Report: Ubisoft Is Considering A Buyout From Tencent & Partners

Well if you spend millions making games like Avatar and SW outlaws and some how don’t make them top AAA games then what do you expect.
You reap what you sow, it’s as simple as that.
Basically terrible manufacturing process leading to poor games.

@OldGamer999 It's not just that; it's the fact that their processes have basically left every Ubisoft looking, sounding, feeling the same. They've very much sanded down each and every game they make to a formula of what sold a decade ago, and are now panicking because that's literally the only tactic they have for games production.

As long as tencent or whoever picks them up continues to sell physical discs individually and not try to digitally lock everyone into a rental service wherein titles evaporate when your subscription does, that’s fine. Not that I particularly care for most Ubisoft titles; it’s more the principal of the matter.

@Tasuki not having to cater to investors who don't underestand the industry and who will value short term gain would be a great improvement

I wonder if Phil Spencer is gonna pull out the old Microsoft checkbook 🤣

They recently made the new Prince of Persia which was nothing short of a masterpiece, but that didn't sell too well.
So they need to go back to AC which even if people like to complain about it, they always sell millions and millions.

@Vordus
Should have done a new Rayman platform in a 3d world.

They should listen to the fans for once, what they actually want. And never release a game (as a full game) when its still in beta (buggy, crashes etc) and patch it later. Also the sales part. After 3 months games go on sale. Everyone knows that (ubi strategy) and they just wait because everyone knows ubisoft games, go on sale that quick.

They should sell some game rights to other companies or bring actual games that the fans want.
People want Raymann, Splintercell. Start with that (without the annoying bugs)

I love the ghost recon games, but its almost that Ubisoft doesnt know what to do anymore.

Im not sure taking the company private will have a positive impact on the company. The reason companies go public in the first place is to get more investment for future projects, better interest rates, etc. The biggest issue is that if big AAA games don't sell well even with the star Wars name attached then they really just aren't going to do very well. AAA single player games go in cycles, the hot thing at one moment then every game shifts to that and it gets saturated and AAA single player are out of fashion until the next cycle.

Sadly I think they will end up downsizing and pretty much exclsuively making AC and Far Cry games. Trying a new CEO first might be worth a shot.

@Tasuki well, theoretically unhooking the company from the stock market would give them the opportunity to spend some time consolidating and repairing the company instead of chasing the myth of infinite growth and eternal profits, but let's face it, for that to happen they'd need new management, and this is just the existing regime locking down control.

Dumbest idea ever, but par for the course with Ubisoft...

@acmiguens : Tencent is a publicly-traded company on the Hong Kong stock exchange and some of its largest institutional shareholders are located in USA.

@101Force Riiiight...

@Trmn8r : You don't have to take my word for it, there are plenty of market trackers online with institutional shareholder listings for Tencent, and many of those shareholders are US entities: Renaissance Group, MMBG Investments, Madison Asset Management, Azimuth Capital Management, Douglas C. Lane & Associates, etc. etc. etc.

Bear in mind that unlike the Beijing stock exchange, the Hong Kong stock exchange is completely open to foreign investors.

@101Force foreign investment does not mean the company isn't controlled by the CCP though. Just as Hong Kong now is.

@Trmn8r : Let's assume the CCP cares about a video game company — even though it's nonsense — so what? The point I was making to @acmiguens is that if Tencent acquires Ubisoft that doesn't mean Ubisoft won't have to answer to shareholder demand or US private equity groups because Tencent is a publicly-traded company on the Hong Kong stock exchange. And what reason does the CCP have to oppose the demands of Tencent's shareholders? Assuming the CCP has any interest in Tencent, it's their profitability that interests them.

@101Force It's safe to assume that they'll be interested in propagandizing and information harvesting like they do in other entities of theirs on top of using profits to fund them. This isn't exactly great news for Ubisoft gaming future if it goes down as the Tencent monster sucks up more companies...

Maybe they'll get rid of or at least reduce that ridiculous sub fee. Lol

@Trmn8r : So you're saying the CCP will oppose the profit-driven shareholder demand of a video game company listed on the Hong Kong stock exchange, potentially reducing the company's profitability, because it benefits their propaganda and information harvesting agendas? I don't think that makes much sense, but if true we'll surely hear complaints from Tencent's foreign shareholders in the next few years anyway.

@101Force Do you understand what "on top of using profits" means? BTW do smartphone games, with terrible practices, that we core gamers hate make a lot of money? Not everything that makes money is great for gaming and plenty of that going on with Tencent... But keep talking about shareholders and the Hong Kong stock exchange and "so your saying" things that I'm not at all saying...

@Trmn8r : The only claim I made here is that Tencent's acquisition of Ubisoft won't relieve Ubisoft from "having to cater to investors", and you responded to that, remember?

@ShutenDoji
After their handling of Activision and breaking their promises to the regulators of nurturing them, not shutting down any studios of letting any staff go while firing over 12000 the regulators will be on their ass for that. And what with the higher ups at Microsoft taking the reigns and wanting to see a return in their 69 billion investment which is failing is unlikely. Phil is on very thin ice as it is.

@Vordus Except they haven’t because they’re nowhere near as fun and unabashed as they used to be, they’ve watered down their formula to be as boring and conservative as possible to appear “cool” for critics and snobs alike. Hasn’t payed dividends for them clearly.

@Tasuki I do. That's a worrying part of it for sure. But I only write MBA levels of dissertation if I'm either getting graded or paid for it

I did my part to support Ubisoft. Mirage, Avatar, pop: lost crown PC are cheaper on Ubisoft store than on the key sellers and they have a weekend promo for $15 off your cart 😂 have to use their launcher anyway so literally no down side.

Their recent collapse is self inflicted. They chose to replace a Japanese samurai with Yasuke. They chose to make an unlikeable and unattractive character in SW Outlaws. Fire all the activists at Ubisoft and replace with nerds that just want to make games.

@InheritNegative If that's the case then they don't know what's cool, or what critics and snobs are interested in because all they've managed to make is bland corporate art.

If they go private. They need get rid of their DEI modernist culture within and only bring mates in based on merit. As it’s clear that most talented blokes have left due to them having to outsource development for such a large company. In fact many gaming studios need to do this in the realm. Go back to just making games desirable to their respective fans and not trying to interweave modernist ideals of the hour into established IPs. New IPs it’s okay but they always fail which shows there is no organic demand. Anyways I truly don’t feel sorry for Ubisoft as they mismanaged and insulted their paying customers.

@Tasuki it's not better for the staff as at least 30% will be laid off

@Vaako007
I am not sure what DEI modernist culture has to do with anything. I think we are looking at more a state of the industry as a whole.

Personally, I think the problems in most gaming companies has been it has become acceptable to release beta/alpha games on day one and flog them as ready for release. I used to buy games day one, now, I am lucky if I buy a game in year one. I prefer instead to wait til the game patching stabilizes and operates more as a final product.

Also, game pricing is interesting now-a-days. Take Deadrising remaster as an example. It is selling on day one today more than it did on day one when I bought it in 2006! How can a game that was touched up sell for more today than on its original release when they spent years to build the engine and all the assets for the game from scratch?

You can try and blame DEI and stuff like that, but really this comes down to an industry where it was growing, growing, growing and companies were making ridiculous management choices. You go into a regular office and it is cubes, offices, and coffee rooms. No snack bars, no games, no lounges, no fitness rooms, etc. And regular companies watch every cent they spend. In the gaming industry the people were demanding posher and posher work environments. To me, gaming has been living high on the hog for far too long and now reality is coming down on the industry finally. DEI modernist culture may play a part but I think this is a natural adjustment to an industry that lived like kings for too long and now they are paying the price.

I wish Xbox bought Ubisoft and blizzard first

@Vaako007 I agree