Ubisoft: We Can Beat EA, Activision

April 8, 2011 -

Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot claims that his company has what it takes to overtake EA and Activision at some point in the future to become the world's leading publisher. Speaking to MCV, Guillemot said EA's decision to sell its stake in Ubisoft has left the company in a stronger position to grow its business.

"When they left it changed lots of things for us. We had a competitor owning a share of the company and we were always wary that they could decide they would go for the company - and that wouldn't have been welcome," Guillemot said. "The problem is that when you have the number one player in your company, you can't buy another company that would be in conflict with them or their strategy.

"So now we are totally independent again, we feel a lot better, we are number three and our goal is to beat those guys, EA and Activision, at some point. We got from number 25 to number three, so we think that we can continue and that it is possible to be number one. It's not certain, but we are taking the steps that we think will get us there."

Ubisoft is certainly a stronger company than it was even a few years ago, but it's debatable that it could overtake EA or Activision. EA has Madden, Tiger Woods, The Sims and countless best selling franchises. Activision has Call of Duty, Starcraft and World of Warcraft. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that both companies are tough to beat.

Source: MCV by way of C&VG


Comments

Re: Ubisoft: We Can Beat EA, Activision

Yes development houses need to protect their software. However Ubi implemented their DRM while thumbing their noses at their paying customers.

Thats not how you do it Ubi. How do you do it? I'm not sure yet, but I know you don't do it the way you did Ubi.

Re: Ubisoft: We Can Beat EA, Activision

Not with your BS DRM, Ubi.

Re: Ubisoft: We Can Beat EA, Activision

they won't overtake anyone with the shovelware they're pushing and that always on DRM.

without the financial backing they had, i bet they begin to fall fast given the way they'll milk every top name they have on below quality games.

Re: Ubisoft: We Can Beat EA, Activision

I dunno, they have a couple of excellent franchises on their side, as well.

Assassin's Creed, Tom Clancy, and Just Dance come to mind right away, while Michael Jackson: The Experience is selling like hotcakes on the Wii alone. No telling what's going to happen when it releases on the PS3 and Xbox next week.

And about the always-on DRM... Meh. Gotta protect your stuff somehow. It's annoying and mostly useless, yes. But better than nothing.

If you can think of a way to guarantee against piracy, while providing zero inconvenience to the people who buy your product... Well, that idea will make you a very rich individual.

"Power means nothing without honor and pride."

http://grifsgamereviews.blogspot.com My video game review site.

Re: Ubisoft: We Can Beat EA, Activision

"If you can think of a way to guarantee against piracy, while providing zero inconvenience to the people who buy your product... Well, that idea will make you a very rich individual."

This is all assuming that piracy is the problem and not a symptom of a larger problem.

-Greevar

-Greevar

"Paste superficially profound, but utterly meaningless quotation here."

Re: Ubisoft: We Can Beat EA, Activision

Considering piracy and other copyright infringement is the main reason for the existence of DRM in the first place, yeah, I'd say it's the problem.

I don't see how piracy can be a symptom, let alone what a larger problem would entail, but I'm sure you'd love to enlighten me.

"Power means nothing without honor and pride."

http://grifsgamereviews.blogspot.com My video game review site.

Re: Ubisoft: We Can Beat EA, Activision

piracy itself is both a problem and a symptom.

in its original form its the problem, but when the companies throw down impossible or just BS copyright protection it becomes a symptom as the consumers begin to rebel against this over zealous and often annoying block of their legitimate rights to the product that was purchased.

hence the debate on the ownership of a game/program, and how officially we only "lease" them rather than actually purchase.

so basically its a symptom of its own creation by the companies attempts to stop it.

Re: Ubisoft: We Can Beat EA, Activision

Getting pretty off topic here, but we have never been able to 'own' a game that you fork out money for over the counter of a high street store.  Because ownership of the game itself would mean ownership of the copyright that goes along with it.

 

Thats not to say that the EULAs these days arent getting laughably ridiculous, largely unenforceable and feel anti-consumerist, of course.

Re: Ubisoft: We Can Beat EA, Activision

not the title, or resale rights no.

but at one time modifying the games however we felt was pretty permissible as long as it didn't get sold or damage some other aspect of the title or is proprietary holders.

now its outright illegal to even consider such a thing unless given signed and noterized permission.

Re: Ubisoft: We Can Beat EA, Activision

Well, its never illegal to CONSIDER anything. And US courts have already found in favour of modification and even reverse engineering of other people's code if and when it falls under 'fair use'.  Waaay back in the 80s people didnt put particularly lengthy copyright statements on their games but that didnt mean we owned them either.  But to be quite honest modification is not the first thing that springs to my mind when I think of the rights of ownership anyway.

 

Re: Ubisoft: We Can Beat EA, Activision

Going back to the original topic, if it weren't for piracy, would we really need DRM in the first place? Would it be fair to say that if we eliminated piracy altogether, any sort of DRM would cease to be necessary?

"Power means nothing without honor and pride."

 http://grifsgamereviews.blogspot.com My video game review site.

Re: Ubisoft: We Can Beat EA, Activision

on the DRM, Ubi's method is pretty much the exact opposite of what will prevent piracy in most regards as it serves primarily to piss off the consumer rather than stop the pirates.

 

as for the AC and TC titles, thats what i meant when i said they're milking their big name titles.

they'll slap Tom Clancy on just about anything these days just to squeeze sales out of sub par or really bad games, and who knows what's going to happen with the AC name next at this rate.

AC2 to ACB is a fine example, granted they did a good job this round with a rushed out sequel, but it'll get stale fast if they keep it up and continue to try the Activision/CoD thing by trying to push a new sequel out every 12 months.

 

 

Re: Ubisoft: We Can Beat EA, Activision

I'll concede the DRM thing, since I don't use my PC for gaming that much, and don't have to deal with it nearly as much as most others.

But I stand by my point that Ubisoft has some good franchises behind it. I personally think they could get away with milking AC like Activision does. Firstly, because all the single-player campaigns are longer than 6-8 hours long, and secondly, the multiplayer in ACB is both more balanced, and much more fun than any CoD I've played. Tom Clancy is getting back into the groove, as well. Ghost Recon: Future Soldier looks like it's shaping up fairly nicely, GR for the 3DS is a pretty cool strategy game, as well. The last Splinter Cell was freaking awesome, too. All they have to do is keep up the momentum they've regained recently.

If Activision and EA can get away with making the same game year after year, Ubisoft can get away with making the same BETTER game year after year.

"Power means nothing without honor and pride."

http://grifsgamereviews.blogspot.com My video game review site.

Re: Ubisoft: We Can Beat EA, Activision

may not be 'pirate proof' but persson might be on to something with the way he set up minecraft.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Which group is more ethically challenged?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MechaCrashGee, how did people ever get the idea Gaters are morons who argue in bad faith? It's such a mystery.07/02/2015 - 7:03am
E. Zachary KnightGoth, again, no one is saying that we shouldn't be writig uncomfortable subject matter. What people are saying is that chances are you are going to write it poorly so it would be better to not have done it at all.07/02/2015 - 7:00am
Goth_Skunkdiscussed or portrayed in an expressive medium. Such an opinion only serves to stifle discussion. And as I said before, the only thing not worth talking about is what shouldn't be talked about.07/02/2015 - 6:50am
Goth_Skunk@Info: The same reason why I would entertain the notion that the Wired article writer could be right: Curiosity. Except in this case, I'm not curious at all. I'm not interested in hearing anyone's opinion on why uncomfortable subject matter shouldn't be07/02/2015 - 6:49am
IvresseI think the problem with the Batmobile is that they made it a core aspect of the game that you have to do continuously. If it was basically a couple of side games that were needed for secret stuff or a couple of times in the main game, it would be fine.07/02/2015 - 5:38am
Infophile@Goth: If you're not willing to entertain the idea you might be wrong, fine. That's your right. But why should anyone else entertain the idea that you might be right? If they go by the same logic, they already know you're wrong, so why listen to you?07/02/2015 - 3:53am
MattsworknameEh, I love the new batmobile personally, it's a blast to mess aroudn with. Plus, the game is set in a situation that mroe or less leaves batman with no choice but to go full force. And even then, it still shows him doing all he can to limit casualties.07/01/2015 - 11:38pm
Andrew EisenAgreed. Luckily, we don't seem to be in danger of that of late. No one's suggesting, for example, that tanks shouldn't be in video games, only that the tank in Arkham Knight is poorly implemented and out of place from a characterization standpoint.07/01/2015 - 11:27pm
MattsworknameConfederate flag, Relgious organizations, etc etc. Andrew isnt[ wrong, just remember not to let that mentality lead to censorship.07/01/2015 - 11:20pm
Mattsworknamefind offensive or disturbing, and that mindset leads to censorship. It's all well and good to say "This would be better IF", just so long as we remember not to let it slide into "This is offensive, REMOVE IT". IE , the current issues surroundign the07/01/2015 - 11:19pm
MattsworknameAndrew and goth both have points, and to that point, I'll say. Saying somethign is improved by changing something isn't a problem, on that I agree with , but at the same time, on of the issues we have in our society is that we want to simply remove things07/01/2015 - 11:18pm
Andrew EisenSee? Suggestions for improvements that involve taking things away do not mean the work is garbage or performing poorly, critically or commercially.07/01/2015 - 9:29pm
Andrew EisenSkyward Sword is spiff-a-rific but it would be an improved experience if the game didn't explain what each item and rupee was every single time you picked them up!07/01/2015 - 9:27pm
Andrew EisenHere's another: De Blob is a ton of fun but it would be improved without motion controls. Incidentally, THQ heard our cries, removed motion controls for the sequel and it was a better game for it!07/01/2015 - 9:24pm
Andrew EisenI'll give you an example: Arkham Knight is a ton of fun but the tank sucks and the game would be even better without it.07/01/2015 - 9:23pm
Goth_SkunkWell clearly we're diametrically opposed about that.07/01/2015 - 9:03pm
Andrew EisenNot even remotely true.07/01/2015 - 8:59pm
Goth_SkunkIt is, if the suggestion involves taking something away from a product in order to make it better.07/01/2015 - 8:49pm
Andrew EisenOffering suggestions for improvement does not mean that the work in question is garbage or not doing fine.07/01/2015 - 8:21pm
Goth_SkunkIf their products were garbage, they wouldn't be as praiseworthy as they are.07/01/2015 - 8:08pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician