Beyond Good & Evil 2 survived Ubisoft’s reset – what that really means

26 January 2026
General
13 min.
WhatsAppMessengerLinkedInRedditPinterestBufferSMS
Beyond Good & Evil 2 survived Ubisoft’s reset – what that really means

Summary:

Ubisoft’s “major reset” landed like a falling piano: six projects discontinued, the Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time Remake cancelled, multiple studios closed or restructured, and more games delayed to buy time for quality. In the middle of that chaos, Beyond Good & Evil 2 somehow stayed standing. That alone is news, because this game has been the definition of long-haul development – first revealed back in 2008, reintroduced years later, and repeatedly reshaped as Ubisoft’s priorities shifted. When a publisher cuts projects, the instinct is to assume anything with a messy history gets pushed off the table first. Instead, reporting indicated BG&E2 is still in active development, and Ubisoft later confirmed it remains a priority within its strategy.

So what are we supposed to do with that? We can treat it like a victory lap, or we can read it like a weather report. “Still in development” doesn’t automatically mean “nearly done.” It can mean the team exists, the budget line remains open, and leadership believes the project still fits the company’s portfolio plans. That matters because Ubisoft is reorganizing around genre-focused Creative Houses, and Beyond Good & Evil is explicitly listed among the brands in the narrative-driven, fantasy and story-focused lane. At the same time, the conversation around BG&E2 now includes a reported $500+ million cost estimate, which makes the game feel less like a quirky cult revival and more like a high-stakes corporate bet. The result is a strange mix of relief and caution: we can acknowledge it survived the cut, while also being honest about what survival does and doesn’t promise.

Ubisoft’s reset and the ripple effect across projects

When a publisher announces a big internal reset, it’s never just “a few changes in a meeting room.” It’s the kind of move that changes what gets built, who gets to build it, and how long everything takes. Ubisoft’s reset included discontinuing six games in development and delaying seven others, with the Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time Remake called out as a headline cancellation. That’s the emotional punch for players, but the business punch lands in the structure: Ubisoft is reshaping how its teams are organized and how decisions get made. For you as a fan, the practical takeaway is simple – priorities just got rewritten. Teams can get reassigned, budgets can get reshuffled, and the projects that survive do so because someone believes they still fit the new plan. That’s why Beyond Good & Evil 2 sticking around is worth talking about. It didn’t survive because it’s been smooth sailing. It survived because it still has a seat at the table in Ubisoft’s new layout.

Why Beyond Good & Evil 2 didn’t get cut

Let’s be honest: if you made a list of games that feel like they’ve lived nine lives, Beyond Good & Evil 2 would be right near the top. So why wasn’t it among the projects that got discontinued? The cleanest explanation is also the least dramatic – it appears to align with the direction Ubisoft says it wants to pursue, and it’s tied to an established brand name the company continues to highlight. Ubisoft has been explicit about focusing its strategy, and Beyond Good & Evil is still being treated as part of that branded future. That doesn’t mean it’s safe forever, but it does mean it’s not being treated like a forgotten side quest. Also, survival can be a relative term. A project can “survive” because it keeps moving, even if it moves slowly, changes shape, or gets re-scoped. If you’re looking for one guaranteed promise, you won’t find it here. What you can reasonably take from the situation is that Ubisoft still sees value in keeping the project alive, even while cutting elsewhere.

The long timeline from 2008 to the current build

Beyond Good & Evil 2’s story starts in a way that feels almost mythical now: the game was first revealed in May 2008, long before the current console cycles and long before Ubisoft’s present-day structure. That early reveal is part of why the game has become a punchline for some people – it has existed as an idea for so long that it can feel like it belongs to a different era of the industry. But timelines like this aren’t just trivia. They change expectations. The longer a game takes, the more the audience changes, the more technology changes, and the more the market shifts under its feet. It’s like trying to keep a band together for seventeen years while the music scene reinvents itself every summer. The fact that it’s still being talked about in official and reported contexts means it’s not just an old teaser collecting dust. It’s still on Ubisoft’s internal map, which is impressive, even if it’s also a little bit surreal.

The 2017 restart and what “the current version” means

One of the most important clarifications in recent reporting is that the current version of Beyond Good & Evil 2 has been in development since around 2017. That detail matters because it separates the myth from the practical reality. The project’s public life began in 2008, but the form it’s in now is tied to a later development cycle. If you’ve ever rebuilt something instead of repairing it, you know how different those stories are. A restart can mean new tools, new direction, and new leadership decisions. It can also mean years of work that never becomes a shipped product, which is tough for teams and confusing for fans. So when you hear “still in development,” it’s worth mentally attaching it to that 2017-era build rather than imagining a straight, continuous line from the 2008 teaser. That framing makes the timeline less absurd, even if it’s still undeniably long by any normal standard.

Constant changes and the problem of a moving target

Reports describing “constant changes” and “pushbacks” land because they match what players have felt from the outside – years of anticipation without the usual steady drip of tangible progress. A moving target is brutal in game development. If the core vision keeps shifting, every department pays the price: art gets redone, systems get rewritten, pipelines get re-taught, and milestones become slippery. From a fan perspective, it can feel like the game is stuck in a loop, always becoming something else, never becoming finished. From a production perspective, it’s more like trying to build a house while someone keeps walking in and saying, “Actually, make it a tower,” and then, “Wait, now it’s a spaceship.” Humor helps us cope, but the underlying truth is serious – frequent reinvention is expensive, exhausting, and hard to manage at scale. That context is why the reported cost figure has become such a big part of the conversation around BG&E2.

Why development costs became part of the story

Development costs don’t usually become dinner-table conversation for players unless something has gone very right or very wrong. In BG&E2’s case, the cost discussion has popped up because the timeline is long and the project has reportedly been reshaped repeatedly. When people hear “$500+ million,” the brain instantly tries to compare it to blockbuster budgets across games and film, and suddenly the project feels less like a creative gamble and more like a high-wire act performed over a canyon. Even if you never see an invoice, cost talk changes perception. It can make you wonder if the game is now too big to fail, or too expensive to justify. It can also shift the tone from excitement to scrutiny – not because players want to play accountant, but because cost is often a signal of turbulence behind the curtain. In other words, it’s not just a number. It’s a clue about how complicated this project has been to keep alive.

The $500+ million estimate and how to read it carefully

The reported $500+ million figure comes with an important label – it’s attributed to sourcing and framed as a likely cost driven by constant changes, delays, and the sheer length of development. That means we should treat it as an informed report, not a line item from Ubisoft’s public accounting. Still, it’s not nothing. It reflects how industry observers are interpreting the project’s history, and it also reflects how unusual BG&E2 has become in modern development. If you’re trying to read the tea leaves, the safest way is to focus on what the number implies rather than treating it like an audited fact: the project is perceived as extraordinarily expensive, and that perception alone can shape internal and external expectations. It also explains why “survival” is a headline. When a project is believed to have burned through that much time and money, the question stops being “Will it be cool?” and becomes “How does it ship in a way that makes sense for everyone involved?”

Ubisoft’s Creative Houses and where Beyond Good & Evil fits

One of the most concrete parts of Ubisoft’s reset is the new operating model centered around five Creative Houses, each aligned to certain genres and brands. This matters because it shows how Ubisoft wants to group its future – not as a loose pile of studios, but as focused lanes with clearer accountability. Beyond Good & Evil appears in the brand list tied to the lane focused on immersive fantasy worlds and narrative-driven universes, alongside names like Prince of Persia and Rayman. That placement is telling. It suggests BG&E2 isn’t being treated like a random experiment floating between departments. It’s being placed in a category that, on paper, suits what fans associate with the series: adventure, world-building, and story-driven identity. If you’ve been worried the game would be shoved into a box that doesn’t fit, this is at least a sign that Ubisoft’s public framing recognizes the kind of experience Beyond Good & Evil is supposed to represent. Of course, org charts don’t ship games, but they do influence how decisions get made.

What “still in active development” actually signals to fans

“Still in active development” is one of those phrases that can either calm you down or drive you nuts, depending on how many times you’ve heard it in your life. Here’s the grounded way to interpret it: the project hasn’t been discontinued, work is continuing in some form, and it remains within the company’s planned portfolio. That’s meaningful, especially in a week where other projects were cut. But it’s not a release window, not a promise of a big reveal soon, and not proof the finish line is close. Think of it like seeing lights on in a restaurant kitchen. It tells you dinner service isn’t cancelled. It doesn’t tell you your table is ready. For fans, the best move is to separate relief from expectation. Relief is fair – the game wasn’t scrapped. Expectation needs to stay cautious – development is continuing, but we don’t have a date, and history suggests twists can still happen.

The official “priority” wording and why it matters

One of the most interesting turns in the reporting is that Ubisoft later confirmed Beyond Good & Evil 2 remains a priority within its strategy. That kind of statement matters because it’s not just silence or a vague “we love our fans” line. It’s a specific positioning claim: the project is aligned with Ubisoft’s strategic focus. For you, that’s useful because it gives a clearer frame for how the company currently views the game. It also signals that BG&E2 isn’t being treated as an embarrassment that leadership avoids mentioning. That said, “priority” can mean different things at different times. It can mean resourcing is protected, or it can mean the brand is important even if the project’s scope changes. The key is that Ubisoft chose to publicly put a stake in the ground about the game’s status. After years of uncertainty, even that small degree of clarity is meaningful, as long as we don’t pretend it’s the same as a launch plan.

Studio closures, restructuring, and the human reality behind the headlines

Big company resets are often discussed like they’re purely strategic chess moves, but the reality is more human and more complicated. Ubisoft’s reset includes studio closures and restructuring across parts of the organization, which inevitably affects the people who actually make games. Even if BG&E2 remains active, the environment around it is changing. Teams can be asked to return to more on-site work, groups can be reshuffled, and leadership structures can shift. That kind of turbulence can slow production even when a project is technically still alive. It can also change the creative direction, because new organizational incentives push teams toward different outcomes. For fans, it’s worth holding two thoughts at once: it’s good that the project survived, and it’s also true that survival happens in a messy context. If you’ve ever tried to finish a complicated project while your workplace is reorganizing, you already know the vibe. You can still make progress, but it’s rarely smooth.

Why Ubisoft is delaying other games while keeping BG&E2 alive

Alongside cancellations, Ubisoft also delayed seven other games to allow more development time. That detail is easy to skim past, but it helps explain why BG&E2 can survive even in a cutback moment. The reset isn’t only about killing projects – it’s also about reshaping schedules and trying to hit higher quality targets, at least according to Ubisoft’s own framing. In that context, BG&E2 continuing could mean the company believes the project still has long-term value, even if it’s not near-term revenue. Some projects get delayed because Ubisoft thinks they can become stronger with time. BG&E2 might be living in that same logic, except on a much larger and weirder scale. If you’re looking for a silver lining, it’s that Ubisoft is openly acknowledging that time is sometimes necessary. If you’re looking for the caution sign, it’s that “more time” can also become a loop if the underlying decision-making keeps changing.

The biggest risks that still hang over Beyond Good & Evil 2

Even with the “still in development” confirmation, BG&E2 isn’t suddenly risk-free. The biggest risk is the same one it has always carried – a long, shifting development cycle can make it hard to land a clear, cohesive final experience. Another risk is expectation drift. Fans who loved the original Beyond Good & Evil have grown up, gaming tastes have shifted, and the market is crowded with open-world experiences that set high bars for polish and depth. A third risk is internal: when a company is reorganizing, leadership priorities can change, and projects can be re-scoped to fit new structures. None of these risks guarantee failure, but they explain why this story still feels tense even when the headline is positive. Survival is step one. Shipping something that feels worth the wait is the real mountain. And yes, it’s a mountain with loose rocks, bad weather, and a sign at the bottom that says “Good luck.”

Tech ambition versus production reality

BG&E2 has been associated with big ideas for years, and big ideas are a double-edged sword. Ambition can be the spark that makes a game special, but it can also be the thing that slows everything down if the scope isn’t controlled. Production reality is relentless: features need to be finished, tested, optimized, and locked. If the goalposts move late, you pay for it everywhere. That’s why long-running projects often end up needing tough editorial decisions – what stays, what goes, and what becomes a sequel dream instead of a launch requirement. For fans, the healthiest mindset is to want the game to be great, but also to accept that greatness often comes from restraint, not just scale. The best games aren’t always the biggest. They’re the ones that know what they are, then execute that identity with confidence. If BG&E2 is going to land, it likely needs that kind of clarity more than it needs another reinvention.

Audience expectations after a very long wait

Time doesn’t just pass – it piles expectations on a project like snow on a roof. At some point, you stop judging a game only against other releases, and you start judging it against the story you’ve been telling yourself for years. That’s dangerous for any game, because no finished product can perfectly match a decade-plus of imagination. The flip side is that long waits can create patience and goodwill, especially among fans who genuinely love the world and characters. But goodwill has limits, and the modern market is blunt. Players want a reason to care now, not only a reason they cared in 2008. So BG&E2 needs to communicate what it is, why it matters, and why it’s worth your time in 2026 and beyond. That’s not just marketing talk – it’s trust-building. After so many years, trust is the real currency, and Ubisoft has to earn it with clarity, not just survival headlines.

What to watch for next so we don’t get whiplash again

If you’re trying to stay informed without getting emotionally tossed around, it helps to focus on a few practical watchpoints. First, look for concrete signals of progress rather than vague reassurance – things like official updates that describe direction, not just status. Second, pay attention to how Ubisoft’s Creative House structure settles in early April, because organizational stability often affects project momentum. Third, notice whether BG&E2 is mentioned consistently in Ubisoft’s brand framing over time, not just once in a heat-of-the-moment update. Finally, remember that silence isn’t always bad, but endless silence paired with repeated reinvention is a pattern we’ve seen before. The goal is to stay hopeful without turning every rumor into a life event. In other words, keep your hype on a leash, not because you don’t care, but because you do.

Conclusion

Beyond Good & Evil 2 surviving Ubisoft’s reset is real news, especially in a moment where other projects were discontinued and major organizational changes were announced. It tells us the game still fits somewhere inside Ubisoft’s future plans, and it’s being treated as part of the company’s brand portfolio rather than a forgotten relic. At the same time, survival isn’t the same as certainty. The project’s history, the reported cost estimate, and the broader restructuring context all point to a truth that’s both encouraging and frustrating: the game is still moving, but we can’t responsibly pretend we know how close it is to the finish line. The best way to hold this moment is with balanced energy. We can be relieved it’s alive, curious about what it becomes under the new Creative House structure, and patient without being naive. If BG&E2 eventually arrives, it won’t just be a release. It’ll be the end of one of the strangest development sagas in modern gaming.

FAQs
  • Was Beyond Good & Evil 2 cancelled in Ubisoft’s reset?
    • No. Reporting indicated it survived the round of discontinued projects, and Ubisoft later confirmed it remains in active development and is still considered a priority within its strategy.
  • When was Beyond Good & Evil 2 first revealed?
    • The game was first revealed in May 2008, which is a big reason it’s often cited as one of the longest-running development stories in the industry.
  • What does it mean that the “current version” has been in development since around 2017?
    • It means the project’s modern build is tied to work that began around 2017, rather than being a straight, continuous development line from the 2008 reveal.
  • Is the $500+ million development cost confirmed by Ubisoft?
    • No. The $500+ million figure is a reported estimate attributed to sources and framed as likely costs driven by repeated changes and a long timeline, not a publicly audited Ubisoft disclosure.
  • Does “still in development” mean a release is close?
    • Not necessarily. It confirms the project hasn’t been discontinued and work is continuing, but it does not provide a release window or prove the finish line is near.
Sources
WhatsAppMessengerLinkedInRedditPinterestBufferSMS