.webp?width=498)
- Primary Subject: Ubisoft CEO comments on Sony ending physical PlayStation games
- Key Idea: Why publishers support full digital distribution, and why comparing PlayStation to PC/Steam may be misleading
- Status: Opinion
- Last Verified: July 24, 2026
- Quick Answer: The piece argues that Ubisoft’s CEO frames Sony’s shift to digital-only PlayStation games as a net positive for the industry, but that the comparison to PC/Steam is flawed because PlayStation is a closed ecosystem where removing physical media reduces consumer choice and increases platform control rather than replicating an open PC-style market.
Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot has weighed in on Sony's decision to stop producing physical PlayStation games beginning in 2028, and his stance probably won't surprise anyone.
During Ubisoft's latest financial call, he was asked whether the disappearance of discs could hurt game sales by eliminating the second-hand market.
Instead of expressing concern, Guillemot pointed to PC gaming as proof that going fully digital can grow the market.
He also suggested that removing the disc drive could make future PlayStation consoles more affordable, concluding that while there are "pluses and minuses," he doesn't expect the shift to disturb the industry very much.
From Ubisoft's perspective, I completely understand why that sounds like a positive outcome.
Publishers don't make money when players trade in games, buy used copies, or borrow discs from friends.
Digital distribution gives them more control over pricing, keeps every sale inside the PlayStation ecosystem, and cuts out manufacturing and retail costs altogether.
That's just good business but it's the comparison Guillemot uses to justify it that trips me up.
Is Ubisoft Comparing Two Completely Different Markets?
I think Guillemot's argument stumbles because it assumes PlayStation is walking the same road PC already did.
As I argued in a recent piece, I still think people keep drawing the wrong comparison between Steam and PlayStation.
At first glance, Guillemot's argument sounds reasonable enough. Steam helped transform PC gaming into the dominant platform it is today, but I don't think it became successful simply because it replaced physical media.
Nobody owns the entire PC ecosystem. PlayStation isn't an open platform. Once physical games disappear, you're not choosing between digital stores anymore - you're choosing whether to buy from the PlayStation Store or not buy the game at all.
Sony becomes the retailer, the marketplace, and the gatekeeper at the same time. I've also made the case before that I don't have some ideological attachment to physical discs.
I buy plenty of my games digitally because, frankly, they're more convenient. I don't mind convenience - I mind losing the ability to choose otherwise.
Maybe Sony eventually builds a digital ecosystem that's so compelling hardly anyone misses physical games. That's entirely possible. But I don't think we're there yet, and I certainly don't think pointing at Steam is enough to prove we are.
Guillemot also argues that removing the disc drive could make future consoles more affordable, and I actually think there's some truth to that.
Optical drives cost money, and we've already seen digital-only consoles launch cheaper than their disc-equipped counterparts.
The question I keep asking myself, though, is how much players really gain. Sure, removing the drive might shave a little off the price of the console.
But if the next PlayStation still launches at $800 or more because of rising hardware costs, have we really gained much? And even if Sony saves money, what guarantees those savings are actually passed on to consumers instead of simply improving profit margins?
I also don't think it's a coincidence that publishers are often among the biggest advocates for an all-digital future. It's simply a cleaner business model.
No discs to manufacture, no inventory to manage, and no second-hand market competing with new sales.
That's a compelling proposition if you're the one selling the games. Then again, I wouldn't exactly expect Ubisoft to argue against a business model that generally benefits publishers.
If I were running one of the world's biggest publishers, I'd probably prefer an ecosystem where every Assassin's Creed sale went through official channels too.
The second-hand market has always been something publishers disliked because they don't see a penny when games are resold.
The problem is that what's good for publishers isn't automatically good for players. I don't think anyone seriously expects physical games to outlive digital. I certainly don't. What I question is the assumption that because digital won, every alternative now has to disappear.
Competition doesn't only exist between Xbox and PlayStation. It also exists between digital storefronts, retailers, and the second-hand market. Even if you never buy physical games yourself, their existence helps keep the rest of the ecosystem honest.
Once they're gone, Sony has significantly more control over pricing, availability, and how players access its platform. Maybe the industry really won't be disturbed very much, just as Guillemot predicts. I actually think he's probably right about that.
People have adapted to countless industry changes before, and most PlayStation owners will likely continue buying PlayStation games regardless.
But surviving a change and benefiting from it aren't the same thing. Call me cynical, but I don't usually take consumer advice from the people who stand to profit most from consumers having fewer choices.
For more like this, stick with us here at Gfinityesports.com, the best website for gaming news, reviews, features, and guides.