Topic: Do you think Microsoft should buy Ubisoft?

Ubisoft has a lot of financial problems, so their stock is very cheap at the moment. Do you think that Microsoft should buy them? Ubisoft has a lot of popular franchises like Assassin Creed, Far Cry, Tom Clancy etc and they also are making a lot of licensed games like Avatar or Star Wars. They seem to have a huge management problem with a lot of delays, internal tension among their studios, bad timing and budgeting, and a lot of cancelled games that hurt their profits. The excutives of Ubisoft have said that they are willing sell the company for aqcuisition.

Ubisoft has 40 studios and 19.000 employees. It's a true powerhouse that can boost XBOX and gamepass' content. XBOX has already 40 studios if you combine all the Bethesda/Activision Blizzard workforce along with the xbox studios. Having Ubisoft, the XBOX could be a true giant with over 80 studios and almost 40.000 manpower. XBOX will have enough content to support game pass for the whole year. Also, I believe that Phil Spencer can solve the management problem on Ubisoft, and make them produce better game in the future.

sure why not. ubisoft has been stale for almost a decade now

yeah, Ubisoft has poor management and working conditions. However, I think Spencer can change the management and improve working conditions to the better.

There is no way the FCC and the like would allow this after everything that went around with Activision/blizzard. Ubi is just way too big of an aquisition. And of top of that is an open fire nowadays lol

I would have much rathered had saw MS buy Ubisoft and SEGA to Activision myself

There’s no chance.

It’s far too big of a company. It just wouldn’t pass the merger.

Not to mention that Ubisoft has the cloud gaming rights for ABK stuff, so that would be a legal nightmare.

Plus MS don’t actually need it. 40studios is enough to put 8 first party games on GPU a year (assuming a fair 5 year development period). And 19000 is a hell of a lot more people to bring into a company even MS size again.

MS need to manage their studio output better, better QA and so on. They would be fine then.

Had they not bought ABK, I think Ubisoft would have been an 'Alternative' option but I can't see MS buying Ubisoft as it exists 'now' because it would prove a Legal nightmare with numerous legislative bodies likely to block it - especially as Ubisoft and MS came to an agreement over Cloud rights in the UK.

At best, they could buy IP's or individual studios from Ubisoft - much in the same way other companies have recently bought/sold IP's and Studio's as these would not come under the same scrutiny. There is quite a big difference between buying a Privately owned business and a Publicly owned company with Shareholders.

Unless a deal comes up to good to pass up for a Studio and/or its IP's, I would agree that MS need to integrate what they have better into their company. ABK with more staff than the rest of 'Xbox' (inc the Zenimax group) combined only joined 5months ago and seemed in a complete mess. All 'Activision' Studio's tied up in grinding out annual CoD releases and Blizzard not exactly making a lot of games either. All those studio's with very little 'product'.

As a customer, I feel I'm still waiting for the games these acquisitions 'promise'. Still waiting for the games those Studio's bought in 2018 to arrive - State of Decay 3 (undead Labs), Hellblade 2 (Ninja Theory), Perfect Dark (The Initiative) etc so I don't really think MS 'needs' more Studio's, just needs to get all their Studio's organised and integrated into MS and delivering on the Games...

Absolutely not.

Microsoft should forget about acquisitions for the time being and invest in the IP and studios they have now with a strategy of:

1) Expanding poorly-represented genres on Xbox consoles, instead of competing directly with the most popular third-party titles.

2) Expanding their library of games with local multiplayer to better promote the Xbox Series S as a "family" or "party" machine, and abandoning the strategy of promoting the Xbox Series S as a "poor man's console".

3) Reducing the priority of niche, AAA third-party games for day one releases on Game Pass, and instead investing further in third-party indie titles for Game Pass as a means of complimenting well-made first-party AAA titles, in addition to AAA third-party games released a year ago or more.

4) Licensing unused or dormant IP under Microsoft's ownership to third-party studios for release on Xbox platforms, eg: Star Control, Gun, The Lost Vikings, Spyro the Dragon, Banjo Kazooie, etc.

I agree they need to sort out their crap PR and really start to spend some money on proper TV spots and also it be nice if more use was made of the BC team to bring more OG Xbox games over

Or they can actually use the talent they already have but apparently that's too much to ask, just consolidate even more.

I honestly don’t think they should buy Ubisoft or any other game studio for that matter, especially after we saw all the trouble and scrutiny the FTC gave Microsoft when they were finalizing their purchase of Activision-Blizzard over an endless amount of months, but I know they still are going to continue buying studios like they always do and hoping something sticks to the wall. I’m not even trying to be anti-Xbox or an advocate for “console wars” or anything; I just feel that their strategy of buying already established companies is a bad one, since they do little with the companies they owned before the Activision acquisition.

To me, it feels that now their goal is to buy popular, pre-existing IPs and franchises to stay relevant instead of trying to make original works. And what makes this worse is that they DO own the rights to popular IPs but don’t license them out to companies or teams, which results in a bunch of their IPs staying dormant and only really getting merch drops or occasional acknowledgement, though I do think Microsoft said a few years ago that they don’t force any of their studios into making games they don’t want to make, which I do think is a good and allows for them to make creative and new games, but if any of their studios don’t want to make games using the mountain of IP they own, why not give it to a couple third-party or second-party studios that are willing to develop new entries, show an interest in it, or have the skills and experience to show that they can make great games with those IPs? I think a mix of original IPs and older IPs could help appeal to almost every type of gamer, but I’m so doubtful they would bother with that idea.

@Pastellioli

They're entirely against putting in actual effort it seems and just want to buy up the industry, sadly regulators are just allowing it.

I stand by that none of the console manufacturers should be allowed to buy publishers and would feel the same if those ridiculous Sony buys Square Enix rumours actually happened.

@Pastellioli Flight Sim is one of the oldest gaming IP's and made by a '3rd party' as was Forza Horizon (until 2018 when Playground became 1st Party), Age of Empires, Crackdown etc.

In 2017, MS owned Rare (Sea of Thieves), 343 (Halo), the Coalition (Gears), Turn 10 (Forza) and Mojang (Minecraft). That was their entire 1st Party Studio line-up. From 2018, they have built up their 'portfolio' of both Studio's and IP's to be in a position to 'compete' with other 'big' Gaming Producers - and by producers, I don't mean just those with their 'own' platform like Sony or MS. With the purchase of ABK, that really only gives them as many IP's as Sony in their library.

People talk about the 360 gen - but games like Mass Effect, Oblivion, BioShock etc that 'helped' the console all ended up on PS too. Call of Duty became the juggernaut it is thanks to MS and Xbox 360. Gears wasn't a MS 'owned' IP - it was owned by Epic until they decided to sell it to MS.

In 2018, MS added more studios - inc Ninja Theory (Hellblade, Enslaved), undead Labs (State of Decay), Compulsion (We Happy Few, South of Midnight), Playground (Forza Horizon, Fable), the initiative (newly created Studio - Perfect Dark), inXile (Wasteland, Clockwork Revolution), Obsidian (Grounded, Avowed) and Double Fine (Brutal Legend, Psychonauts). In March 2021, MS added Zenimax (Bethesda, Tango, id Software, MachineGames, Arkane etc) and then added ABK in October 2023 (where most Activision Studios are only working on CoD). Zemimax has been part of MS for just 3yrs (with their first 2 releases PS5 'timed' exclusives - Deathloop & Ghostwire) and ABK much less than a year.

Just based on what we 'know' about in terms of games in development - MS has 'new' IP's coming - the likes of Clockwork Revolution, Avowed etc as well as the 'return' of some old IP's - the likes of Fable, Perfect Dark etc and even a 'licensed' Indiana Jones game is coming

So to me, I see a mix of Original IP's and the return of a 'older' IPs from these - and I'm sure they'd license an IP to the right '3rd party' Studio if they had a 'great' idea to build a game using that IP. I'm sure that if MS thought an idea would suit a 'dormant' IP or a studio is struggling, these old IP's may inspire or 'focus' the team.

Anyway, with games taking a lot longer these days to make and get out, as well as many of these Studios/IP's only being owned for months to a few years at most, its perhaps too 'early' to expect a plethora of their 'old' as well as 'new' IPs. That being said, the likes of Fable, Perfect Dark, Clockwork Revolution, Avowed, Indiana Jones, Hellblade 2, Flight Sim 24 etc are coming - a mix of old/new IP's

@BAMozzy You are right. I think I am maybe expecting a little too much when it comes to them having a mix of “old” and “new” IPs and I didn’t really see initially that their upcoming game lineup does include some new IP and a couple old IP. I probably should be patient with the new projects they have in development (both announced and behind closed doors) since we all know that game development has become harder than ever and game developers always get so much flack from people. There was a news story last year talking about the development of the upcoming Perfect Dark that was revealed a couple years ago, and the article said that the game was going through multiple troubles (e.g. developers leaving and creative differences) that have been slowing the game’s development cycle, and it’s very unfortunate to hear what the developers are going through. If I can remember, Microsoft said a few years ago that they were planning on using more of Rare’s old IP and there were talks of reviving dormant Activision IPs before the purchase was finalized, so this could be just the beginning. Hopefully things do pan out well for all the development teams and studios at Microsoft.

Also, I never even knew Flight Sim and Forza Horizon were initially by third-party studios! Thank you for telling me that.

@BAMozzy I see! Thanks for enlightening me. Your comments are helping me understand the situation more. It, of course, does take progress and time for change. Hopefully, now that Microsoft owns Activision, the subsidiaries the latter forced to develop CoD are eventually able to develop games that they want to make once positive changes in management come and when their “obligations” are fulfilled. I keep on forgetting that a lot of Microsoft’s game studios aren’t idle and are working on projects already; we just haven’t seen them yet or they are still deep in development, with the teams attached taking time working, which is good and is better than rushing development and releasing something half-baked in the end. Some like to complain or say that some of Microsoft’s studios, like Rare, are “idle” or aren’t really doing anything (likely because of how they appear to only release games every few years). However, in relation to Rare, they are still working on updates for Sea of Thieves and making Everwild. I do know now that a lot of their teams are making new works, and I am excited to see their projects over the years as they are revealed! It’s just a matter of waiting patiently.

Also, I do agree that Activision’s current choices are from being money-hungry rather than actually innovating or being creative. Overwatch 2 was still fun gameplay-wise, but I sort of felt like it was just a rehash and didn’t do much to improve upon the original game, and I am sure that the leading director leaving was a factor in the poor decisions made. Not to mention the introduction of that awful battle pass and locking instant access to newer characters behind a paywall for non-paying gamers (unless you wanted to grind REALLY hard for it), but I have heard they are now going to make the characters free for all, which, in my opinion, took way long and the paywall shouldn’t have been there in the first place. Despite that, I’ve dropped the game since then and have no intentions to return.

no, we didn't get much from the abk deal on game pass.

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.