, you issue a press release about "organizational restructuring," and you hope your stock price responds positively (it often does in the short term, which is why companies keep doing this even though research suggests it's generally terrible for long-term creative output).

But there might be another layer here too. Ubisoft has been increasingly focused on live-service games and multiplayer experiences over the past several years. Games like Rainbow Six Siege, The Division 2, and others have proven to be reliable revenue generators that continue making money months and years after launch. These games are different from traditional single-player campaigns: they require different skills, different team structures, and different ongoing investment patterns.

A traditional single-player stealth remake like Splinter Cell might not fit Ubisoft's current strategic focus. The company might be thinking: "Why spend all these resources on a single-player game that generates revenue in the first few months and then drops off, when we could be investing in multiplayer live-service experiences that generate revenue indefinitely?"

This would explain why the company is simultaneously canceling remakes and cutting headcount at studios known for single-player work while potentially continuing live-service projects. It's a portfolio shift, and it's a brutal one for the people affected.

The Human Cost: What These Layoffs Mean for Developers

Layoffs in the gaming industry are devastating on a human level, and it's worth taking a moment to acknowledge that clearly.

These aren't abstract business decisions. These are people who were hired to work on games, who invested time and energy in Ubisoft's projects, who built communities at these studios, who had plans and mortgages and families. Losing your job without warning is traumatic. Losing it as part of a massive layoff wave makes it even worse because it's harder to immediately find equivalent work when your entire industry is simultaneously shedding staff.

The gaming industry has become notorious for layoffs in recent years. In 2023 and 2024, tens of thousands of developers lost their jobs. Major studios like Sony, Microsoft, Activision Blizzard, and others all conducted massive layoffs. The trend continued into 2026 with Ubisoft joining what's now becoming a depressingly regular ritual.

For the 40 people losing their jobs at Ubisoft Toronto, the company provided what it called "comprehensive severance packages and robust career placement assistance." Those are nice things to have, but they don't replicate the salary, benefits, and work environment the laid-off employees had. And finding new positions in game development is increasingly challenging because the pipeline of available jobs has shrunk dramatically.

It's worth noting that the Ubisoft strike that followed these announcements was specifically about this human cost. Employees weren't just upset about job losses at other studios. They were upset about the apparent lack of care for affected workers and what they saw as a pattern of prioritizing financial metrics over people. The strike represented a refusal to accept that this is just "how business works."

The Splinter Cell remake is unlikely to release before 2027, with 2028 being a more realistic target due to development challenges. Estimated data based on current insights.

Splinter Cell in a Shrinking Development Landscape

The question that matters most for gamers is simple: what happens to the Splinter Cell remake now?

Ubisoft's public position is clear: the game continues development, and Toronto will continue supporting it. But that statement needs to be parsed carefully. It doesn't say the game is on track. It doesn't give a timeline. It doesn't even confirm that Splinter Cell remains a priority project. It just says the game isn't canceled and Toronto is still working on it.

Losing 40 people from a studio is functionally a 25 to 30% headcount reduction (Toronto's exact total size isn't publicly disclosed, but industry estimates suggest it's around 150-200 people). That's not a minor cut. That's a fundamental restructuring of the team.

What likely happens next is complex. Some of the laid-off positions might eventually be refilled, but that takes time and the job market has too many qualified people looking for work, so new hires will probably come at lower salaries. Some positions might simply stay unfilled, forcing remaining staff to absorb additional work. The team will probably have to reprioritize the project, cutting scope or extending timelines.

In practical terms, gamers should expect: the Splinter Cell remake is still probably coming, but it's probably coming later than internal schedules previously suggested, and it might be smaller in scope than originally envisioned. Don't expect it in 2026. 2027 is possible but should be considered optimistic. 2028 feels more realistic if the project is having the kind of struggles these layoffs suggest.

There's also a possibility that Ubisoft eventually decides to cancel the remake entirely or shift it to a different studio. If Splinter Cell stays stuck in development hell for another year or two, the company might reevaluate whether it's worth continuing. That's not what the current public statement says, but it's a possibility worth acknowledging.

The Broader Industry Context: Why Game Companies Keep Doing This

Ubisoft's 2026 meltdown isn't unique. It's part of a larger pattern in the gaming industry that's become increasingly severe over the past couple of years.

The gaming industry has fundamentally changed over the past decade. Games have become more expensive to make, development timelines have stretched longer, and the pressure to deliver commercially successful titles has increased enormously. A single failed AAA game release can represent a loss of $100 million or more. That creates intense pressure to cut costs and minimize risk.

At the same time, the industry has shifted toward a model where games are expected to generate revenue indefinitely rather than just upfront at launch. This favors live-service games, multiplayer experiences, and games-as-service over traditional single-player campaigns that generate their revenue upfront and then taper off.

Developing games has also become more complex. Modern AAA games require teams of hundreds working for years. The technology stack is more complicated. The player expectations are higher. The competitive landscape is more crowded. All of this pushes companies toward larger teams, longer timelines, and higher budgets.

But here's the contradiction: while games have become more expensive and complex to make, the economics of the industry have gotten tighter. Players are willing to spend on live-service cosmetics and battle passes, but they're more resistant to $70 upfront prices. Console cycles are lasting longer. The free-to-play market is increasingly saturated and competitive.

So companies are caught in a squeeze: they need to make bigger, more expensive games to compete, but the financial returns are less certain. The response has been to aggressively cut costs, including through layoffs, to protect profitability. It's a short-term strategy that might help quarterly earnings, but it almost certainly hurts long-term creative output and employee morale.

Ubisoft is just the most visible recent example of this pattern.

The Strike: What Ubisoft Employees Actually Said

The Ubisoft strike involved over 1,200 employees across multiple studios and countries. That's a significant percentage of the company's workforce actually refusing to work in protest. It's the kind of labor action that only happens when employees feel genuinely wronged.

What were they protesting specifically? The official strike communications cited several grievances:

First, the layoffs themselves and what employees felt was inadequate severance for affected workers. The company's statement about "comprehensive severance packages" was seen by strikers as insufficient given the circumstances.

Second, the "sweeping cost-cutting measures" that affected working conditions beyond just headcount. These measures apparently included changes to benefits, working practices, and resource allocation that made day-to-day work more difficult.

Third, what strikers saw as a pattern of decisions that prioritized shareholder value over employee welfare and creative quality. The cancellation of the Prince of Persia remake, for instance, was seen not as a strategic pivot but as giving up on ambitious projects in favor of safer, more profitable options.

The strike was particularly interesting because it represented workers from multiple studios and countries coordinating in protest. This suggests the discontent was widespread and wasn't isolated to one location or team. French labor laws also came into play, with some strikes being legally protected in ways they might not be in other countries.

Ubisoft's response to the strike wasn't immediately transformative. The company apparently held meetings with strike organizers, but no major policy reversals were announced. This kind of standoff is typical: employees protest, management listens, and then decisions don't always shift significantly. The strike did, however, draw significant media attention to Ubisoft's problems, which could create longer-term pressure.

The realistic scenario, where the game ships with delays and reduced scope, is estimated to be the most likely outcome for the Splinter Cell remake. Estimated data.

What Happened to Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time Remake

The cancellation of the Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time remake is worth examining separately because it tells us something important about Ubisoft's current thinking.

The Sands of Time is one of gaming's most beloved action games. It came out in 2003 and fundamentally changed how people thought about platforming and puzzle-solving in 3D games. A remake of this specific title was supposed to appeal to nostalgic older players while introducing the franchise to contemporary audiences.

Ubisoft had been working on this remake for years. Early footage showed a game that looked visually impressive and had redesigned the core mechanics in interesting ways. By most accounts, the remake wasn't in terrible shape. It wasn't shipped yet, sure, but it also wasn't vaporware.

So why cancel it? The most likely explanation is that Ubisoft looked at the game, looked at the market, looked at what players were buying, and concluded that a single-player action platformer remake didn't fit the company's new strategic priorities. A game like that would take significant resources to complete and market, would generate revenue primarily upfront, and wouldn't create the ongoing monetization opportunities that modern publishers crave.

This is the same logic probably affecting the Splinter Cell remake. Both are single-player focused (Splinter Cell has some online elements, but it's primarily single-player). Both are remakes of beloved franchises rather than new IPs. Both would need to be critically successful to be financially successful. Both represent the kinds of "risky" creative bets that publicly traded companies increasingly avoid.

When you're facing investor pressure and stock price concerns, you tend to move away from risky creative projects and toward proven formulas. And the proven formula in modern gaming is live-service multiplayer games with cosmetic monetization.

Inside Look at Ubisoft Toronto: Studio Culture and Work

Ubisoft Toronto has developed a reputation over the years as one of the more stable and professional Ubisoft studios. It's located in Toronto, Canada, which is a major gaming hub with a strong local developer community. The studio has attracted talent from across the region.

The studio's work on Watch Dogs: Legion and Far Cry 6 demonstrated its ability to ship large, ambitious projects. While neither game was universally acclaimed, both were substantial AAA releases that showed technical competence and creative capability.

Losing 40 people from this studio disrupts established team dynamics and institutional knowledge. Game development is partly about technology and partly about people knowing how to work together effectively. When you cut 25-30% of a team, you're not just losing headcount. You're losing relationships, established workflow patterns, and accumulated knowledge about what works and what doesn't.

The 40 laid-off employees likely included a mix of levels: some were probably junior developers early in their careers, some were mid-level contributors with 5-10 years of experience, and some were probably senior people with significant expertise. Losing that mix creates a skill distribution problem for remaining staff.

We also don't know whether the layoffs affected particular disciplines disproportionately. If the cuts hit the level design team hard, for instance, that would have major implications for the Splinter Cell remake. If they hit animation or technical engineering, different problems would emerge. Without more detail, we're speculating, but the functional impact depends heavily on who specifically was let go.

The Road Ahead: What's Next for Splinter Cell and Ubisoft

Looking forward, several scenarios seem plausible for how this plays out.

Scenario one is the optimistic outcome: Ubisoft stabilizes after these cuts, the Splinter Cell remake continues development with the smaller team, and the game eventually ships in 2027 or 2028 in roughly the form originally envisioned. The 40 laid-off positions don't get refilled, but remaining staff adjust and the project marches forward.

Scenario two is the realistic middle ground: the cuts cause delays and scope reductions. Splinter Cell ships eventually, but it's smaller and more focused than originally planned. Some ambitious features get cut or delayed. The timeline stretches to 2028 or 2029. The game ships, but it's not the grand remake fans might have hoped for.

Scenario three is the pessimistic outcome: the layoffs are just the beginning. Ubisoft continues struggling financially, more cuts follow, and the company eventually decides the Splinter Cell remake isn't worth completing. The project gets canceled or indefinitely delayed, joining other Ubisoft games that never shipped.

Historically, scenario two seems most likely for a major publisher like Ubisoft working on a franchise remake. Companies rarely fully cancel projects of this profile, but they do constantly delay them and reduce scope.

Beyond Splinter Cell, Ubisoft faces larger questions about its strategic direction. The strike and the layoffs signal that something is seriously wrong with employee morale. That's not a short-term problem to solve with a few policy changes. That's a cultural issue that takes sustained effort to address.

The company also has to prove it can still make hit games. The company's recent track record has been mixed. It needs to demonstrate to investors that its current strategy—apparently leaning harder into live-service games and away from traditional single-player campaigns—is working. That pressure will likely continue driving these kinds of cost-cutting moves.

For gamers waiting for Splinter Cell, patience is required. The game is still probably coming, but expectations should be managed. A 2027 release seems optimistic. Planning for 2028 or later is more realistic. And there's always a chance it gets canceled entirely, though that seems less likely for a franchise of this profile.

Ubisoft's strategic focus has shifted towards live-service and multiplayer games, estimated to comprise 80% of their focus, reflecting industry trends and revenue potential.

Industry Implications: What Other Publishers Are Watching

Ubisoft's problems are significant for the entire gaming industry, not just for Ubisoft fans or shareholders.

When a major publisher like Ubisoft lays off thousands of people and cancels major projects, it sends shockwaves through the industry. Other studios watch what happens. Other companies consider whether they should follow similar strategies. The decisions Ubisoft makes today might influence what EA, Activision Blizzard, Sony, Microsoft, and other major publishers do tomorrow.

Right now, the signals are all negative. Layoffs breed more layoffs. Cost-cutting becomes contagious. Companies try to out-compete each other on efficiency rather than creativity. The incentive structure doesn't reward innovation or risk-taking. It rewards margin expansion and stock price stability.

There's also a broader question about whether the current path is sustainable. The games industry has been incredibly valuable financially, but that value has partly been built on treating game development as an infinitely scalable business. You can't scale game development infinitely. People have limits. Creativity can't be rushed. And when you treat developers as disposable resources to be cut whenever margins tighten, you eventually run out of skilled people willing to stay in the industry.

The Ubisoft strike was interesting partly because it represented employees pushing back on this model. That kind of labor organizing could spread if more developers decide the current working conditions aren't acceptable.

Lessons From Past Ubisoft Crises

Ubisoft has been through turbulent periods before, so it's worth examining what happened after previous crises to understand whether there's reason for optimism now.

In 2020, Ubisoft faced a sexual harassment scandal that revealed serious workplace culture problems. Multiple executives left, investigations were conducted, and the company promised reforms. Did it work? Mixed results. Some changes were implemented, but reports over the following years suggested workplace culture issues persisted in some divisions.

In 2023-2024, Ubisoft faced a massive wave of layoffs along with the rest of the industry. That didn't happen in isolation. It was part of a broader trend with every major publisher cutting staff. Ubisoft's were just particularly visible and apparently poorly managed.

The pattern with Ubisoft crises is that they're visible, they generate outrage, and then they sort of... gradually fade. The company issues statements about making changes, some changes get made, but structural problems often remain. The next crisis comes eventually.

This time might be different because of the scale of the strike and because the issues seem more fundamental. But betting on a major corporation to genuinely transform its operations based on employee pressure has historically been optimistic.

What Fans Should Be Feeling: Cautiously Pessimistic

If you're a Splinter Cell fan who's been waiting since 2021 for news about the remake, what should you actually expect?

The honest answer is: lower your expectations. Not because the remake is definitely going to be bad, but because the circumstances now make it much less likely to be the ambitious, high-quality game Ubisoft was probably planning when it announced the project.

Layoffs of this magnitude impact game quality. That's not a universal law, but it's a statistical reality. When you lose a quarter of your development team, creative ambitions often have to shrink. Features get cut. Timelines stretch. Sometimes games come out fine despite layoffs. But often they don't.

This doesn't mean the Splinter Cell remake will be bad. Ubisoft Toronto is still a capable studio with talented people. But it's operating under harder constraints than it was three months ago. That almost always affects the final product.

Wait for actual footage before getting excited. Don't put too much stock in Ubisoft's statements about the game remaining in development. Judge it on what you actually see when it eventually gets shown.

Estimated data suggests that significant layoffs can lead to a decrease in game quality, with a 25% reduction in team size potentially lowering quality by 15 points.

The Future of Stealth Games Without Splinter Cell

While the Splinter Cell remake is theoretically still happening, it's worth noting that the stealth genre hasn't exactly stagnated while waiting for Ubisoft's remake.

In recent years, games like Dishonored 2, Prey, Hitman 3, and others have evolved the stealth gameplay in interesting directions. Immersive sims have become an increasingly popular way to approach stealth and player agency. These games learned lessons from what made the original Splinter Cell great and built on those foundations.

If the Splinter Cell remake never ships, or ships years later in diminished form, players won't be left without stealth options. The genre has genuinely evolved in the interim. That doesn't make it okay for Ubisoft to lose momentum on a franchise remake, but it does mean the gaming ecosystem isn't entirely dependent on the remake happening.

However, there's also something specific about the Splinter Cell formula—the focus on pure stealth, the gadget toolkit, the espionage narrative—that none of these other games quite replicate. The remake would fill a particular niche that's been somewhat empty since the franchise went dormant.

How Ubisoft Could Have Handled This Better

This is partly speculative, but it's worth considering how Ubisoft could have managed this situation in ways that might have led to different outcomes.

First, more transparency earlier. If the company knew it needed to restructure, announcing that clearly with a plan might have caused less panic than sudden layoffs. Employees could have understood the reasoning and potentially had time to plan for transitions.

Second, tying the restructuring to clear strategic shifts rather than just "cost-cutting." If Ubisoft had said "we're refocusing on live-service games and want to shift development priorities accordingly," that's at least honest and gives people context. Instead, the layoffs felt sudden and unprincipled.

Third, ensuring that affected employees had genuinely robust support. It's easy to claim "comprehensive severance packages," but if those packages were actually generous and career placement was genuinely excellent, the strike probably wouldn't have happened.

Fourth, being clear about which projects were affected and why. The lack of clarity about Splinter Cell's actual status created vacuum that employees and fans filled with speculation and dread.

None of this is surprising. Large companies repeatedly make these mistakes because the short-term financial incentive structure rewards them for it. But cumulatively, these mistakes destroy morale and eventually degrade output quality.

The Economics of Game Cancellation

Why did Ubisoft cancel Prince of Persia but keep Splinter Cell "in development"? Understanding the economics helps explain the decision.

When a company invests in game development, there's the sunk cost fallacy to consider. You've already spent millions on Splinter Cell for four years. Canceling it means writing off all that investment. Keeping it in development means you can potentially recoup some of that investment if the game ships and sells.

Prince of Persia was apparently far enough along that canceling it was a conscious business choice rather than abandoning an old investment. The company looked at the project and concluded that completing it wouldn't justify the expense.

But Splinter Cell is in a weird liminal space: not far enough along that it's definitely worth finishing, not so early that it's cheap to cancel. The company keeps it limping along because there's always a chance it becomes profitable if circumstances improve.

This is also why games often ship in diminished form after layoffs. The company has committed to completing the project at some financial threshold. When layoffs reduce the budget available, the project gets compressed into a smaller scope that fits the reduced resources. The game still ships, but it's smaller or less ambitious than originally planned.

What 2026 Might Hold for Game Releases

Ubisoft isn't the only publisher facing turbulence in 2026. The entire industry has been going through layoffs, restructuring, and strategic shifts. What does that mean for actual games releasing this year and beyond?

Expect delays. When publishers are cutting costs and laying off developers, projects get pushed back. 2026 might see fewer major releases than expected as a result.

Expect smaller scopes. Games that do release might be less ambitious than they would have been if the industry weren't in crisis mode.

Expect more live-service and multiplayer focus. Publishers are apparently doubling down on categories they believe are more profitable.

Expect more remakes and sequels. New IPs are risky, so publishers are leaning on established franchises and legacy properties.

None of this is guaranteed, but the pattern from the past couple of years suggests these trends will continue.

Rebuilding Trust: The Long Road Ahead for Ubisoft

Beyond Splinter Cell and beyond 2026, Ubisoft has a massive trust problem to solve.

Employees don't trust the company to treat them fairly. That's what the strike was about. Gamers are skeptical about whether promised projects will ever actually release. That's what years of delays and cancellations create. Investors are worried about consistent execution. That's what mixed financial results create.

Rebuilding trust in all three constituencies takes sustained effort over years, not just a few policy changes or better communication.

For employees, it would mean genuinely improving working conditions, limiting crunch, being honest about timelines and expectations, and treating people as valued contributors rather than interchangeable resources.

For gamers, it would mean shipping promised projects on relatively predictable timelines, maintaining reasonable quality standards, and being transparent about what's actually happening with major titles.

For investors, it would mean consistent profitability and execution.

The problem is these three goals sometimes conflict. You can't slash costs, maintain ambitious game scope, pay employees generously, and maximize profits all at the same time. Some of these have to be traded off.

What Ubisoft needs is to be clear about which trade-offs it's willing to make and then actually follow through. Right now, it seems like the company is trying to do everything—cut costs, maintain output, keep projects in development—and failing at all three.

The Broader Gaming Landscape in 2026

Ubisoft's problems aren't isolated to the company. The entire gaming industry is going through a transition.

Console cycles are changing. The PS5 and Xbox Series X have been out for several years now without true successor announcements. That creates uncertainty about what platforms developers should be targeting.

Cross-platform development is becoming standard, which creates both opportunities and complications. Games need to work on console, PC, cloud, and mobile, which stretches development resources.

AI is becoming a factor in game development in ways that create both opportunities and ethical questions. How do companies use AI in development? Do they replace human workers with AI? Do they use it to augment human creativity?

Playable game pass subscriptions are reshaping how games are distributed and monetized. Publishers are transitioning from relying on upfront sales to relying on subscription revenue, which changes the financial model.

All of this is creating turbulence that affects how companies like Ubisoft operate. The layoffs and restructuring aren't just about one company's problems. They're symptoms of an industry going through transition.

Looking Ahead: Optimism or Caution?

Should you feel optimistic or cautious about Ubisoft and the games it's developing?

Honestly? Cautiously pessimistic is probably the right stance.

The company is clearly going through serious problems. The strike, the layoffs, the project cancellations, and the investor pressure all suggest that something fundamental isn't working. Companies that are firing people, canceling projects, and facing labor unrest while trying to claim everything is fine are companies that aren't thinking clearly about the future.

For the Splinter Cell remake specifically, expect it to ship eventually, but manage expectations about timeline and scope. Don't expect it in 2026. Don't expect it to be as ambitious as it might have been before these layoffs.

For Ubisoft more broadly, understand that the company is in transition. It's trying to figure out how to operate in a new era of gaming with less money, fewer people, and different market conditions. That's a difficult problem to solve, and success isn't guaranteed.

The most likely outcome over the next couple of years is that Ubisoft continues being a major publisher, continues releasing games, but gradually becomes less relevant and less ambitious. It becomes more focused on safe bets, live-service games, and extracting maximum profit from existing franchises rather than taking creative risks.

That's not a collapse, but it's a decline. And for fans hoping for ambitious, creative game development from Ubisoft, it's not encouraging.

Conclusion: Understanding Crisis in Game Development

The layoffs at Ubisoft Toronto are significant not just for what they mean for the Splinter Cell remake, but for what they reveal about the current state of game development as an industry.

When a company with Ubisoft's resources, history, and market position feels compelled to lay off thousands of people, cancel major projects, and face strikes from workers, it's a sign that something structural isn't working. It's not just bad management or a down quarter. It's a fundamental mismatch between the economic model of game development and the actual costs and complexity of making games.

Ubisoft's response to this mismatch has been to cut costs aggressively. That approach might work in the short term for the stock price. But historically, cutting your way to profitability doesn't create sustainable, innovative businesses. It creates hollowed-out companies that coast on legacy franchises until they gradually become irrelevant.

For players waiting for the Splinter Cell remake, this means patience and modest expectations. The game is probably still coming, but it's probably going to take longer and be smaller than originally envisioned. That's not ideal, but it's the reality created by the layoffs and broader industry turbulence.

For game developers working at Ubisoft and other studios, it means understanding that the industry is going through a difficult transition. The job market has shrunk. The job security is worse. The working conditions have become harder. These are real problems that affect real people, and they're not being solved by the current approach of cost-cutting and hoping things improve.

For the gaming industry more broadly, it means reckoning with whether the current economic model is sustainable. Games have become more expensive to make, development timelines have stretched longer, and the pressure to deliver blockbusters has intensified. But the financial returns have become less certain. That's a fundamental tension that the industry hasn't yet figured out how to resolve. Until it does, expect more layoffs, more cancellations, and more turbulence.

The Splinter Cell remake will eventually ship, probably. But its path to release is now littered with obstacles that didn't exist a few months ago. That's the cost of the crisis at Ubisoft, measured in schedules delayed and scope reduced.

FAQ

Why did Ubisoft lay off 40 people at the Toronto studio?

Ubisoft cited organizational restructuring and cost-cutting measures as the reasons. The company is facing investor pressure, slower revenue growth, and is apparently shifting its strategic focus toward live-service games rather than traditional single-player experiences. Layoffs are the quickest way to reduce costs and improve short-term profitability metrics.

Is the Splinter Cell remake still being developed?

Yes, according to Ubisoft's official statements, the remake remains in development and Toronto will continue working on it. However, losing 40 team members creates significant challenges for the project's timeline and scope. Expect delays and potentially reduced features compared to what was originally planned.

When will the Splinter Cell remake release?

Ubisoft hasn't provided a release date. Given that the game was first announced in 2021 and is apparently facing development challenges indicated by these layoffs, a realistic timeline would be 2028 or later. 2027 is possible but should be considered optimistic.

What does "comprehensive severance packages" actually mean in this context?

Ubisoft's statement was deliberately vague. It likely means the company provided some amount of severance pay based on employment length, plus potentially some healthcare continuation and outplacement services. However, the scale of the layoffs combined with the strike afterward suggests many employees felt the packages were insufficient.

Why did Ubisoft cancel Prince of Persia but keep Splinter Cell in development?

The difference likely comes down to sunk costs. Ubisoft has already invested four years and substantial resources into Splinter Cell, so canceling it means writing off that investment. Prince of Persia apparently reached a point where the company concluded it wasn't worth finishing given current strategic priorities. Splinter Cell is in a middle ground where canceling it is expensive but finishing it might eventually generate profit.

What does the Ubisoft strike mean for future projects?

The strike represents a breakdown in labor relations and indicates serious employee dissatisfaction. When employees lose confidence in management, it affects workplace morale, productivity, and the quality of work being produced. While the strike itself might not directly delay specific games, the underlying workplace issues it highlights will probably affect development for some time.

Is Ubisoft going bankrupt?

No, Ubisoft is far from bankruptcy. It's a major publicly traded company with substantial assets and ongoing revenue from multiple games. However, the company is clearly struggling financially and strategically, which is why it's making these aggressive cost-cutting moves. Struggling and bankrupt are different situations, but the trajectory isn't encouraging.

How many total layoffs has Ubisoft done in 2026?

Ubisoft has laid off 40 people at Toronto, an unspecified number at Swedish studios, and is planning up to 200 additional layoffs at Paris headquarters. That suggests at least 240+ confirmed layoffs with potentially 40+ additional at Swedish studios. The total could exceed 300 people.

Should I still buy Ubisoft games?

That's a personal decision, but consider: buying games from a company in crisis might mean supporting the people still working there and the projects still in development, or it might mean endorsing their cost-cutting approach. Supporting independent developers or smaller studios that haven't conducted major layoffs might be an alternative if you want to vote with your wallet.

What's the future of Ubisoft as a company?

Ubisoft will almost certainly continue operating as a major publisher. The company has too many profitable franchises and too much market presence to disappear. However, expect the company to gradually become less ambitious creatively, more focused on safe franchise bets, and more oriented toward live-service and multiplayer games. The company might survive, but in a diminished form compared to its historical role as a creative powerhouse.

Key Takeaways

• Ubisoft Toronto laid off 40 staff working on Splinter Cell, part of 300+ job cuts across the company in 2026
• The game 'remains in development' but expect significant delays and scope reduction from the original vision
• Over 1,200 Ubisoft employees went on strike protesting layoffs and cost-cutting measures
• Ubisoft canceled the Prince of Persia remake and is shifting focus toward live-service games over single-player projects
• The layoffs reflect larger industry trends of cost-cutting during a period of financial pressure and changing game development economics

Related Articles

• Ubisoft Layoffs at Splinter Cell Studio: What It Means for Gaming [2025]
• Slay the Spire 2 Early Access: Everything You Need to Know [2025]
• Why Sony Shut Down Bluepoint Games: The Inside Story [2025]
• Marvel's Wolverine Won't Show at State of Play: What Insomniac Just Told Us [2025]
• Highguard Update Adds New Base and Raid Tool Despite Website Issues [2025]
• Why PlayStation Shut Down Bluepoint Games in 2025 [Complete Analysis]