UBIsoft in potential financial trouble
- Thread starter Silent_Buddha
- Start date
I believe how it works is that if, say, Geforce Now wants to Stream COD, they have to negotiate a deal with Ubisoft. I sort of called this out as bullshit from the get go, because the deal wasn't, in my understanding, free. So Ubisoft had to pay for these rights, and assuming Xbox is going to allow Gamepass Ultimate users to stream COD, they would have to license those rights back. But the rights for a single platform must be worth less than the rights for every platform, so Microsoft essentially got a large payout from Ubi, and then paid them a smaller amount for the non-exclusive rights back, meaning they got paid for having the streaming rights to be non-exclusive, and it sounds like they were willing to do that for free to get the deal through.
Do we really think video games would be better without Ubisoft producing games?
I can't predict whether it would be better, but it's certainly hard to imagine how it could be worse.
Assuming they aren't sold wholesale, they would likely sell their IP and become a company in name only. Can you think of a company that would be a better steward of their franchises? Would you want them to be controlled by a platform producer like Sony of Microsoft, or the only other really big publisher, EA? Maybe EA would finally make a Splinter Cell game, but would they make a good one?
Also, I don't think their games are bad. Neither does Metacritic
Sure, no "greats" last year, but no "bads" either. There should be a space in any industry for good to be enough, especially when Ubisoft are producing some of their best games in their genres. Just Dance, for example, is probably the best game for the genre it's in, just held back by the fact that it isn't anything new over last year except the songs. But really, that's what the game is every year. New songs to dance to. And I can't think of a dancing game that's better than it.
Would other companies do better? Maybe, maybe not. It's unlikely to be any worse. There is no company putting out games of similar budget that aren't at least as good. The way I see it, it's a freeroll. Maybe we just get more of the same, or in some cases nothing at all. Nothing is lost in that case.
In that Metacritic list, they are the lowest ranked company that produces AAA games.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 2197
Guest
Private Equity Firm issues letter to Stockholders to buy Ubisoft
TAKE UBISOFT PRIVATE OR ALLOW IT TO SELL IT TO STRATEGIC INVESTOR
TAKE UBISOFT PRIVATE OR ALLOW IT TO SELL IT TO STRATEGIC INVESTOR
Take 2 is #25 and Bandai Namco is #27, but Ubisoft is #23.
Is take 2 comparable? They own companies who publish and develop their own titles. I’m not certain they have any actual involvement. And even then, only Rockstar makes AAA games. Rockstar games are dramatically better than anything Ubisoft could ever dream of producing.
What AAA games does Bandai Namco make? I would say From Software games are the highest budget but still fall in A category at best. They are also vastly better than Ubisoft games.
Isn't Tekken a AAA fighting game and aren't the 2K sports games AAA sports games? Beyond Tekken, perhaps I'm giving Namco a pass because of their rich history and previous success. But 2K has Borderlands, Bioshock, Mafia, Xcom and Civilization, plus all of the Rockstar stuff (GTA, Red Dead, Max Payne). Bioshock Infinite had a $100 million budget. They would be AAA without GTA.
I don’t consider sports or fighting games AAA. Their budgets are clearly quite small. 2k hasn’t been making AAA games for quite some time now. As costs have increased many studios have dropped down to smaller budget games. There aren’t many companies left who are willing to spend that much. Of those that are, preferences aside, the case for Ubisoft being the worst is very strong.
2K's NBA license cost over a billion dollars. I don't believe this includes NBAPA, stadium rights, or the NIL of the sportscasters. Plus, the development of the games costs money.
That has nothing to do with development though. Would a HD version of NBA Jam be considered AAA because it falls under the billion dollar NBA license? Sports games are little more than a minorly changed re-release of the same game with updated rosters year after year. Every 5-8 years you will get a decent bump to some aspects of the technology. How much money are they really spending on these games when development is a year at most? This same studio also releases a WWE game every year.
Well good on Sony for including an indie game like NBA 2K25 in a console bundle. Hopefully it puts 2K on the map.
Frenetic Pony
Veteran
Now worth less than 2 Billion, play the funeral dirge. Don't know why they're not snapped up, surely the IP and back catalog and such are worth a billion.
arandomguy
Veteran
I believe it could be complicated as the French government would likely be involved and against any foreign takeover as well any takeover that could significantly negatively affect employment.
Also I'm not sure just how valuable IP and back catalog's by themselves are really worth. At least off impression they don't seem to be worth that much (relatively speaking) or have proven value after the fact. You'd also likely have to take on existing liabilities as well.
Also I'm not sure just how valuable IP and back catalog's by themselves are really worth. At least off impression they don't seem to be worth that much (relatively speaking) or have proven value after the fact. You'd also likely have to take on existing liabilities as well.
Everything many of us have been fearing. DEI ideology is killing creativity in Ubisoft (and western) games and that's directly coming from developers.
The thing I don't get is, if they think that's what the public wants, it should reflect in better sales and commerce. If trying an ideology across your product range results in worse sales, it's not what the public wants, at which point you should likely abandon it. Unless the intention is to try to change society and being willing to sacrifice the company to do so?