Ubisoft Axes Prince of Persia The Lost Crown, Disbands Dev Team 10 Months After Disappointing Launch

[Cpt.Jank]

The latest game to come out of the Prince of Persia series was Prince of Persia The Lost Crown, which launched in January 2024. Now, after just 10 months on the market, Ubisoft has reportedly disbanded the development team behind the project, effectively ending all future development for the game and scrapping any planned sequels and DLC that was meant to be added to the game. The news has officially been acknowledged by Ubisoft, who published and developed the Prince of Persia game, and in its response, the game studio said that most of the developers involved with The Lost Crown have already moved to "other projects that will benefit from their expertise."

Since its launch in January this year, Prince of Persia The Lost Crown has been a bit of a commercial flop, garnering a mere 1,446-player peak player count on Steam, according to SteamDB. Insider Gaming reports that The Lost Crown sold as many as 1 million units across its PS5, Xbox, and PC releases, leading Ubisoft to classify it as a commercial failure. Despite basically acknowledging that The Lost Crown wasn't profitable enough, Ubisoft seemingly wants to leave the door open for future installments in the Prince of Persia franchise, saying "We know players have a love for this brand and Ubisoft is excited to bring more Prince of Persia experiences in the future."



Industry insiders reportedly told Insider Gaming that the former Prince of Persia team was split up among three separate projects at Ubisoft Montpellier. While there is no solid evidence suggesting what other projects Ubisoft may have diverted the Prince of Persia team to, there are rumblings that they were put to work on Beyond Good and Evil 2, the next Ghost Recon game, and a Rayman remake that appears to be in the works.

Prince of Persia The Lost Crown, despite having much of the platformer spirit of the mainline Prince of Persia games, was a departure from the formula that made the AAA titles in its past hits with gaming audiences. Instead, Ubisoft spun the IP into a hybrid Metroidvania, seemingly looking to cash in on the hype of games like Dead Cells, Hollow Knight, and the Ori games. While The Lost Crown did have a successful critical and public reception, raking in an 84% positive review rating on SteamDB, it didn't quickly sell millions of copies, like Ubisoft had expected, meaning it was cut loose.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[BadIronTree]

I did not know that the game came out lol

 

[AusWolf]

Where's the vote option for "we don't need new iterations of an old and overused franchise - we need new games"?

Also, what's the Metrodiavinaiiniaia or something format?

 

[wurschti]

I did not know that the game came out lol

That's exactly the problem. The game looks and runs fantastic. It is a homage to the Metroidvania genre, but marketing was practically non existent. I came to know about this, because I am subscribed to some retro gaming channels on YouTube. For me, the great game was plagued with bad decisionmaking. This last news just tells you where Ubisoft is atm, and that is not a good place.

 

[AusWolf]

Didn't have to play it in order to know I would hate it. And since we can't say why we don't like it, not even here, I guess, the problem will remain, enjoy.

I'll say it, then. Ugly and bland characters, childish mobile-like graphic presentation, unbearable out-of-place soundtrack, bullshit story and a complete lack of personality. I could go on, or say it in a less acceptable way, but it's all obvious from the trailer.

 

[StimpsonJCat]

Wow this is a game that could do with more polygons and textures... It looks like a PS2 game!

 

[Vayra86]

Gamers have a very good radar it seems

Every time we see this copy pasta graphics and art, its a fail. I think it all starts with trying to mimic Fortnite or WoW success, and then come all the other considerations, after which they finally start thinking about how the game should actually work.

If I review my own preferences in gaming, I've really developed an antenna for this type of junk. There's just an automatic cringe response keeping me away.

But let's also not forget this is Ubisoft, asking you to log in to Uplay for what is clearly a single player offline capable game. That's already enough to stay away.

I'll say it, then. Ugly and bland characters, childish mobile-like graphic presentation, unbearable out-of-place soundtrack, bullshit story and a complete lack of personality. I could go on, or say it in a less acceptable way, but it's all obvious from the trailer.

Yeah the Prince reminds me of this capoeira guy from Tekken, associations are all wrong
(My beat em up history is hazy lol... thought Soul Calibur first)

 

[Klemc]

That's GOOD:

GetsuFumaDen: Undying Moon on Steam

Death is not the end: defeat infernal foes until you die and carry on the fight with your eternal soul and memories in a new body!

store.steampowered.com

 

[AusWolf]

Gamers have a very good radar it seems

Every time we see this copy pasta graphics and art, its a fail. I think it all starts with trying to mimic Fortnite or WoW success, and then come all the other considerations, after which they finally start thinking about how the game should actually work.

If I review my own preferences in gaming, I've really developed an antenna for this type of junk. There's just an automatic cringe response keeping me away.

But let's also not forget this is Ubisoft, asking you to log in to Uplay for what is clearly a single player offline capable game. That's already enough to stay away.

As far as I know, Fortnite gained popularity mostly among children - that's who this graphic presentation is for. When you apply the same visual style onto a game belonging to a longstanding and well-established franchise with a mostly adult fan base who grew up on earlier, more mature iterations, combining it with all I said above, it won't require complex calculations to see that it'll be an ultimate failure.

Yeah the Prince reminds me of this capoeira guy from Tekken, associations are all wrong
(My beat em up history is hazy lol... thought Soul Calibur first)

Except that guy had his place in Tekken. This guy doesn't belong here in any way.

 

[JasBC]

Didn't have to play it in order to know I would hate it. And since we can't say why we don't like it, not even here, I guess, the problem will remain, enjoy.

Thing is the people who actually gave the game a chance say it plays really well - Metacritic range is 84-88 based on the target platform - and is an actually good metroidvania game. . .

I'm not going to say gamers are dumb, but when people like you are presented with the exact thing you usually claim to want - games with great gameplay, decent graphics with great performance, enjoyable story etc - y'all rather jump on a bandwagon of hate and disregard the fact the actual game in question is an actually good one no matter how shitty the company behind it is.

Also, when saying stuff like about not having to play it to it to know you don't like it and how you "can't express" that dislike here freely. . . dude, if you don't like Metroidvania-style games or the genre of the soundtrack no-one is going to crucify you for it, but seeing how you're being "silenced" for expressing your dislike I can only imagine what you're actually crying about over there. . .

 

[Chomiq]

You can shit on Ubisoft but from what I heard that game had good critics scores and user scores, it just failed to sell well. At least people didn't get laid off, only shifted to different projects.

 

[JasBC]

When you apply the same visual style onto a game belonging to a longstanding and well-established franchise with a mostly adult fan base who grew up on earlier, more mature iterations, combining it with all I said above, it won't require complex calculations to see that it'll be an ultimate failure.

Sir have you actually played any of these supposed more "mature iterations"? Because the more fondly remembered PoP-titles produced under Ubisoft's belt sure don't look any more "artistically mature" than this game lmao

*added line "more fondly remembered"

 

[AusWolf]

I still don't know what Metrodividaviniaiai means. Can anybody help me? Yes, I read the Wikipedia page, but I still don't know how it's different from regular 2D platforming.

Sir have you actually played any of these supposed more "mature iterations"? Because the PoP-titles produced under Ubisoft's belt sure don't look any more "artistically mature" than this game lmao

Are you saying that Warrior Within didn't look more mature than this? Look again.

 

[the54thvoid]

I played the OG Prince of Persia way back. This looks more faithful to that 2D sidescroller type. Metroidvania seems a snobby way to say 'more refined' platformer.

I played Hollow Knight recently (DNF - too hard). It doesn't have super-dooper realism. No kickback against that.

Graphics on side scrollers has never been as important as playability to me. It seems people like to hate without playing.

 

[JasBC]

Are you saying that Warrior Within didn't look more mature than this? Look again.

That game's shift in style, tone and story was condemned by among others the series creator himself, with the Prince being parodied for having all his personality being non-existant and replaced with "brooding no-talk tough guy #4897", and the reboot that returned to a more cartoony style garnered higher reviews than any of the "Sands of Time"-continuity games ‍*shrug*

 

[_roman_]

Where is the option. (Based on Avatar Game which annoyed me the most in recent years)

I dislike Ubisoft / Ubisoft Launcher

The MS-DOS prince of persia was well made and had a small hardware requirement. Decent game mechanics. The screenshots have nothing to do with that genre.
It just looks like a male "tombraider franchise".
There were no monsters or lions in prince of persia. I think they mix something up with Star wars Jedi Survivor game.

 

[Vayra86]

Thing is the people who actually gave the game a chance say it plays really well - Metacritic range is 84-88 based on the target platform - and is an actually good metroidvania game. . .

I'm not going to say gamers are dumb, but when people like you are presented with the exact thing you usually claim to want - games with great gameplay, decent graphics with great performance, enjoyable story etc - y'all rather jump on a bandwagon of hate and disregard the fact the actual game in question is an actually good one no matter how shitty the company behind it is.

Also, when saying stuff like about not having to play it to it to know you don't like it and how you "can't express" that dislike here freely. . . dude, if you don't like Metroidvania-style games or the genre of the soundtrack no-one is going to crucify you for it, but seeing how you're being "silenced" for expressing your dislike I can only imagine what you're actually crying about over there. . .

The proper question to ask here, is why Prince of Persia, a game concept that revolves around platforming over combat, has changed towards becoming a platforming combat game.

Its the same simplification and dopamine-fueled bullshit you see in many other franchises, it dilutes them, and makes everything samey. EVEN the 3D Princes of Persia had a heavy focus on platforming puzzles, movement, and combat was just an addon to it.

If you're looking for Prince of Persia, its easy to see this ain't it. So sure, there's a group that liked the change. Apparently it is a very small group, and Ubisoft agrees they misfired. Conceptually, which basically defeats the game's existence entirely.

If a large group just simply says 'No, not even interested in looking at it' its a pretty misinformed take to blame that group. I believe Ubisoft wants to sell product. Something can still be reviewed positively then, because the people who did see something there for them, found what they were looking for.

So really, I believe gamer's radars are tuned to perfection here. And I wouldn't dismiss the possibility that a big part of that is: known franchise, the umpteenth reboot from Ubisoft, Uplay/DRM, and the general discomfort triple A tends to bring lately. Because AGAIN, we're looking at a game that comes vanilla and has a roadmap, isn't just 'done', but clearly intended to be monetized further. That is again a departure from the older versions of the game.

Trust... hard to gain, easy to lose, and Ubisoft is experiencing decades of eroded trust now. GL to them, but I think they're done, and have been done for the better part of the last decade.

 

[AusWolf]

That game's shift in style, tone and story was condemned by among others the series creator himself, with the Prince being parodied for having all his personality being non-existant and replaced with "brooding no-talk tough guy #4897", and the reboot that returned to a more cartoony style garnered higher reviews than any of the "Sands of Time"-continuity games ‍*shrug*

Our taste differs, it seems. Let's just say that I've never been a fan of the cartoony presentation style in video game graphics, and most probably never will be.

Team Fortress 2, for example, while was a massive upgrade over TF1 (which was only a mod for Half-Life), it felt to me like a downgrade in graphics (and consequently, the player base) because of the cartoony style.

Metroidvania seems a snobby way to say 'more refined' platformer.

I still don't get it. How is it more refined?

Graphics on side scrollers has never been as important as playability to me. It seems people like to hate without playing.

I'm not against the graphics quality per se, but the presentation style. A cartoon's place is on the TV screen, not on my PC monitor.

The proper question to ask here, is why Prince of Persia, a game concept that revolves around platforming over combat, has changed towards becoming a platforming combat game.

Its the same simplification and dopamine-fueled bullshit you see in many other franchises, it dilutes them, and makes everything samey. EVEN the 3D Princes of Persia had a heavy focus on platforming puzzles, movement, and combat was just an addon to it.

If you're looking for Prince of Persia, its easy to see this ain't it. So sure, there's a group that liked the change. Apparently it is a very small group, and Ubisoft agrees they misfired. Conceptually, which basically defeats the game's existence entirely.

If a large group just simply says 'No, not even interested in looking at it' its a pretty misinformed take to blame that group. I believe Ubisoft wants to sell product. Something can still be reviewed positively then, because the people who did see something there for them, found what they were looking for.

So really, I believe gamer's radars are tuned to perfection here.

This is the inherent problem with franchises. If they go on for too long without a change, they'll go stale. If they change, fans will riot. There's no win either way.
Oh wait, there is: by making entirely new games. Only if it didn't require talent.

 

[Vayra86]

This is the inherent problem with franchises. If they go on for too long without a change, they'll go stale. If they change, fans will riot. There's no win either way.
Oh wait, there is: by making entirely new games. Only if it didn't require talent.

I disagree its a franchise problem. Its a frequency problem.

Look at Magic the Gathering, the TCG. It exists almost as long as I do. Number of sets (150-300 cards each...) released... I believe its more than 300 (!). There used to be a few sets per year. Now we get about a dozen every year. The cards themselves have become less interesting. The amount of text on cards to keep them 'unique' against the tens of thousands variations on them, keeps increasing. Many cards feel like filler; and the cards that don't are often clearly targeted at markets, not at just being cool cards for players to play. A lot of external influences have entered, too, forming up sets: from Warhammer to Fortnite to Transformers and Lord of the Rings-themed sets. None of them really have staying power, whereas I still have and still collect many older cards because they dó have staying power, simply because they're much simpler and applicable to so many more possible decks.

A lot of franchises don't or barely change, or they change while staying true to their concept. I think that's the golden rule. Give fans what they want. Look at Call of Duty. We may not like it, but apparently, that dumb deathmatch feel is what people want. CoD simply became very good at its own concept, and its set in stone. If you buy a CoD, you know what you'll get.

The problems arise when they start blending together, borrowing concepts from each other, along with a yearly/bi yearly release cadence. Especially in the Ubisoft stable, because almost all franchises they have, had started borrowing concepts from one another. That's why Far Cry 5 contains an easter egg about not having to climb towers this time, when you climb the first one Even Ubisoft knows it, and sees it, but they somehow thought it was good strategy to go there.

Its clearly not.

 

[chrcoluk]

I'll say it, then. Ugly and bland characters, childish mobile-like graphic presentation, unbearable out-of-place soundtrack, bullshit story and a complete lack of personality. I could go on, or say it in a less acceptable way, but it's all obvious from the trailer.

Think I am ok with the graphics style, not a huge fan of "realistic", but agree with all your other points, that trailer wouldnt make me buy the game, it moves too quick, not enough game play footage and horrible track.

 

[Nater]

Take the SNES/Genesis version of Aladdin, port it to that engine. Would be a blast.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Kinda wild all the speculation in here over the game's failure.

Its a good game for what it is, it just sounds like what it is (MetroidVania) has a very limited market that is very well served by indie devs.

No one reason it didn't sell: some people don't like side scrollers, some feel the MV genre is saturated (SILKSONG WHEN?!), others don't like soft cartoon graphics, others are just over the whole PoP IP, others saw the name Ubisoft and ran the other way, others never even knew it existed...

Sounds like death by a thousand cuts.

 

[TechLurker]

As far as I know, Fortnite gained popularity mostly among children - that's who this graphic presentation is for. When you apply the same visual style onto a game belonging to a longstanding and well-established franchise with a mostly adult fan base who grew up on earlier, more mature iterations, combining it with all I said above, it won't require complex calculations to see that it'll be an ultimate failure.

Except Fortnite also targets teens, young adults, and even adults who are still children at heart and fans for the particular gameplay loops it offers. It's why they're able to make deals with Lady Gaga, DJ Marshmellow, and others, and attract thousands of gamers and non-gamers alike to watch the virtual concerts, and make collabs with the Lego company to basically make a giant Lego-branded playground, and make collabs with various movies to implement cameos or mini-events based around said movies.

Sure, the Battle Royale w/ building bit was and still is their main moneymaker, but they've slowly expanded beyond that so it's basically a playroom one could spend hours in. They've expanded to effectively having games within a game, between the Lego collab having allowed for a minecraft like virtual world to play in, to having ported over a basic implementation of Guitar Hero, to drip feeding their old and not dead-yet Save the World PvE game. And across most of those, being able to use the skins/gear one has unlocked in either PvP or PvE basically means that players get a lot of use out of paying or grinding for said skins.

Epic has basically learned how to crib some of the more enjoyable gameplay elements or loops and integrate them into a slowly but continuously expanding game, including the fact they're able to do the evolving world schtick that most other games can't do, which how their BR mode map keeps shifting and evolving before being reset for a new ministory and battlezone.

As for me, I only know all this having originally been an early supporter of Fornite when it started out as a PvE survival base-builder game, before it mostly died and got rolled into Battle Royale as a standalone mode. So I've seen how it's evolved into a monster that manages to stay "trendy" and maintain a playerbase that includes people with income to spare even as the game genre shifted to extraction games or competitive reflex games.

 

[AusWolf]

Except Fortnite also targets teens, young adults, and even adults who are still children at heart and fans for the particular gameplay loops it offers. It's why they're able to make deals with Lady Gaga, DJ Marshmellow, and others, and attract thousands of gamers and non-gamers alike to watch the virtual concerts, and make collabs with the Lego company to basically make a giant Lego-branded playground, and make collabs with various movies to implement cameos or mini-events based around said movies.

Sure, the Battle Royale w/ building bit was and still is their main moneymaker, but they've slowly expanded beyond that so it's basically a playroom one could spend hours in. They've expanded to effectively having games within a game, between the Lego collab having allowed for a minecraft like virtual world to play in, to having ported over a basic implementation of Guitar Hero, to drip feeding their old and not dead-yet Save the World PvE game. And across most of those, being able to use the skins/gear one has unlocked in either PvP or PvE basically means that players get a lot of use out of paying or grinding for said skins.

Epic has basically learned how to crib some of the more enjoyable gameplay elements or loops and integrate them into a slowly but continuously expanding game, including the fact they're able to do the evolving world schtick that most other games can't do, which how their BR mode map keeps shifting and evolving before being reset for a new ministory and battlezone.

As for me, I only know all this having originally been an early supporter of Fornite when it started out as a PvE survival base-builder game, before it mostly died and got rolled into Battle Royale as a standalone mode. So I've seen how it's evolved into a monster that manages to stay "trendy" and maintain a playerbase that includes people with income to spare even as the game genre shifted to extraction games or competitive reflex games.

No offense to you, or any fan of the genre, but what you just wrote in your post is the exact reason why Fortnite and the like make me sick.

 

[TechLurker]

No offense to you, or any fan of the genre, but what you just wrote in your post is the exact reason why Fortnite and the like make me sick.

None taken. Only reason I haven't dropped the game entirely is just because I already own it (as much as owning digital access to an online game goes anyway), so I log in once in a blue moon, see what gets added, then after a quick stint of being the only player in PvE, log out. It's also hard to miss even casual news of the game, given Epic loves to advertise whatever collab they have going and game reporting sites automatically include it as an easy news release.

I can see why it rubs people the wrong way; it certainly rubbed me the wrong way when they basically declared the PvE development dead and focused on trend-chasing, and proving they have a good enough team that can rip interesting elements and integrate them into their own game and maintain a large and spend-happy playerbase that way.