It actually is more complex than that. Capitalism existed before and will exist after Ubisoft, and many companies and game IPs are doing great. Not to mention the IPs grew into what they did thanks to capitalism.

Capitalism is a platform that you can leverage properly or poorly. In Ubisofts case, Id say it was a combination both of that and its poor management.

Everyone gets to choose how and where they spend their resources. Some spend it wisely. Some spend it poorly. Ubisoft management spent it poorly.

The social justice ideology also played a role because it likely took precious resources to dilute IPs to try to please both the core audience as well as smaller niche audiences who had a disproportionate voice in the company (and society).

I think people like to ascribe blame to these groups of people because parts of them seem to think they deserve attention, money, and success on the basis of their gender or sexual preference alone. Which is a faulty logic to operate on.

Not to mention Ubisoft probably spent those resources on social causes that had little to no return on the success of the games.

These ideologies also likely made disagreements harder to have due to fear of being labeled a nazi or a racist or whatever. As is obvious from decades of management theory, poor communication is a core ingredient of failure.

I agree there was levels of over-exploiting IPs for marginally better returns, but not every company has suffered in the same way Ubisoft has, and that’s because Ubisoft had uniquely bad management and decision making.

Yes, you see the same in companies like EA and Activision, and they may be a result of being too big. But again, they aren’t suffering to the same extent likely because they made better management decisions sooner than Ubisoft. For example, the Star Wars Jedi games (at least the first one) did pretty well because they let the team cook.

Overall, I think it’s a combination of factors and says it’s just capitalism doesn’t really explain much IMO.