Topic: Do you think Microsoft should buy Ubisoft?

Since MS has acquired ABK, Activision have opened two new Studios - Elsewhere Studios in Poland - exclusively focused on creating a new narrative-based and genre-defining AAA franchise.

Built from the ground up, Elsewhere Entertainment is a premier and standalone studio dedicated to establishing an environment that inspires bold and diverse ideas. The team’s underlying mission encourages everyone to explore and collaborate creatively to craft a franchise with an enduring legacy that resonates far beyond games.

The talented team at Elsewhere Entertainment consists of a collection of storytelling experts whose credits include The Last of Us, Uncharted, The Witcher, Cyberpunk, Destiny, Tom Clancy’s The Division, and Far Cry.

And Infinity Ward Austin - The studio will work on creating new and innovative experiences for Call of Duty and create state-of-the-art technology to power them. Our studio provides a safe, trusting, and empowering environment to unleash your creativity and help make the extraordinary.

As MS own Activision now, they also own those two new Studios so I think MS have their hands full with what they have at the moment. We have seen some structural changes too as the management of Zenimax and now ABK (Kotick and Co) have left but it still takes time to filter down to Studios. You don't want to go in and make radical decisions that impact the projects they were working on - which may have been 'problematic' with Redfall - other than telling the Studio not to worry about porting to Playstation or making it a 'live service' game as was Zenimax's desire, they left the Studio 'alone' to finish that game and no doubt haven't impacted CoD - other than ensuring it has parity on all systems and on GP day 1, Treyarch was working on it, no doubt had planned to release (as Kotick would want) this year so probably had little/no MS impact. What happens after BO6 with IW who just finished MW2 as MS took over, with Sledgehammer who released MW3 under MS, who knows...

It may not be 'annual' after BO6 or whatever IW release, may not follow the same pattern. They could make BO6 last 'longer' rather than pressure IW to release 'something' in that annual slot, release Sledgehammer to make something else instead of churning out CoD, or 'restructure' so CoD Online is given to Raven and MP is integrated into Warzone F2P with Seasons and maybe Annual era changes. Any Single Player Campaigns being Sold separately (a bit like Halo:Infinite) if their Studios want to make a Single Player FPS war story that having the CoD name will sell.

Until MS have full control, not 'honouring' any previous deals and of course that includes games 'greenlit' by their former bosses they are 'commiting' to continuing the development through to release. We have seen games like Starfield, Hifi Rush, Redfall and soon Indiana Jones too - likely all 'greenlit' by Zenimax before MS took over. Same with Black Ops 6 and maybe whatever IW had been greenlit to make after. If the deal hadn't gone through, the management would want those studios developing the games they 'expect' them to make if they had to remain in charge. That's why I don't expect sweeping changes.

ABK is quite difficult with quite a few 'licensed' games they perhaps can't bring to BC and the rest need to be checked and ensure they work with BC before dropping. Also they perhaps have deals in place meaning they have to wait for games to leave or deals to expire (inc Sony's CoD deals for the last 10yrs of CoD games) before bringing 'old' games to BC . It's not as if no game has come to Game Pass as we have Diablo 4 and BO6 is coming Day 1 too.

I don't think MS should (or Could) buy Ubisoft. I think it would be ABK or Ubisoft, not both and ABK was ready to be bought. If it wasn't MS, it could have been Ten Cent (Chinese owning more US companies) or Embracer, could have been Amazon or Apple too. But I doubt MS could buy Ubisoft now.

Given the choice of Ubisoft or ABK, I still think ABK has the biggest scope for MS, but Ubisoft maybe had the wider variety of games - certainly in recent years on Console. However, Blizzard is more PC focused and King the biggest Mobile Publisher so arguably the better Purchase for MS. For King, they now have a LOT more IP's to bring to Mobile - inc Halo, Gears, Doom, Forza, Fable, Conker, Blinx etc etc and for MS, maybe bring WoW to Consoles.

I really don't think MS will buy another 'big' Publisher unless they are 'not' Publicly owned, therefore would require FTC investigation. They can buy 'independent' studios as these are Privately owned so no 'Public' investigation. In other words, I wouldn't be surprised to see MS acquire more 'Studios' they can add to their 'Xbox Studios', maybe buy/acquire/open new Studio's under Zenimax or Activision too (as we have seen with IW Austin and Elsewhere Entertainment for example) but I really don't see them buying Ubisoft or another 'big' publisher with numerous studios.

I can certainly understand why MS in particular wants to buy a Publisher, not just Studios to make games. They also want the Publishing rights to their Library of games they already have made for BC, for Game Pass etc. If they bought Ubisoft, it's not just for their 'upcoming' games, its also for all their OLD games too. But buying a studio doesn't mean they get their IP's or Publishing rights to their old games. They didn't own Fallout New Vegas or its Publishing rights to put on Game Pass despite owning Obsidian - until they bought Zenimax who published FNV and own the Fallout IP. Buying Infinity Ward from Activision wouldn't give then Call of Duty or the old Infinity Ward CoDs they made, but buying Activision does. Buying Crystal Dynamics today won't get you the Tomb Raider Trilogy to put on Game Pass so you can only make 'money' once that Studio has product to sell. That's why buying Insomniac with 'few' IP's of their own and basically no publishing rights was 10x cheaper than buying Bungie with only their Destiny IP but Publishing rights (so all money spent in Destiny goes to the Publisher which is now owned by Sony so instantly starts making money back). As soon as MS owned ABK, every Diablo 4, CoD, WoW or mobile King game purchase goes to MS now as 'owner' of the Publishing rights. If you buy 'Crash 4' today on Playstation, even though it was 'published' by Activision, that is money for MS. Point is, own Publishing rights, can start recouping the money spent on acquiring them straight away, buy a 'Studio', you may get IP's, but have to wait for 'product' to sell - unless you've commissioned and published their games in the past of course.

The TL:DR - Big Publishers are likely off the table now - so Ubisoft is incredibly unlikely to be bought by MS. That doesn't mean that MS can't or won't buy Studios if they think they will 'add' to their Studios and will be 'better' for them than maybe commissioning that Studio to create games they 'Publish'. MS could buy Asobo (who make Flight Sim and Plague Tale games for example) but maybe won't because they don't 'need' to buy. Same with Certain Affinity who has worked with 343 on Halo for example but if those Studios were to 'sell' up, MS may well change their mind and 'buy'...

If Microsoft can help Ubisoft get their act together then sure.

Amongst other terrible things, buying Ubisoft would destroy their antitrust settlement in the UK, leading to years of more goddamn litigation over the ABK deal, so no. Please don't.