Ubisoft is generally crap, so I'll go with Vivendi. Especially if this eliminates taxpayer funded jobs (through paying Ubisoft to create them) in Quebec.

Kxmode wrote on Feb 26, 2016, 15:30:

Task wrote on Feb 26, 2016, 13:31:
Guyz, isn't Corporatism just great!? Some cutt throat man or woman Corporate a-hole just can't get enough of money.

Vivindi has a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to show growth and profitability by any means necessary within the constraints of law. In the case of "the lesser of two evils" from an investor point of view I would side with Vivindi.

from a consumer point of view i would support maximum diversity in parent companies. consolidating development of titles under fewer roofs strikes me as bad in many ways. competition is supposed to be the central tenet of the sacred organism called capitalism after all.

Kxmode wrote on Feb 26, 2016, 15:38:

InBlack wrote on Feb 26, 2016, 12:55:
Why would Vivendi even attempt this? Ubisoft is definitely NOT Blizzard. Oh well it's their loss (literally)...

Assassin's Creed. Their hedging their bet on the resurgence of films based on video games. They may have the same success as comic books had for comic book films. Owning the publisher behind one of the most popular franchises in video game history is worth a hostile takeover.

The trouble with that s that the history of video game-based movies is littered with some of the worst films ever made, and not just the ones Uwe Boll did.

InBlack wrote on Feb 26, 2016, 12:55:
Why would Vivendi even attempt this? Ubisoft is definitely NOT Blizzard. Oh well it's their loss (literally)...

Assassin's Creed. Their hedging their bet on the resurgence of films based on video games. They may have the same success as comic books had for comic book films. Owning the publisher behind one of the most popular franchises in video game history is worth a hostile takeover.

New corporate directive from Vivendi, "make all games like call of duty"

I mean how hard could it be?

Task wrote on Feb 26, 2016, 13:31:
Guyz, isn't Corporatism just great!? Some cutt throat man or woman Corporate a-hole just can't get enough of money.

Vivindi has a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to show growth and profitability by any means necessary within the constraints of law. In the case of "the lesser of two evils" from an investor point of view I would side with Vivindi.

RavingArmy wrote on Feb 26, 2016, 15:09:

Kxmode wrote on Feb 26, 2016, 11:10:

nin wrote on Feb 26, 2016, 09:37:
I gotta be honest and say I'm not sure who to root for here...the idea of yves being dethroned sure sounds appealing.

In principle you should always choose the lesser of two evils.

Yeah, but which one is the lesser evil?

That's up to you to decide.

This comment was edited on Feb 26, 2016, 15:32.

Kxmode wrote on Feb 26, 2016, 11:10:

nin wrote on Feb 26, 2016, 09:37:
I gotta be honest and say I'm not sure who to root for here...the idea of yves being dethroned sure sounds appealing.

In principle you should always choose the lesser of two evils.

Yeah, but which one is the lesser evil?

Kxmode wrote on Feb 26, 2016, 11:10:

nin wrote on Feb 26, 2016, 09:37:
I gotta be honest and say I'm not sure who to root for here...the idea of yves being dethroned sure sounds appealing.

In principle you should always choose the lesser of two evils.

So if I don't like uPlay I should choose Vivendi?

Guyz, isn't Corporatism just great!? Some cutt throat man or woman Corporate a-hole just can't get enough of money.

The Candian gov't would stop this takeover by declaring it's not in the public and Canada interest. Since the gov't gives alot of assistance to Quebec to avoid separatist movement from gaining momentum they would stop it. Quebec would put additional pressure on the national gov't as well.Unless there was an iron clad guarantee that there would be no job loss, and maybe even more growth this just wouldn't fly.
Vivendi doesn't have any understanding of CDN politics and the gov't wish to keep Quebec happy.

Creston wrote on Feb 26, 2016, 09:48:
Don't want to be a target for a hostile takeover? Don't take your company public.

You went public, you ran the risk. Don't start crying about it now.


It's not as if Ubi will get better with Vivendi at the helm, but hell, they probably wouldn't get much worse either, so whatever. If Quebec is worried about its jobs, let them buy the company.

General: By law you may not have the choice or not to be public. Depends on some internal factors.

Monty Python will now explain what a hostile takeover is all about.

Why would Vivendi even attempt this? Ubisoft is definitely NOT Blizzard. Oh well it's their loss (literally)...

Much as I have no love for Vivendi I have a lot of hate for K-bec who's existence is predicated solely on the exploitation of the rest of Canada's taxpayers for far, far too long now.

nin wrote on Feb 26, 2016, 09:37:
I gotta be honest and say I'm not sure who to root for here...the idea of yves being dethroned sure sounds appealing.

In principle you should always choose the lesser of two evils.

Creston wrote on Feb 26, 2016, 09:48:
Don't want to be a target for a hostile takeover? Don't take your company public.

You went public, you ran the risk. Don't start crying about it now.


It's not as if Ubi will get better with Vivendi at the helm, but hell, they probably wouldn't get much worse either, so whatever. If Quebec is worried about its jobs, let them buy the company.

You can actually still take your company public and retain ownership through a dual share structure. Unfortunately the results aren't always good, you get families hanging onto control for way longer than is beneficial to the company. Bombardier in Canada is a classic example of that, just a shit house company now and shareholders are screwed because the family retains control despite essentially running it into the ground.

Anyways I really don't want to see Vivendi owning the company, they have little to no patience with their IP and have ruined many a good thing through over exposure and greed. Ubisoft is no stranger to that either but at least is conscious of it and makes an effort.

Creston wrote on Feb 26, 2016, 09:48:
Don't want to be a target for a hostile takeover? Don't take your company public.

You went public, you ran the risk. Don't start crying about it now.


It's not as if Ubi will get better with Vivendi at the helm, but hell, they probably wouldn't get much worse either, so whatever. If Quebec is worried about its jobs, let them buy the company.

I have to agree with you Creston, you play the game expect the get overthrown.

The market is not a fair play ground and any investor looking to ruin a company and take its profits will do so.

A great movie or movies to watch are these. Other People's Money. great movie. And Wall street.

This is how the game is played. And I never understood the need for any publisher to take a gaming company public. Too much risk and not enough gain.

Don't want to be a target for a hostile takeover? Don't take your company public.

You went public, you ran the risk. Don't start crying about it now.


It's not as if Ubi will get better with Vivendi at the helm, but hell, they probably wouldn't get much worse either, so whatever. If Quebec is worried about its jobs, let them buy the company.

ldonyo wrote on Feb 26, 2016, 09:42:

nin wrote on Feb 26, 2016, 09:37:
I gotta be honest and say I'm not sure who to root for here...the idea of yves being dethroned sure sounds appealing.

That is a tough call. I can't see Ubi getting any better with Vivendi calling the shots, though.

Zactly!