In 2026, the gaming industry is witnessing a seismic power shift — and nowhere is that more evident than in the public humiliation of Ubisoft by Warhorse Studios, the independent Czech developer behind Kingdom Come: Deliverance and its highly anticipated sequel. After Ubisoft reported a catastrophic €1.3 billion loss and unveiled yet another aggressive cost-cutting program, Warhorse co-founder Daniel Vávra took to Twitter with a viral takedown that exposed the staggering inefficiency of the French publishing giant. His message was brutally simple: Ubisoft currently employs 16,600 people — enough to staff roughly 70 Warhorse Studios or develop ten Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2-sized games simultaneously, every single year. And yet, while Ubisoft continues to bleed money, cancel franchises, and close studios, smaller developers like Warhorse are delivering critically acclaimed, commercially successful titles that resonate deeply with players. Vávra’s willingness to publicly mock a former industry titan signals something profound — Ubisoft has lost not only the trust of its fans and investors but also the respect of its own peers. As indie and AA studios continue to outperform bloated AAA giants in quality, passion, and profitability, 2026 is shaping up to be the year the underdogs officially take over.
Daniel Vávra’s Viral Tweet: What He Actually Said
On May 21, 2026, Daniel Vávra — co-founder of Warhorse Studios and the creative mind behind Kingdom Come: Deliverance — shared a screenshot of a news headline announcing Ubisoft’s record €1.3 billion loss alongside the publisher’s latest cost-reduction program. His caption, dripping with calculated sarcasm, read:
blockquoteblockquoteblockquoteblockquoteblockquoteblockquote“Ubisoft has 16,600 employees after its most recent wave of layoffs. That would be equivalent to about 70 Warhorse Studios-sized teams. It could also be equivalent to 10 games the size of Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2, each developed for 7 years and released annually. The question is — should I buy their stock now that it’s cheaper?”
He punctuated the post with a thinking emoji followed by a winking emoji — the digital equivalent of a mic drop.
The tweet wasn’t just criticism. It was a mathematical indictment of Ubisoft’s inefficiency. Vávra wasn’t speculating or offering opinions; he was presenting cold, hard numbers that anyone could verify. And that’s precisely why it resonated so deeply across the gaming community.
Within 48 hours, the post had accumulated hundreds of thousands of likes, tens of thousands of retweets, and sparked heated debates across Reddit, YouTube, and gaming forums worldwide. Even journalists who typically avoid “drama” picked up the story, framing it as a symbolic turning point in the ongoing battle between bloated AAA publishers and lean, passionate indie/AA studios.
The Numbers Behind the Humiliation: 16,600 vs. 70
Let’s break down Vávra’s comparison because the scale is genuinely staggering.
| Metric | Ubisoft | Warhorse Studios |
|---|---|---|
| Employees (approx.) | 16,600 | ~250 |
| Studios / Teams | ~45 globally | 1 |
| Games per year (AAA/AA) | 3-4 on average | 1 every 6-7 years |
| Recent hit success rate | Declining sharply | 2 for 2 (KCD, KCD2) |
Do the math: 16,600 ÷ 250 = 66.4 — basically 70 Warhorse Studios under one roof.
Now consider this from a productivity perspective. If Warhorse Studios can produce a critically acclaimed, commercially successful open-world RPG like Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2 with roughly 250 developers over 6-7 years, then Ubisoft — with 70 times the workforce — should theoretically be able to produce 70 such games in the same timeframe. That’s ten games per year.
But that’s not what’s happening. Instead, Ubisoft is:
- Losing billions year after year
- Canceling franchises (rest in peace, Prince of Persia revival)
- Closing studios (multiple closures in 2025–2026 alone)
- Laying off thousands while executives keep their bonuses
- Releasing games that range from mediocre to outright broken
Vávra’s point was devastating not because he exaggerated, but because he understated the problem. Ubisoft has every resource imaginable — money, talent, technology, intellectual property — yet consistently underdelivers. At what point does bad luck become incompetence?
Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2 vs. Assassin’s Creed Shadows — A Steam Numbers Breakdown
The embarrassment doesn’t stop at headcount comparisons. Let’s talk about actual game performance.
When Assassin’s Creed Shadows launched on Steam (following Ubisoft’s reluctant return to Valve’s platform after years of Epic exclusivity), the game peaked at around 45,000 concurrent players — respectable for most publishers, but underwhelming for what was supposed to be Ubisoft’s flagship franchise revival.
Then came Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2. Warhorse’s sequel hit over 256,000 concurrent players on Steam alone — more than five times the peak of Assassin’s Creed Shadows.
Let that sink in.
| Game | Peak Concurrent Players (Steam) | Developer Size | Budget |
|---|---|---|---|
| Assassin’s Creed Shadows | ~45,000 | 1000+ (multiple studios) | $200M+ |
| Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2 | 256,000+ | ~250 | $40-50M (estimated) |
A smaller team, with a fraction of the budget, delivered five times the player engagement on the most competitive PC gaming platform.
And before anyone argues “but Assassin’s Creed sells more on consoles” — yes, historically. But Steam is an excellent barometer of core gamer interest. If your “AAA blockbuster” can’t even crack 50,000 concurrent players on the world’s largest PC gaming storefront while a medieval RPG from a Czech indie studio hits a quarter-million, something has gone terribly wrong.
Why Indie and AA Studios Are Winning in 2026
Vávra’s public humiliation of Ubisoft isn’t an isolated incident. It’s part of a broader trend that has been building for years. Across 2025 and 2026, smaller studios have consistently outperformed their AAA counterparts. Here’s why:
1. Passion Over Process
Indie and AA developers are typically led by people who love games first and business second. They’re not trying to maximize shareholder value or hit quarterly targets. They’re trying to make something memorable, something they would want to play. That passion translates directly into quality.
Ubisoft, by contrast, has spent years chasing trends — live services, NFT integration, open-world bloat — without ever asking whether players actually wanted those things.
2. Consumer-Focused Development
When was the last time Ubisoft listened to its fanbase? Assassin’s Creed fans have been begging for tighter, more focused narratives for years. Instead, Ubisoft gave them increasingly bloated RPGs with level-gating, microtransactions, and 100+ hours of repetitive content.
Warhorse Studios, meanwhile, built Kingdom Come: Deliverance exactly the way its creators wanted — unapologetically hardcore, historically authentic, and utterly indifferent to modern “accessibility” trends. And players rewarded that authenticity with their wallets.
3. No Corporate Bloat
Large publishers like Ubisoft suffer from structural inefficiency. Multiple studios working on the same project. Layers upon layers of management. Creative decisions by committee. Mandates from executives who haven’t played a video game in years.
Smaller studios don’t have that luxury. Every person matters. Every decision counts. There’s nowhere to hide incompetence — which means incompetence gets rooted out quickly or the studio dies.
4. Avoiding “Activism Over Entertainment”
This is the uncomfortable truth that many in the industry refuse to acknowledge. Vávra has been openly critical of modern AAA gaming’s turn toward political messaging over player enjoyment. Without naming names, his point is clear: when developers prioritize activism over entertainment, they lose sight of their primary audience — people who play games to have fun, not to be lectured.
Ubisoft has repeatedly fallen into this trap. From forced social commentary in Far Cry to controversial messaging in Assassin’s Creed, the publisher has alienated large segments of its player base. Meanwhile, Warhorse Studios delivered a game set in medieval Bohemia with period-appropriate sensibilities — controversial to some, but refreshingly honest to many.
5. Lower Risk Tolerance = Higher Quality
Paradoxically, smaller budgets often lead to better games. When you’re spending $200 million on a project, you can’t afford to take risks. Everything gets focus-grouped to death. Every edge gets sanded off. The result is a product designed to offend no one and excite no one.
When you’re spending $40 million, you have room to be weird, to be specific, to be yourselves. That specificity is what creates cult hits — and sometimes, mainstream blockbusters.
The Reaction: Fans Defending Ubisoft and the Epstein Controversy
No viral moment is complete without pushback, and Vávra’s tweet was no exception. While the overwhelming majority of responses applauded his honesty, a vocal minority rushed to defend Ubisoft — often with bizarre and desperate arguments.
One exchange, in particular, stood out. A commenter responded to Vávra with:
blockquoteblockquoteblockquoteblockquoteblockquoteblockquote“Considering your political positions, do you agree with the Epstein files?”
This non-sequitur — dragging Jeffrey Epstein into a debate about Ubisoft’s financial inefficiency — perfectly illustrates how unhinged corporate defense has become. When you can no longer defend a company on its merits, you attack the messenger with completely irrelevant conspiracies.
Other defenders tried different angles:
- “You’re just jealous you can’t make games as big as Ubisoft.” (Vávra’s games have outperformed Ubisoft’s latest releases, so… no.)
- “Bigger teams need more management. It’s not a fair comparison.” (Exactly — which is why being big isn’t always a strength.)
- “Ubisoft has to answer to shareholders, unlike you.” (And that’s precisely the problem.)
Vávra didn’t engage with the trolls. He didn’t have to. The numbers spoke for themselves.
What This Means for Ubisoft’s Future: Bankruptcy, Acquisition, or Miracle?
So where does Ubisoft go from here? The situation is genuinely dire. Here are the most likely scenarios:
Scenario 1: Gradual Collapse (Most Likely)
Ubisoft continues its current trajectory — releasing underperforming games, closing studios, laying off staff, and bleeding money. Eventually, the Guillemot family (which controls the company) is forced to sell. A private equity firm or a tech giant (Tencent is the obvious candidate) buys Ubisoft for pennies on the dollar, strips it for intellectual property, and shuts down the rest.
Scenario 2: Miraculous Turnaround (Unlikely)
Some new leadership takes over. The company radically restructures. Games become smaller, more focused, and actually good. Player trust is slowly rebuilt over 3-5 years. It’s happened before (see: Square Enix’s post-Final Fantasy XIV rebirth, Capcom’s redemption arc). But it would require Ubisoft to admit it was wrong about everything — and that’s not something corporations do easily.
Scenario 3: Breakup and Sell-Off (Increasingly Likely)
Ubisoft’s IP catalog is still valuable. Assassin’s Creed, Far Cry, Rainbow Six, Watch Dogs, The Division — these are recognizable brands with dedicated fanbases. A scenario where Ubisoft sells off its franchises individually to different buyers (Sony, Microsoft, EA, Tencent) is entirely plausible.
Scenario 4: Complete Shutdown (Possible But Unlikely)
It sounds dramatic, but major publishers have died before. THQ. Midway. Atari. Even Sega left the console business. Ubisoft is big enough that governments (especially France) might intervene to save jobs, but the French government can’t force players to buy bad games.
The Bigger Picture: The End of the AAA Era?
Vávra’s humiliation of Ubisoft is more than just a funny Twitter moment. It’s a symptom of a much larger shift in the gaming industry.
For years, the conventional wisdom was that bigger budgets = better games = more sales. That formula is breaking. Players are increasingly skeptical of $70+ games filled with microtransactions, battle passes, and live-service fatigue. They’re turning to smaller, more focused experiences from developers who clearly give a damn.
Look at the biggest success stories of 2025–2026:
- Baldur’s Gate 3 (Larian — AA-sized studio at launch)
- Palworld (Pocketpair — tiny Japanese indie)
- Hades II (Supergiant — indie darling)
- Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2 (Warhorse — AA)
- Lethal Company (single developer!)
Meanwhile, AAA failures and disappointments pile up: Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League, Skull and Bones, Redfall, Assassin’s Creed Shadows (relative to expectations), and countless others.
The lesson isn’t that AAA games can’t be good. It’s that size and budget are not substitutes for vision and talent. Ubisoft has all the resources in the world — and nothing to show for it.
As Daniel Vávra so eloquently proved: when a studio of 250 people can outperform a company of 16,600, the problem isn’t bad luck. The problem is the company itself.
The image of Warhorse Studios — a relatively small Czech developer — publicly humiliating Ubisoft on Twitter will go down as one of the defining moments of the 2026 gaming year. Not because it was particularly cruel, but because it was true. Vávra didn’t lie, exaggerate, or manipulate. He just did the math.
And the math says Ubisoft is broken.
Whether the company can fix itself remains to be seen. But one thing is certain: the days of players blindly accepting mediocrity from AAA publishers are over. The indie and AA revolution isn’t coming. It’s already here.
What do you think? Was Daniel Vávra right to call out Ubisoft so publicly? Are indie and AA studios truly outperforming AAA giants? Share your perspective in the comments below.
