-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Ubisoft survives stockholder meeting, prepares for hostile takeover
- Thread starter mocoworm
- Start date
cartographer
Member
If they (Guillemots) had that sort of money they wouldn't be in this position.
I think it's hard to discuss what constitutes risky. There is never any agreement.
One person will say that featuring a female and/or non-white protagonist in a full price title is risky. (Example: Assassin's Creed 3, Liberation)
Seemingly always being present on new consoles, using the gimmick, often with an exclusive title which limits the audience might be risky. (Example: ZombiU)
Creating a shooter that is back to being tactical and round based instead of the current trend of instant respawn meat grinders bucks some trends. (Example: R6 Siege)
Others will say it's yet another entry in their mega franchise, a game with zombies and another shootybangbang.
I can see both sides, even though it seems reductive if you don't take wider industry trends into account.
For Honor and Steep to me are risky projects because they are in genres not currently being explored at those budget levels.
In any case, despite them often going for the open world collectathon game design which I dislike they are pushing for diversity in representation, which we've heard a lot over the years is that publishers generally do not like to do.
One person will say that featuring a female and/or non-white protagonist in a full price title is risky. (Example: Assassin's Creed 3, Liberation)
Seemingly always being present on new consoles, using the gimmick, often with an exclusive title which limits the audience might be risky. (Example: ZombiU)
Creating a shooter that is back to being tactical and round based instead of the current trend of instant respawn meat grinders bucks some trends. (Example: R6 Siege)
Others will say it's yet another entry in their mega franchise, a game with zombies and another shootybangbang.
I can see both sides, even though it seems reductive if you don't take wider industry trends into account.
For Honor and Steep to me are risky projects because they are in genres not currently being explored at those budget levels.
In any case, despite them often going for the open world collectathon game design which I dislike they are pushing for diversity in representation, which we've heard a lot over the years is that publishers generally do not like to do.
I am so done with big company eating other big company. I think it's really a bad thing which is happening right now.
Even without liking Ubisoft input that much i think they are more creative than most people think and that even if people aren't out of the job right now, it will still have a bad impact on them on the future.
... And no, Primal is not a re-skin of Far Cry 4...
Even without liking Ubisoft input that much i think they are more creative than most people think and that even if people aren't out of the job right now, it will still have a bad impact on them on the future.
... And no, Primal is not a re-skin of Far Cry 4...
Eolz
Member
True, but it stand out in a weird way as a single article.
A bit like how some of the french press is really, really biased for Ubisoft since they began their social media stuff, but in a more worrying way in the case of Polygon.
Vivendi is mostly waiting right now (nobody truly expected Vivendi to do anything this year, even at Ubisoft). It's surprising that they didn't ask again to be at least on the board though, since they are definitely in the majority this time.
This is always how the industry has been run, though. It's how every luxury good industry is run. And gaming is better than it's ever been, so I don't know where this "ruining" is happening.
Not necessarly, there is also a matter of reputation.
Ubi Soft knew from the beginning that making a game about the First World War in the tranch wouldn't sell that well but would put them in a good light which is why that project -and others- are made. It also put the developpers in a good mood.
Might also include Sierra Entertainment from 1998 to 2008 and Vivendi Universal Games from 2000 to 2008 where both were merged with Activision. They lasted longer than they would have under another company considering their bad track record in this period.
You can't really use the argument of what Vivendi did with ActiBlizzard in the past as any indication of what they would do with Ubisoft. The main difference between Vivendi then and now is Vincent Bollore. Vivendi sold most of their ActiBlizzard stock in 2013 and then the rest in May 2014. Vincent Bollore was appointed president in June 2014.
For a more realistic look at what would happen look at how Vivendi (under Bollore's control) has handled Canal+ and Telecom Italia. If you think that running Ubisoft the same was as those is good then that's up to you.
Those are good game and i won't say that they didn't have any risk but they are also VERY tied to the marchandising and don't feel risky in the same way than Beyond Good & Evil. (Destiny way more "MMO" than Halo and tried to surf on that kind of success, Skylanders which tried to make a commercial success with Spyro with those figurines and Overwatch witch try to surf on the success of e-sport shooter)
...... So..... By your own argument, Ubi Soft is the obvious answer. Vivendi would most likely tried to make them do a concept with a lot more chance of success than a solo action/adventure game.
But that's only in the extreme case of "Vivendi is the one which ordoned game like Skylander/Destiny/OVerwatch to be made" which is not very realistical at all so this whole argument is null.
TheRedSnifit
Member
No, Ubisoft does nothing but release no less than 50 Assassin's Creed games every year and I will not be convinced otherwise.
TheRedSnifit
Member
Remember when Activision was pumping out four Guitar Hero games a year?
Actually, it was nine Guitar Hero games in 2009. Nine. That's the "real skill" Vivendi will let shine.
That was a different Vivendi.
Ubis management seems to think so because Ubi's management is gonna get fired after an acquisition. That's the current Vivendi pattern. Whether their employees get fired is another story.
The current go-to example is french TV channel Canal+, which was indeed famed for its creativity and had it all annihilated over the span of the last two years, following its acquisition by Vivendi.
TheRedSnifit
Member
I agree wholeheartedly. Horror-themed third-person shooters, linear FPSs, stealth games, and open-world FPSs are the epitome of dead genres. Did anybody even know what Wolfenstein was before TNO? Absolutely a boutique game.
Although when Ubisoft releases games in those genres they don't count. Sorry, Splinter Cell, ZombiU (because legitimate survival horror games are a dime a dozen), Far Cry, and Call of Juarez.
GribbleGrunger
Dreams in Digital
Can someone explain to me how this works and why Ubisoft find themselves in this situation? Is it to do with selling too many shares to one particular body of people?
Mass_Pincup
Banned
Vivendi is buying all the shares they can and the Guillemot family isn't a majority shareholder of Ubisoft and doesn't have the financial ressources to become one.
Please do tell me all about the upcoming Call of Juarez and Zombi games.
Ubisoft is a publicly traded company, which means that it's always up for sale.
SkylineRKR
Member
Its public, with stockholders. They can essentially stage a coup. If the board disagrees with a takeover, a hostile takeover can ensue. This can happen in a multitude of ways, such as a proxy fight where shareholders rally eachother to vote.
astroturfing
Member
the corporate world is so weird, i don't quite understand any of what's in the OP. who are these people that make all these "hostile takeovers" and shit? do they sleep well at night? how do they talk about their work day with their spouses?
and umm.. why would French law apply in Quebec and Montreal..? i'm baffled.
and umm.. why would French law apply in Quebec and Montreal..? i'm baffled.
French law does not apply in Quebec and Montreal, but Ubisoft is in need of money to fend off Vivendi. Since Ubisoft is a gigantic creator of jobs in both these cities, it's in their interest to keep Ubisoft around. Hence, they can provide Ubisoft with some of the needed money.
TheRedSnifit
Member
Right after you tell me about The Evil Within 2.
Haven't you heard about Zombi U2: Where The Streets Have No Name?
I'm quite sure that was Kotick considering the six in 2008 and the four in 2007. That is in the end why he bought it. It is also clear on the clean up he did, Vivendi was for instance okay with brutal legend but it wouldn't sell ten million.
KojiKnight
Member
A brief over view of how corporations work...
You own a company, but you need capital (money) to help your business grow. So you decide to incorporate your company and sell stock (partial ownership) of your company.
Depending on how much money you need (and the varying laws of each country) you can put a little or a lot of your stock up. In most countries, owning stock allows you a vote at stock holder meetings with the amount of stock being how much your vote is worth (own 1% of the stock, you control 1% of the total vote).
Normally this isn't a problem if you put the majority of the company up, because most investors are only after a small portion of your company for investment purposes... But if you give up too much control and a big hungry company wants to buy you against your will... That's kind of the risk they take.
So that's whats happening right now. Vivendi owns about 20% of Ubisoft and thus controls 20% of the vote. When they reach 30%, by French law, they have to put a buy out offer to all the other stock holders. At that point they only need to win over 21% of that remaining 70% to own 51% of the company and own ruling stakes (able to win every vote) and thus hostility take over the company.
SoraNoKuni
Member
inb4 becoming a mobile oriented company.
I hope not.
I hope not.
Spieler Eins
Member
Just give me Beyond Good & Evil 2. After that, Ancel's probably independent anyway.
Herb Alpert
Banned
They have gameloft for that though.
MrJohnSherry
Member
Hope this doesn't happen, I actually really enjoy most of Ubi's output. The only game this gen that has had me consistently come back to it has been The Crew!
I fear a take over would destroy their identity and they would lose their sense of wackiness.
I fear a take over would destroy their identity and they would lose their sense of wackiness.
OfTheOverflow
Member
I shamefully agree.
Forgive my ignorance but what's the assurance that the Guillemot's would be whisked away completely? Does that normally happen in these takeovers?
It's pretty frequent, yes. You don't pay millions to gobble up a company just to leave the other guys in charge. And, in this case, particularly not when those other guys have been clamoring high and low that you are evil incarnate.
KojiKnight
Member
This. There is a reason it's called a hostile takeover. Vivendi might offer them something as a token... but the Guilemots are too proud and would likely just take their millions in severence and whatever they'd get from all their stocks and take that hefty profit and sit on it for a few years before making a new company.
bodyboarder
Member
That ship sailed the moment it became a publicly traded company.
grosvenor_92
Member
Despite not being a huge fan of how Ubisoft designs some of they're games I'd like to see them remain independent
Relieved to hear they survived. Fuck off, Vivendi, leave Ubisoft alone. I'm not Ubisoft's biggest fan; I hate a lot of their crap like the mobile and web tie-ins for Assassin's Creed and whatnot, and I got so sick of Assassin's Creed thanks to Unity, but I really like that Ubisoft always keeps trying to improve their games. At least, with Assassin's Creed. They seem to genuinely want to make it better and they tumble and fall quite a few times, but they keep trying. I can't help but respect that part of them, at the very least.
I worry for the next Assassin's Creed game and Beyond Good & Evil 2. I haven't played Beyond Good & Evil, but seeing just how much people love it has me pretty excited for it too. I hope those two get released before anything happens... seems kind of unlikely, though.
I worry for the next Assassin's Creed game and Beyond Good & Evil 2. I haven't played Beyond Good & Evil, but seeing just how much people love it has me pretty excited for it too. I hope those two get released before anything happens... seems kind of unlikely, though.
Same here. Despite the shit they often get, they still make great games. Some great looking stuff on the way as well.
thepenguin55
Member
Is it unreasonable for the Guillemots to not want this to happen simply because they don't want their company wrestled away from them? I don't think that seems unreasonable. Why would anyone want that forcibly taken from them?
Also, its funny to think that Vivendi has green light some solid games. I mostly associate Vivendi with the games they published in the very early 2000s. Check out a list of every game they themselves have published since 2000 and it's a sea of hot garbage with the occasional good or great game sprinkled throughout. I'm starting to think Assassin's Creed isn't the reason Vivendi wants to buy Ubisoft... they want the Petz franchise!
Also, its funny to think that Vivendi has green light some solid games. I mostly associate Vivendi with the games they published in the very early 2000s. Check out a list of every game they themselves have published since 2000 and it's a sea of hot garbage with the occasional good or great game sprinkled throughout. I'm starting to think Assassin's Creed isn't the reason Vivendi wants to buy Ubisoft... they want the Petz franchise!
Unknown Soldier
Member
Vivendi confuse me sometimes. They divested the company which would become Activision Blizzard, and now they want to acquire Ubisoft. Even if they acquired Ubi they'll probably lose money and divest in a few years anyways.
And all their IP stays behind. So no cash-cows like Ass Creed to help fund the actual good games like Valiant Hearts
Similar threads
- Poll