Ubisoft CEO says "our goal is not to push any specific agenda" amid "polarized comments" circling Assassin's Creed Shadows

gamesradar.com:

Ubisoft has seemingly again commented on the backlash to Assassin's Creed Shadows' Black protagonist, this time saying it isn't pushing any specific agenda.

In case you're among the lucky few to have missed it, Assassin's Creed Shadows has been through the ringer since it was announced back in May. Certain corners of the internet pounced on it for a perceived lack of historical accuracy and forced diversity. Meanwhile, its reveal sparked a heated debate over whether its Black protagonist, Yasuke, was actually a real-life Samurai (he was), and completely unrelated to all of that, Ubisoft also had to apologize for the unauthorized use of a flag in Shadows' concept art.

Ubisoft has responded strongly to the controversy, with Assassin's Creed executive producer Marc-Alexis Côté hitting back at Elon Musk for "feeding hatred" in June and CEO Yves Guillemot denouncing "hateful acts" toward its developers a couple of weeks later. In July, it defended itself against the historical accuracy complaints by reminding fans that, "while we strive for authenticity in everything we do, Assassin's Creed games are works of fiction inspired by real historical events and figures."

In a conference call and accompanying financial document published Wednesday, Guillemot struck a notably more neutral tone in addressing "an important problem of perception that has been affecting the company's performance."

"Let me address some of the polarized comments around Ubisoft lately," he said. "I want to reaffirm that we are an entertainment-first company, creating games for the broadest possible audience, and our goal is not to push any specific agenda. We remain committed to creating games for fans and players that everyone can enjoy."

For full transparency, it's worth noting that Guillemot didn't explicitly link the "polarized comments" he addressed with the blowback to Assassin's Creed Shadows, but it's safe to say that's what he's referring to. It's also highly debatable whether further