The Monetization Director at Ubisoft has said industry figures vocalizing their disagreements with Ubisoft revealed themselves as 'clearly non-decent'.
It’s vague enough that it could be people complaining about DEI nonsense, which is stupid, but it could also be about anything from destroying good will with their fans to creating an industry that’s a house of cards responsible for the bubble bursting that we’ve witnessed for the past two years, and I could see game developers railing against their own if it’s for something they perceive to be destroying their industry. Like, this guy is a monetization director; I could absolutely see developers railing against manipulative monetization practices like loot boxes. But again, the statement is so vague and presented without context that it could be anything. The twitter account that linked it would absolutely be motivated to have people hound them about Yasuke and then say, “See?! They blame us innocent gamers for hate even though Ubisoft is obviously bad!”
Their statement, in my opinion, is comparing two perspectives. The first thinks that Ubisoft has failed their customers and they should fail as a company for it, as punishment. The second perspective thinks Ubisoft has failed their customers and they should revise their business model so it aligns again with the public.
They are saying the first perspective is toxic, and won’t fix any problems. People can and do change constantly. The position of monetization director isn’t going anywhere, although it might be renamed. We should allow people the room to receive feedback and improve. Ubisoft is well positioned to reassess and get back to making games people want to buy.
Also, if Ubisoft literally goes bankrupt, does anyone realize how many developers will be out of work?
I listen to Jeff Grubb’s daily news podcast, and when some toxicity came up around Ubisoft recently, he mentioned that maybe not everyone feels that way, but they don’t have anyone who feels so positively about Ubisoft that they’re about to jump to their defense either, and I think that tracks. Me, personally: Is it worth openly hating and spewing vitriol at Ubisoft? No. Do I hope they fail? Yes. Do I realize how many people would be out of a job as a result? Yes. Do I feel good about that? No. Do I want products that I perceive as “bad” to succeed in the market? No. Similarly, it sucks that the talented folks at Crystal Dynamics were set to work on Avengers and that the talented folks at Rocksteady were put to work on Suicide Squad, but I’m proud of the market for not supporting that garbage, and there are positive consequences to that that affect what gets made in the future.
I agree with most of it except for what you think the punishment should be for making bad games. Why do they need to go out of business? Why can’t they lose a ton of money on multiple games in a row, and then restructure and change the company dynamic? Is it just a disbelief its possible? Perhaps they will never earn your trust back no matter what?
They spent all their time and money putting their eggs in so few baskets that I doubt they could survive even a handful of flops. If they survived long enough to pivot, that would be a-okay by me, but I doubt that timeline exists.
If you’re a public company and want to go private, you have to offer a buyback price for the outstanding shares, yes. It’s easier to do when the stock is low. Or you can blow a fortune on it like Musk buying Twitter.
It’s vague enough that it could be people complaining about DEI nonsense, which is stupid, but it could also be about anything from destroying good will with their fans to creating an industry that’s a house of cards responsible for the bubble bursting that we’ve witnessed for the past two years, and I could see game developers railing against their own if it’s for something they perceive to be destroying their industry. Like, this guy is a monetization director; I could absolutely see developers railing against manipulative monetization practices like loot boxes. But again, the statement is so vague and presented without context that it could be anything. The twitter account that linked it would absolutely be motivated to have people hound them about Yasuke and then say, “See?! They blame us innocent gamers for hate even though Ubisoft is obviously bad!”
Their statement, in my opinion, is comparing two perspectives. The first thinks that Ubisoft has failed their customers and they should fail as a company for it, as punishment. The second perspective thinks Ubisoft has failed their customers and they should revise their business model so it aligns again with the public.
They are saying the first perspective is toxic, and won’t fix any problems. People can and do change constantly. The position of monetization director isn’t going anywhere, although it might be renamed. We should allow people the room to receive feedback and improve. Ubisoft is well positioned to reassess and get back to making games people want to buy.
Also, if Ubisoft literally goes bankrupt, does anyone realize how many developers will be out of work?
I listen to Jeff Grubb’s daily news podcast, and when some toxicity came up around Ubisoft recently, he mentioned that maybe not everyone feels that way, but they don’t have anyone who feels so positively about Ubisoft that they’re about to jump to their defense either, and I think that tracks. Me, personally: Is it worth openly hating and spewing vitriol at Ubisoft? No. Do I hope they fail? Yes. Do I realize how many people would be out of a job as a result? Yes. Do I feel good about that? No. Do I want products that I perceive as “bad” to succeed in the market? No. Similarly, it sucks that the talented folks at Crystal Dynamics were set to work on Avengers and that the talented folks at Rocksteady were put to work on Suicide Squad, but I’m proud of the market for not supporting that garbage, and there are positive consequences to that that affect what gets made in the future.
I agree with most of it except for what you think the punishment should be for making bad games. Why do they need to go out of business? Why can’t they lose a ton of money on multiple games in a row, and then restructure and change the company dynamic? Is it just a disbelief its possible? Perhaps they will never earn your trust back no matter what?
They spent all their time and money putting their eggs in so few baskets that I doubt they could survive even a handful of flops. If they survived long enough to pivot, that would be a-okay by me, but I doubt that timeline exists.
Interesting, I don’t know I have considered they might go out of business in a matter of months. Their stock has tanked pretty bad already.
That’s their opportunity to go private for cheap. But if they do, I doubt that results in them realizing what they’ve done wrong.
Going private means buying back all the stock?
If you’re a public company and want to go private, you have to offer a buyback price for the outstanding shares, yes. It’s easier to do when the stock is low. Or you can blow a fortune on it like Musk buying Twitter.