
In a complicated corporate move, Ubisoft has announced it’s creating a new subsidiary to house its most important intellectual properties: Assassin’s Creed, Far Cry, and Rainbow Six.
The new company, valued at around €4 billion, will receive a €1.16 billion injection of cash from Chinese giant Tencent, who will gain a 25% stake in the organisation in return.
In a statement, the embattled French firm was effusive about the move, claiming it will “drive further increases in quality of narrative solo experiences, expand multiplayer offerings with increased frequency of content release, introduce free-to-play touchpoints, and integrate more social features”.
But what this means for the remaining parts of Ubisoft – and, perhaps more importantly, its thousands of employees – remains unclear.
Major franchises like The Crew, Just Dance, and Splinter Cell are not moving to the subsidiary, and it’s hard to shake a sense of cynicism about their futures. The company does explicitly mention it’ll continue to work on The Division and Ghost Recon.
But the teams behind Assassin’s Creed, Far Cry, and Rainbow Six, including those in Montreal, Quebec, Sherbrooke, Saguenay, Barcelona, and Sofia, will move to the new subsidiary. The rest will remain where they are.
“Today Ubisoft is opening a new chapter in its history,” boss Yves Guillemot said. “As we accelerate the company’s transformation, this is a foundational step in changing Ubisoft’s operating model that will enable us to be both agile and ambitious.
“We are focused on building strong game ecosystems designed to become evergreen, growing high-performing brands and creating new IPs powered by cutting-edge and emerging technologies.
“With the creation of a dedicated subsidiary that will spearhead development for three of our largest franchises and the onboarding of Tencent as a minority investor, we are crystalising the value of our assets, strengthening our balance sheet, and creating the best conditions for these franchises’ long-term growth and success.
“With its dedicated and autonomous leadership team, it will focus on transforming these three brands into unique ecosystems.”
It’s too early to say where this will all go, but it feels like the writing’s on the wall for the rest of Ubisoft’s properties to us.
For those who haven’t been following this story, the French firm has been struck by several poor performers and drastic stock price drops recently, forcing it to make these seismic changes to its corporate structure.
While the publisher’s certainly sounding bullish in its statement, this move seems designed to shore up its strongest assets, and we’ll simply need to wait and see what that means for the rest of the company and its games.
[source staticctf.ubisoft.com]
Comments 72
My god, they’re actually going ahead with asset stripping their own company due to their failures 😂
They did this so the Guillemots keep the valuable stuff if and when Ubi collapses.
This really looks like they're taking all the valuable stuff and jumping ship.
Tencent must be angered by this move! They own 49% of Ubisoft just for them to split the major IP’s and effectively write off Ubisoft as an entity. If the current ubisoft keep creative control they will also drive this new subsidiary into the ground.
“drive further increases in quality of narrative solo experiences, expand multiplayer offerings with increased frequency of content release, introduce free-to-play touchpoints, and integrate more social features”
Leading with the difficult bit to get it out of the way? Not that I am cynical or anything.
Special edition of Shadows is already discounted at my local store.
A return to form for Ubisoft!
Don’t these CEO types talk absolute corporate garbage.
Hope people keep their jobs.
Assassins Greed.
This is kind what I figured they would do. So for myself it seems like this won't affect myself much since AC and FC are the two main Ubi properties I play.
I am curious what happens to the rest of Ubisoft though.
Absolutely horrible news...
If anything I would have thought Just Dance is a money printer for them and they would want to bank that IP as well. Seems to me the rest of the IP's are up for the taking then? And if any are sold what then happens to their subscription service and the games on the Ubisoft Classics catalogue on Playstation Plus.
Sounds like it's going to be a fire sale on all remaining devs and IP, could go either way tbh, but the prospect of someone actually doing something with Splinter Cell, is enticing. Let's hope Embracer stays away, hopefully they learned their lesson at this point.
So Splinter Cell Rayman Beyond good and evil prince of Persia and everything else is not important then.
Does this now involve a 25% import tariff
If games are sold in the USA.
The world is going crazy 🤪
This is a sad move but was on the cards, no matter how Shadows performed; the Guilllemot family are evil little parasites who are so desperate to cling onto their play toy they’ll let it crumble before relinquishing power.
So, does this mean that Ubisoft will try to sell the remaining properties?
Removed - trolling/baiting
Uh oh 🥺 although to be fair I don't play these games. Worried for the rest of the company though where much if the creativity comes from.
Seems like the best move for the company. Now the question is if Ubi-remnants can succeed without its biggest franchises. And how exactly revenue is split between old-bisoft and new-bisoft...
I also like the timing of this. No doubt grifters will try to say "Shadows bombs, Ubisoft sells biggest franchises to Tencent." Completely ignoring the reality of how long these talks have been ongoing, how likely it is this was already in motion before the game's release, and that they aren't wholly forfeiting their stake in these franchises.
Does it have a name?
So despite all the news how "great" AC Shadows sells it wasn't enough. They had to use this contingency plan of theirs. I agree with the worry about the rest of their IP and company. We'll hear about big layoffs this year I'm sure...
Removed - trolling/baiting
@heavyartillery56 Has nothing to do with Shadows's performance. These deals take months to happen.
@AdamNovice So they knew how badly they messed up. Doesn't exactly paint them in a good light.
@heavyartillery56 Everyone knows that Ubisoft have been struggling. Still doesn't mean that AC Shadows has flopped like you keep suggesting.
What does all this mean for that cloud streaming deal ubisoft signed with Microsoft to enable the Activision deal to go through? Are these changes significant enough that the viability of ubisoft plus and the terms of that agreement need to be reconsidered?
I'm gonna keep it real they did this so fast there is bound to be some illegal things done here
Removed - trolling/baiting
Removed - inappropriate
Several thousand need to start shopping for a new job. Shame
@KawakiisaFraud Why would Ubisoft launch a game on their subscription service and then measure it's success in a way that doesn't take into account people playing it on that subscription service? Don't they want people to subscribe to their subscription service? If not, why did they put one of their biggest games on it?
The mental gymnastics to discount player numbers as a metric of success when the publishers primary strategy is subscriptions- not sales- is ludicrous.
@Wiceheid In a corporate environment, especially one as mismanaged as Ubi has been, the left hand oftentimes doesn't know what the right hand is doing. It only takes a few key out-of-touch individuals in the C-suite to decide that subscription services are the future so someone playing it there is the same as a $70 sale anyway (even though it very obviously isn't in the here and now).
Putting a game they need to sell at full price to save the company's future on the subscription service is exactly the sort of thing modern Ubi does. It's not easy to squander a success story as big as theirs.
In my country this is called "tunneling" and is rewarded with 10-15 years in prison. Hope french laws work similarly...
When is the fire sale on the franchises not moving to this subsidiary?
Ubisoft should get comfortable not owning Ubisoft
@glennthefrog we will know about the sales in the financial report. At the moment anything Ubisoft says are to please shareholders and should be taken with a grain of salt
@glennthefrog Tentpole releases as important to a company as AC Shadows is don't get released on a subscription service as anything other than deliberate strategy. It is on a subscription service, Ubisofts primary goal with this game is to get subscribers. Therefore the only sensible ways to measure the games success should include it's performance with subscribers. Trying to measure the games success without taking subscribers into account is foolish at best, disingenuous and deceptive at worst. I would prefer to see figures like "how many people signed up to [whatever Ubisoft are calling this cursed thing this week] and then played AC shadows before anything else" (that is, how many people subbed for AC Shadows) and the average playtime of subscribers (that is, how long did it hook in and keep the interest of those subscribers). But that sort of info will take a long time to measure. Subscriptions are a long term strategy. By the time Ubisoft have that information, the grifters will have moved on and no one will be talking about AC Shadows anymore.
@Rob_230 These are very good questions!
I'm just glad AC will still be a thing, was really looking forward to the witch theme they teased a while back.
I dont know a huge amount about company law, but how can this even be legal?!
(To clarify, im not saying it isn't, just I dont understand from what we know, how it can be?)
Unless I am missing something, which is very possible, they are asset stripping the money making parts of the business away into a new company, screwing over the current shareholders / employees of the company they are taking it all from.
I could understand if all the shareholders etc retained the same interest level in the new company as they do the old, im not sure thats whats happened is it?
I mean if the board members were selling it to themselves, at a price agreed by themselves as board members, that wouldnt be legal, would it?
@Rich33
We at McDonald's have decided to move properties such as The Big Mac, The Happy Meal, The Mcflurry and the Chicken McNugget to our new holding, leaving the former entity with a cold fillet o' fish that got some Fanta spilled on it.
That's what it kind of seems like. Maybe it is more nuanced. But since the rapid stock decline (who remembers Skull & Bones somehow being made and even declared AAAA) we have known something has been up with the G's trying to make money from their own messes, and at times they were seemingly happy to force the stock to plummet with some absolutely mad decisions.
So they formed a subsidiary of a company with $5billion in assets, but the new company is valued at $4Billion so we know it has the lions share of the assets. It feels like it is mind-blowing that the subsidiary is already worth 4 times as much as the parent company, doesn't it? 😅
I might be looking at it from an overly simplistic perspective, but it sounds like Tencent wanted to raise its share while Ubisoft needed that billion Euro injection quite badly. And that new corporate arrangement was the way to address both wants and needs.
Yes, the old Ubisoft will go down, but it was going to anyway.
@Boxmonkey if Tencent are putting a billion into the new company, they can't be that mad.
My guess would be that this company is 25% owned by Tencent and 75% owned by Ubisoft (as it's still an Ubisoft subsidiary). If that's how it works, Tencent basically own 62.5% of the new company.
In which case maybe Tencent initiated the move, because they don't want to invest a billion into the sinking ship - just the valuable stuff.
Too many blunders for 1 win to save them. With tencent more or less in charge one has to wonder what the publisher will become.
@Ravix
It just sounds odd - we must be missing some of the major details, because I imagine they have a whole bunch of lawyers on it, and it will be subject to intense scrutiny.
I mean as an example, what happens to the subsidiary if the parent company (Ubisoft) goes bust, or is closed down? I would have thought the subsidiary would be sold to the highest bidder to recoup money lost/owed by the parent company.
Maybe it will all 'come out in the wash'!
@MidnightDragonDX
Ive said this above, but then read your comment again after I thought about it, but if Ubisoft collapses as you say, wouldnt the subsidiary be sold to the highest bidder as an asset to cover any money owed?
@Rich33 Maybe, maybe not. I don’t have a crystal ball.
Ubisoft have made plenty of blunders but I would love to know what effect, if any, sub services have on the way the games industry is going. just looking at AC Shadows as an example, you can buy the game for £70 or pay £14.99 and blast through it then cancel your sub.
I get there will be a arguement to be made that more people might try it on the than would buy it, but I can't help but think that subs are just ruining the industry.
Oh dear this sounds like a hot mess.
AC Shadows has zero Modern Day story, zero gods, zero fantasy, and zero interesting bosses.. as beautiful and as well made as this game is - it’s not f$#%ing AC at ALL.. Japan and its culture is super boring and I hope this game sells enough copies so Ubi can bring back OG AC.. I almost fell asleep twice during some dumb mission about drinking tea and ‘proper tea etiquette’.. so boring.. can’t even hunt..
Hope it’s the right move
@Art_Vandelay yes it is that obvious. A bankrupt company needs investors to stay afloat. The investors are taking over the management board. Classical. The next Assassin's Creed will be made by studios selected by stakeholder like Tencent. It doesn't mean that current Ubisoft staff will be layoff, but honestly when you see the talents in Asia for a cheaper cost, I don't see a bright future for french staff.
Shadows could have sold 50M units day 1 and this deal still would have happened.
This probably means Shadows isn't going to reach the sales milestones in time, or at all.
And yes, while this restructuring would happen anyways even if Shadows sold well enough, its the timing and the actors involved in this that say a lot about the situation.
@Areus it’s like they’ve been will fully trying to kill those franchises off. Even Rainbow Six Seige lost its way with its fantasy skins & gadgets. Almost anything they brought out with Tom Clancys name in the last 10 years had nothing to do with Clancy’s characters, writing or semblance of realism.
It reminds me of when COD jumped the shark. There’s nothing quite as immersive as playing a WW2 game & getting fragged by Mickey Mouse.
Bring back Splinter Cell, Rainbow Six (Vegas & the originals), & tactical Ghost Recon.
Wow, really? Why? This site was writing articles 3 times a day about how big of a hit Shadows is, then why would they need a move like this?
Why are the Ubi defenders not happy?
We thought that the company is gone for sure. Now it will continue to exist in some pathetic form for a little longer.
Be happy!
@Zuljaras based on the limited information we have, for me it’s the lesser of 2 evils as the two likely outcomes seemed to be:
Tough choice, neither are good, but I’d rather the former than allow a bunch of investors who mostly will have no interest in creativity just profits to run the company. Tencent has generally been a mostly hands off partner.
And €1.16 billion of investment from Tencent should allow them to keep their head above water and sort some ***** out. There’s no guarantees but I marginally prefer this option to the alternative.
But it’s important to state we also don’t currently have enough details about the deal and what this means for everybody else at Ubisoft / all the other IP to know for sure. It could also be a disaster.
@themightyant Also it means that Ubi do not have any room for future mistakes. They have to play safe.
I expect layoffs or as they call it "restructuring to get out of debt" ...
@Zuljaras I expect that was going to happen regardless they have got too bloated for the amount of money they make back, it’s unsustainable.
Re: playing it safe… perhaps. But €1.16 bn + a lower wage bill will give them more room for manoeuvre than they’ve had lately.
Removed - unconstructive feedback
@DennisReynolds I'm pressing X for doubt.
@RoomWithaMoose
Being rational is boring, it's just no fun to make sense.
Screaming and yelling talking points is what gets ya the desired attention.
Removed - unconstructive feedback
@themightyant At this point would a hostile investor takeover really be the worst outcome though? The Guilemot family has strangled multiple golden geese, there is little reason to believe their management will turn things around.
New management and ownership is most likely to improve the quality of Ubisoft's output and their overall resource management. If current management stays in charge the company will continue to circle the drain.
Removed - flaming/arguing
@AgentCooper ubi hard
@B0udoir Very true. People get passionate about their hobbies and forget that, at the end of the day, it only exists because it's a business that makes a lot of money. And when the business side of things is treated the way Ubisoft has done, reality eventually emerges. We're probably talking about the most bloated company in the gaming business.
@DennisReynolds Neither here nor there. Yes, this kind of deal takes months (even years) and, because of that, it usually includes several triggers.
I know the games media is desperately trying to make you believe that Shadows was a smash hit, but I don't think it's a coincidence that the deal materialized days after the game came out.
LMAO, we all knew numbers of players isn't the same thing as numbers of sales, is just the media trying to desperately defend this "modern audience" game as a mega hit after so many recent "modern audience" flops.
@Toot1st hard for money?
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...