-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Bloomberg: Ubisoft Wields Threat of Talent Exodus to Thwart Hostile Vivendi
- Thread starter BY2K
- Start date
KuwabaraTheMan
Banned
This makes sense.
After all, no one knows about killing creativity more than Yves Guillemot.
After all, no one knows about killing creativity more than Yves Guillemot.
Mass_Pincup
Banned
Good, Vivendi owning Ubisoft would be disastrous.
No other big publishers of Ubisoft size is more creative.
No other big publishers of Ubisoft size is more creative.
torre_avenue
Banned
Because nothing fosters creativity more than cut-and-paste open worlds filled with collectibles and mediocre stories.
On topic, that's good. Guillemont knows he holds all the cards here, and he's right for threatening a talent exodus. Getting owned by massive conglomerate only means you're beholden to more people who'll demand safer and safer games to boost revenue and share prices.
The worlds that Ubisoft create have always been brilliant. I don't think anyone could legitimately take that away from them.
The content that they choose to fill them with is more questionable however.
Pie and Beans
Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
Whole situation is plenty ironic with the Patrice Désilets stuff having happened.
Eolz
Member
Vivendi just has to buy the majority of Ubisoft's shares (which is what they are slowly doing). Simplified a lot obviously.
edit: wikipedia describes it better: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takeover#Hostile_takeovers . They are going for the third way for now, went for the first way for Gameloft.
Mass_Pincup
Banned
KuwabaraTheMan
Banned
Well, there's not really other big publishers of Ubisoft's size, really. EA is pretty close, but saying that they're "more creative than EA" is damning with the faintest of praise.
Valkyr1983
Banned
OK... They aren't wrong. Outside of Rockstar ubisoft puts the most effort into realizing their game world's
Got a better retort than "lol"?
legacyzero
Banned
Yep
Those "realized" game worlds are cluttered with checklist junk, for one. The list goes on and on
generic_username
I switched to an alt account to ditch my embarrassing tag so I could be an embarrassing Naughty Dog fanboy in peace. Ask me anything!
LightningXCE
Member
Amen
Well, it's an outside perspective. Most of the stuff I read about Ubisoft is how boring their open-world games are. Or broken.
I mean, their games do have a level of detail that can be quite impressive (The Division comes to mind)
yankeeforever2
Member
They keep buying stock in Ubi and gameloft, they are slowly gain more stock each quarter.
SolidSnakex
Member
Wasn't a similar thread floated when EA was trying to takeover Take Two? GTA is a ridiculously strong brand, but it wouldn't last without Rockstar basically being given a blank check to make what they want.
That's not saying much when they pushed a buggy Tetris game out the door
Mass_Pincup
Banned
When I say Ubisoft's size I'm talking about Activision, EA, Take Two, Zenimax etc... as opposed to something like Paradox or Focus Home.
What does that have to do with creativity?
KuwabaraTheMan
Banned
Size wise Zenimax is actually much closer to Paradox than they are to Ubisoft. At least when it comes to employee totals.
Either way, I'd still say that's fairly faint praise. None of those publisher are really known for their creativity. Even if Ubisoft was the king of that group, it's still the kingdom of the blind.
James Scott
Banned
It's pretty clear that they don't want to be picked up. Why not get several smaller studios instead?
Valkyr1983
Banned
Yep
Those "realized" game worlds are cluttered with checklist junk, for one. The list goes on and on
OK. Got any examples of those collectibles you are forced to do?
What other AAA developer has set games in Victorian England, or playing as a freed slave in the carribean islands, or set in new Orleans in the 1800's?
Never played a ubisoft game where grinding was required, its their for the people who want it
I usually play AC games to blast through the story and just explore the sights and in the case of the PS4, use the share feature to play a virtual tourist.
JoeyJungle
Banned
Aside from their AAA stuff, they've actually made some really creative smaller games over the last few years. Grow Home, Child of Light, Valiant Hearts, Call of Juarez: Gunslinger. They also have a bunch of unique IP like Rayman/Rabids, Anno, and Might & Magic (though I'm not sure how well the recent games have been received). Although their AAA games aren't exactly the most original in terms of gameplay loops, they're definitely no Activision in terms of relying on just a few major selling franchises.
Without the talent, the IP only has short-term value. After the bad reception of Unity, Syndicate had pretty poor sales. If they lost their major creatives, their IPs would quickly lose value after just a few bad releases.
Good ideas mean shit when poor execution and management muddle the end product, which is all too evident in a lot of their AAA games.
OmegaDL50
Member
I wonder if others thought the same thing when Vivendi basically downsized Blizzard by more or less shuttering Blizzard North causing the staff that birthed the Diablo series to leave the company.
Did Blizzard have too many cooks in its kitchen too? Just something to think about.
Vivendi involvement isn't really healthy for any particular game development company based on their history.
Regardless of all the seemingly mandatory shitposts about Ubisoft here, I actually like and value them as a company. I really hope this takeover fails because it would be a shame for them to shutter up or to have to shift their strategy in a big way.
Their games aren't the best of the best, but they are certainly fun and effective, and there is no doubt the whole landscape just wouldn't be the same without them.
Their games aren't the best of the best, but they are certainly fun and effective, and there is no doubt the whole landscape just wouldn't be the same without them.
That's conglomerates in a nutshell. Vivendi has no talent of its own and survives through a fucked up cycle of absorptions, exploiting talent, and sucking companies dry until they're husks of what they used to be. And then selling them off and moving on to the next victim.
Mass_Pincup
Banned
On what are you basing your claim then?
So it has nothing to do with creativity.
tearsintherain
Member
I can't understand at all why Vivendi would sell their share of Blizzard, which was substantial, to Activision a few years ago and now think that buying another big studio is a good idea. What the heck is wrong with them?
If they really want to get into gaming that bad lure some talent and start a new studio, people jump around all the time and you'd have ZERO problems getting a few hundred good people if you pay well, have a good head honcho who can set the tone, and locate it in good areas. Far, far, far less than paying billions for Ubisoft and then realizing you wildly overpaid when it turns out the next Assassins Creed, Far Cry, and Watch Dogs all underperform on sales.
If they really want to get into gaming that bad lure some talent and start a new studio, people jump around all the time and you'd have ZERO problems getting a few hundred good people if you pay well, have a good head honcho who can set the tone, and locate it in good areas. Far, far, far less than paying billions for Ubisoft and then realizing you wildly overpaid when it turns out the next Assassins Creed, Far Cry, and Watch Dogs all underperform on sales.
OmegaDL50
Member
That's conglomerates in a nutshell. Vivendi has no talent of its own and survives through a fucked up cycle of absorptions, exploiting talent, and sucking companies dry until they're husks of what they used to be. And then selling them off and moving on to the next victim.
I love the photo analogy.
Although I wouldn't want what happened to Blizzard North to anyone one of Ubisoft's owned studios.
I'd have quite a bit of rage over something like Nadeo being shut down because Vivendi didn't think a AA / medium budget arcade racing title (Trackmania) had any purpose in their plans for AAA market share.
This is more about Vivendi hate than anything.
And your position is to let them die and worsen the situation?
Because if not, what is your point really? Like I know you all like to shit on stuff nonstop, but at least stuff a point in there somewhere.
We already know that Vivendi is bad for publishers because we saw Activision under them for a LONG time. Complaining about how you didn't like Ubis latest game doesn't have much of a place in this conversation when we have precedent that shows the situation would only worsen under Vivendis watch.
Thank you...
A massive amount of missing the forest for the trees here. I do not like 90% of Ubis output at all. But I know that being under Vivendi only makes it WORSE. Why in the hell would I be for that situation as a gamer? If you want to take pot shots at Ubi or a specific game, there's a truckton of OT's on GAF awaiting your sarcasm; but it seems out of place here.
CertifiedFP
Member
Who wants to bet that Vivendi's going to keep going forward anyway and slap Non-Compete contracts on every employee that's not gone before they fully take over?
Mass_Pincup
Banned
Is that even possible? They would have to sign another contract for that right?
bigboss370
Member
I for one am glad to have Ubi in this industry and do no want Vivendi to take over.
Hero of Legend
Member
Could Ubisoft attempt at selling IPs and studios to 1, get more money to hopefully prevent the sale, and 2, give less incentive to Vivendi to buy them if their IPs and studio numbers are shrinking, thus decreasing value? Though that might make them cheaper I guess hence quickening the purchase... huh...