• 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.

Vivendi now owns 25.15% of Ubisoft (nearing 30% hostile takeover point)

I am scratching my head wondering who in the world could partner and save them.

Console holders could but making their huge portfolio exclusive is probably not the best move. Can't think of many publishers that could afford to take on another, though Activision-Blizzard is a thing I guess. Maybe 2K, maybe. Or Tencent.
 
While it was different management at the helm during that time, wasn't Vivendi (through Universal Interactive Games) also responsible for running Crash and Spyro into the ground after they went third party? Especially the latter series, when Enter The Dragonfly was Christmas rushed to release.
 
Sensationalist headlines aside - to me this is what it comes down to. If Ubisoft doesn't want to work with Vivendi, it's unfortunate that it's being forced into it. And if the constant buying of Ubisoft shares by Vivendi makes Ubisoft employees feel uncertain about their future just for the sake of pleasing the top executives of Vivendi, I feel bad for them that this is happening.
 
Even though I have a near universal dislike for Ubisoft games, nothing is likely going to improve under Vivendi. That said, the people talking about Vivendi buying out Ubisoft to sell its assets for debt-coverage aren't making much sense.
 
Nintendo should just pony up a couple of billion and buy a majority stake. They've always worked pretty well together and adding Ubi's portfolio as exclusives would give the Switch an immeasurable boost.

Nintendo can't justify taking on all of Ubisoft's studios and employees. But if/when this takeover happens and Vivendi starts hurling away talent, there might be an opportunity for Nintendo to acquire a studio led by former Ubi employees.
 

ZangBa

Member
So... let's get that Blood Dragon sequel rolling before this happens, Ubisoft. It's the only good game I've played from you guys, come on.
 

Mael

Member
How likely is it that we might finally see another Prince of Persia as a result of this?

None?
IIRC they dropped Prince of Persia because they had to pay royalties so they made something similar with AC that they fully owned and now they can make endless sequels without having to bother with any rights issue at all.
That or they settled the royalties issues but noone gives a shit about PoP anymore.
 

KillySG10

Neo Member
Anyone else get that sinking feeling like Beyond Good and Evil 2 would get cancelled should Vivendi take over? I mean, Ancel tends to praise Ubi a lot, i could see him quitting in protest should a hostile takeover occur, essentially throwing BG&E2 back into uncertainty.
 

Kaisos

Member
Ubisoft is already a company known for annualized garbage and AAA shlock, the occasional risky game aside. The new BG&E looks to be generic as hell, and they haven't done anything with UbiArt Framework in years, so from my point of view I somehow doubt that much will change under new direction.
 
Ubisoft is already a company known for annualized garbage and AAA shlock, the occasional risky game aside. The new BG&E looks to be generic as hell, and they haven't done anything with UbiArt Framework in years, so from my point of view I somehow doubt that much will change under new direction.

What games is annualised besides Just Dance?
 

EvB

Member
I am not sure how Ubisoft will survive being taken over by a giant corporation, forcing them to focus on profits, outsourcing everything and putting out yearly sequels. I guess a lot of their employees will be quite alienated.

You aren't sure how Ubisoft will survive by being forced to become profitable?!


Can't wait for ActiBlizzubi to be a thing
 

PtM

Banned
http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/vivendi-increases-stake-in-ubisoft-to-over-25/0176488
However, despite Vivendi claiming its disinterest in buying Ubisoft, the company then went on to say in the same press release that it was also “considering continuing to acquire shares depending on market conditions” under the next six months, and that it will continue “to seek a recomposition of the Ubisoft Board of Directors in order to, among other things, obtain Board representation consistent with its shareholder position.”
Sounds like they're putting the gun on Ubi's chest.
 
Good. They make boring games. It certainly can't make things worse.

I swear to god, it's both amazing and frustrating to see such uncritical thought on a forum ostensibly populated by gaming enthusiasts.

Whatever the case, you might want to look up how iTélé faired under Vivendi
 
I swear to god, it's both amazing and frustrating to see such uncritical thought on a forum ostensibly populated by gaming enthusiasts.

Whatever the case, you might want to look up how iTélé faired under Vivendi

Its posts like those that I'd expect from something like twitch chat. Baseless drive by, void of any actual constructive criticism and adds literally nothing to the discussion at hand.
 

AgeEighty

Member
This sucks, and I don't approve of hostile takeovers in general. But if the Guillemont family wanted to retain control of the company, they shouldn't have gone public. Or at the very least they should have retained a bigger share. When you go for that big payday you run the risk that someone will buy up more shares than you own.
 
The value of these franchise is in them being multi platform. The moment you make these franchises exclusives you will likely start losing money. It is not a sustainable business model.

Depends on how many people would consider buying the hardware these games are exclusive too. Assassins Creed, Watch Dogs, BG2, Rayman exclusively on Switch or Scorpio could attract some people. And Ubisoft has some real good development teams (that obviously get to less time for their games).
 

vaporeon

Member
I don't think Nintendo has enough capital to "help" out Ubisoft like some are discussing. Don't think their board would approve of that kind of thing anyway.
If there are any possibilities of someone trying to help out Ubisoft, I could see Microsoft or Sony as potential suitors.

As a former employee of a company that Vivendi assimilated into its collective, our studio was closed down as part of our CEO's defense strategy.

I think I have a unique perspective on all this:

They are all as bad as each other. Neither the Guillermot's nor the Vivendi higher ups give a flying shit about video games, its all one big pissing contest.

I kind of agree with this. The Guillemot brothers are not giving up Ubisoft without a fight, not because they love video games or whatnot, but because they love the family empire they built first and foremost.
 
Maybe leave France? Sounds like that CEO is only interested because it's HQ'd in France. I mean it would cost a lot of money, but if the choice is keep the company, or leave France, than it doesn't seem like much of a choice. It's probably too late now though.
 
I don't think Nintendo has enough capital to "help" out Ubisoft like some are discussing. Don't think their board would approve of that kind of thing anyway.
If there are any possibilities of someone trying to help out Ubisoft, I could see Microsoft or Sony as potential suitors.



I kind of agree with this. The Guillemot brothers are not giving up Ubisoft without a fight, not because they love video games or whatnot, but because they love the family empire they built first and foremost.

Nintendo doesn't have enough capital but Sony does? Not that I expect Nintendo to be interested, but how is Sony in a better position regarding capital than Nintendo?
 

vaporeon

Member
Nintendo doesn't have enough capital but Sony does? Not that I expect Nintendo to be interested, but how is Sony in a better position regarding capital than Nintendo?
Sony's got about double in liquid capital (cash, investments) than Nintendo does. The former sports a beefier balance sheet, allowing the corporation to draw more on its credit line for a prime interest rate. Sony has been seeing rising net cash flows, and as of FY16 it sports 15x more than what Nintendo has in its cash flows...AND Nintendo only recently has been having *positive* cash flows.
I probably should have rephrased my original sentence better, haha. Nintendo could probably shell out the money if they wanted to, but I think Sony could shell out more.
 
How likely is it that we might finally see another Prince of Persia as a result of this?

I think the chances of that happening are near zero, regardless of Vivendi's involvement or not.

Anyone else get that sinking feeling like Beyond Good and Evil 2 would get cancelled should Vivendi take over? I mean, Ancel tends to praise Ubi a lot, i could see him quitting in protest should a hostile takeover occur, essentially throwing BG&E2 back into uncertainty.

Titles like BG&E2 would unquestionably be cancelled, as it's an expensive passion project which has been in and out of development for several years and unless the stars align it's unlikely to sell more than a couple of million copies.

Wasn't preventing stuff like this probably the reason Activision-Blizzard merged? Hmm.

I think Activision merged with Vivendi back in 2007 (I think?) because Vivendi became the majority shareholder. Then after merging and becoming known as AcitBlizz they were able to buy independence back several years later when Vivendi needed the money for another acquisition.

If Ubi goes under where will I get my open world collectathons?

That's what they'll double-down on. Many IPs will go in the bin and we'll get annualised Far Cry, Watch Dogs, Ass Creed, Tom Clancy, etc.

Ubisoft is already a company known for annualized garbage and AAA shlock, the occasional risky game aside. The new BG&E looks to be generic as hell, and they haven't done anything with UbiArt Framework in years, so from my point of view I somehow doubt that much will change under new direction.
Good. They make boring games. It certainly can't make things worse.

It certainly can make things worse if everything smaller or creative like Child of Light, Valiant Hearts, Rayman, Blood Dragon, ZombiU, Grow Home, Call of Juarez: Gunslinger, Steep, Trackmania, etc gets shitcanned, as it most likely would under Vivendi. It's fine to not like them (I don't really either), but it's ignorant to pretend that they're not one of the better publishers both at launching new IP and supporting quirky smaller games.

Maybe leave France? Sounds like that CEO is only interested because it's HQ'd in France. I mean it would cost a lot of money, but if the choice is keep the company, or leave France, than it doesn't seem like much of a choice. It's probably too late now though.

That seems impractical and horrendously expensive for something which may not even work. Plus, they would need to do it within a few months (I'd guess for a company of their size with contracts and tenancies in place that would be basically impossible), and it would need to be enough of a turn-off for Vivendi to then back off - after all, they could always complete the acquisition and then move the head office back to France.

I don't think Nintendo has enough capital to "help" out Ubisoft like some are discussing. Don't think their board would approve of that kind of thing anyway.

If there are any possibilities of someone trying to help out Ubisoft, I could see Microsoft or Sony as potential suitors.

I think Nintendo would have enough money, but as I recall Ubi is about twice the size of Ninty and they wouldn't want to grow the company that much, that fast. Plus, they don't seem especially keen on acquisitions so I doubt the entire idea would particularly appeal.

Sony's got about double in liquid capital (cash, investments) than Nintendo does. The former sports a beefier balance sheet, allowing the corporation to draw more on its credit line for a prime interest rate. Sony has been seeing rising net cash flows, and as of FY16 it sports 15x more than what Nintendo has in its cash flows...AND Nintendo only recently has been having *positive* cash flows.
I probably should have rephrased my original sentence better, haha. Nintendo could probably shell out the money if they wanted to, but I think Sony could shell out more.

I don't think Phil Spencer could get approval for a couple of billion dollars for this kind of buyout, and Sony has worked hard to trim the fat in recent years, so I don't think they would want to add Ubi's 9000 employees to their payroll just after Kaz Hirai has worked so hard to turn the business around and make them profitable.

The other option I guess is one of the big three buying some shares in Ubi in order to allow the Guillemots + Nintendo (for example) to retain above 50% shares to ensure Vivendi cannot get control of the company. And then in exchange Ubi develops like 10 exclusives for that hardware manufacturer! Is that what 'white knighting' is? Again, I don't really see it happening as in theory none of the big three will lose much even if Vivendi take over, but it's more likely than an outright acquisition.
 

Patryn

Member
I don't get it, don't most companies protect themselves from such a contingency? It seems foolish for any big company that's publicly traded to just be taken over by any large conglomerate.

What stops Vivendi from just controlling shares to any random game developer on the market?
Money? Vivendi is paying a lot for Ubisoft and money is a finite resource.
 
Will never understand this toxic ass mindset. Dude's pouring their life into creating art that you don't enjoy? "Fuck them I hope their company gets taken over!" Blows my mind.

I've only read to page 3, but I have yet to see someone explain why "hostile takeovers" are bad.

Most of us can readily associate franchises with Ubisoft but not Vivendi, so perhaps it would make more sense to us outsiders (such as myself who vomits a little every time I have to use Uplay and Steam) why this would be bad.

Just sounds like business as usual.

Edit: the fear seems to be a lot of creative freedom being negatedin favor of making money. Sounds like the trend of AAA. There is always the indie option.
 
Top Bottom