Lessons Nigeria Can Learn from Ubisoft’s Current Struggle

Ikenna Bede writes that Ubisoft, the French publisher known for games like ‘Assassin’s Creed’ and ‘Far Cry’, has shaken the global games industry with a major reset.

The company cancelled six games that were in development, including the long‑anticipated ‘Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time’ remake. Other titles have been delayed as part of its effort to refocus production and control costs. Ubisoft has also reorganised its development teams into five ‘Creative Houses’ with new reporting lines and accountability.

The changes are widely seen in industry reporting as a response to rising development costs and the challenge of managing multiple large projects at once. Ubisoft’s situation highlights the pressures on big studios that depend on huge budgets and long development cycles.

In Nigeria, the gaming industry looks very different. The Nigerian market now has more than 46 million active gamers, most of them on mobile devices, according to recent industry estimates. The annual value of gaming in Nigeria is around $300 million. Across Africa, data from industry analysts show the games market generated about $1.8 billion in revenue in 2024, with roughly 349 million gamers. Most activity on the continent is on mobile platforms.

These figures show demand, participation and engagement. But behind them is an ecosystem that is still young, informal and driven by small teams. Studios here are typically under 20 people. They work on shorter production cycles and much smaller budgets than the big global publishers. Many sustain themselves through brand partnerships, work-for-hire or by building games that reflect local tastes and preferences.

That contrast between global giants like Ubisoft and African developers is stark. Ubisoft’s challenges arise from the complexity of managing hundreds of developers on a single game over several years. Budgets can run into tens of millions of dollars. When a game is delayed or fails to meet performance expectations, the financial impact can be significant. In Ubisoft’s recent reset, a number of projects were cancelled or pushed back to prioritise quality and tighter management.

Nigerian studios do not operate at that level. When a local game underperforms, the impact is different. The risk is usually in time and reputation rather than massive financial loss. Studios adjust quickly because their teams are small and budgets are lean. This does not mean they have no challenges. Funding, monetisation, distribution and earning sustainable revenue remain persistent issues. But the scale of those challenges is different from what large global studios face.

Ubisoft’s restructuring also highlights the importance of organisational design. The move to Creative Houses suggests that even established developers find it necessary to rethink how teams are structured and how decisions are made. Centralised creative oversight and clearer accountability can help manage risk, but it also means less freedom for independent creative teams.

In Nigeria and across Africa, industry governance is still emerging. There are no widely recognised industry standards or formalised frameworks that guide how studios organise themselves or how growth should unfold. Most developers build their own playbooks as they go, learn from experience and share knowledge through informal networks. This approach gives flexibility, but it also means studios face similar challenges in isolation rather than as part of a collective industry narrative.

Talent and workforce stability are also part of this picture. Ubisoft’s reset has led to layoffs and role changes as part of cost management. Even well‑resourced studios are not immune to workforce disruption when projects change direction. In Nigeria, the talent pool remains small. Many developers learn through self‑teaching, online communities or informal mentorship rather than structured industry training. This environment produces passionate and adaptable creators, but it also underscores the need for more coordinated skill development and professional pathways.

Another difference lies in market focus. Ubisoft’s audience is global and includes players on consoles and PCs with high spending power. The African gaming audience is overwhelmingly mobile-first. Data costs, device affordability and the reality of everyday life shape how games are consumed. Local games often emphasise social interaction, cultural themes and sessions that fit mobile play habits. Understanding how players engage and what they value has helped local developers tailor experiences that resonate in their markets.

The distance between Ubisoft’s operational scale and the Nigerian gaming scene helps explain why global patterns are not simply transferable. Nigeria and Africa are still defining what success looks like in their own context. This has produced a distinctive attitude to development that leans into experimentation and learning from each release.

At the same time, global developments show the realities of growth and risk in larger markets. Ubisoft’s restructuring is not a prediction of doom for Nigeria or Africa. It is a snapshot of how even established companies can struggle with scale, cost and organisation.

For the African industry, observing these patterns adds depth to the conversation about growth. It shows that business models, team structure and audience focus matter, and that different markets solve similar problems in different ways.

Nigeria and Africa have not yet reached the stage where they face the same pressures as a large global publisher. It presents an opportunity to watch, understand and shape growth in ways that fit local markets and resources.

Ubisoft’s current moment sheds light on one path of industry evolution. The story here is not to copy that path, but to recognise the mechanics behind it and how they differ from the realities on the ground in Nigeria and across Africa. In that difference is a deeper understanding of what the region’s gaming future might look like as it continues to grow and define its own space.