The unprecedented $263 million grant with which the Ontario government enticed Ubisoft to open a new game development studio in Toronto has drawn its share of fire since it was announced last week.

Most of the criticism has focused on the economics of the deal and the idea of giving away so much taxpayer money to an already-profitable, foreign company.

This morning, columnist Andrew Dreschel of the Hamilton Spectator takes a few shots at the money angle, but also slams the government of Premier Dalton McGuinty for essentially funding the creation of violent video games:

If using tax dollars to assist a foreign private-sector company is an iffy proposition, the thread becomes even more frayed when you look at some of the games in Ubisoft's roster.

Assassin's Creed enables players to experience the thrill of murdering people in Renaissance Italy. Red Steel allows you to feel the power and freedom of slaying your enemies with bullet and blade.

Call Of Juarez lets you use your gunslinging skills and arsenal of deadly weapons to kill anyone who stands in your way. America's Army: Rise Of A Soldier thrusts you into the role of a sniper assigned to kill enemy officers...

The McGuinty government's investment is offering concrete support and official blessings to amoral games that both glorify and trivialize violence and, arguably, contribute to anti-social behaviour -- all in the name of business.

GP: In the pic, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty (right) and Ubisoft CEO Yannis Mallat seal the $263 million deal...

The recent news that the government of Ontario would fork over $263 million to Ubisoft for a new studio in Toronto remains controversial. In today's Globe & Mail columnist Marcus Gee is beside himself over the decision:

With a budget deficit of $18.5-billion, your provincial government is strapped - but not so strapped that it can't find a quarter of a billion in the pocket lint to pay some Frenchmen to set up a new video-game studio...

 

Ubisoft executives say they are in love with Toronto... But game developers are a footloose bunch, jumping from place to place in search of talent and government handouts... Who is to say they won't jump across the pond when the [U.K.] tax picture changes. Or when currency-exchange rates make Canada less desirable...

 

That quarter-billion has to come from somewhere, much of it from good Toronto businesses that don't have the buzz factor... Their tax burden will rise, and their business will suffer, while the cool kids in the video-game industry collect government cheques.

Meanwhile, David Olive at The Star seems cautiously optimistic about the Ubisoft deal:

Corporate welfare is tough to justify at the best of times... Could there be better uses of public money than developing the next generation of Assassin's Creed... And at a cost of $329,000 for each of the up to 800 workers to be employed by the new Ubisoft Toronto?

On balance, the investment is probably wise...

In yesterday's GamePolitics coverage we took note of an editorial in Canada's National Post which slammed the Ontario government's recent announcement that it would grant Ubisoft $263 million for the publisher's new Toronto studio.

Canadian blogger Eli Green offers the opposite view, however, claiming that the deal is a good one for Ontario because it will boost the local economy. In an opinion piece for Comic Book Bin Green writes:

To begin wit... Torontonians, or anyone else from the general vicinity, looking for a position with the [Ubisoft] will no longer have to make the... six hour jaunt to Quebec... That means more talent stays within Ontario, which, naturally, is beneficial for the province as a whole.

There is something far more important happening here though... an investment of this magnitude, in this industry, from the government of Ontario was long overdue... If the government plays its cards right, the Ontario video game development community should continue to grow and thrive, giving a nice boost to the economy, and local talent will continue to be just that – local.

It's not just important news for Ubisoft, it's important news for Ontario.

GP: In the pic, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty (right) and Ubisoft CEO Yannis Mallat seal the deal...

When Ontario's Premier Dalton McGuinty (left) announced on Monday that the provincial government planned to give $263 million to Ubisoft to offset the cost of opening a new game studio in Toronto, some eyebrows were raised.

Game industry types seemed understandably pleased, but an editorial in the National Post expresses shock and dismay over the amount of money involved and the fact the that those funds are going to a highly profitable company:

Ontario gives $263 million to company that makes $111 million in profit. Smart. Weren't we supposed to have learned something from the recession? Apparently not...

It’s bad enough that companies with terrible balance sheets get cash from taxpayers, but encouraging software companies that make money to play the same game is something else again. If you're losing money, Ontario wants to support you. If you're making money, Ontario wants to support you.

Commenters to the editorial were, by and large, not receptive to the plan, either.

- Soooo, do the math: That's 80 jobs per year. At a cost to the taxpayer of........ wait for it......................... $328,750 EACH !!  WHAT A "DEAL" !!

 

- Let's call a spade a spade: Ontario liberals pissing away $300.000 per job created. You know what? I am not paying any more taxes. That's it... Why paying taxes, if everything I pay is getting just given away to the foreign businesses? I'd rather move to Honduras...

A few commenters, like the one below lauded the deal, however:

The author of this article clearly misses the point.  The $263M "invested" by the Ontario government are in the form of tax breaks over ten year as an incentive to set up shop here, so no cash outlay.  Further, the tax breaks are kind of a moot point since these taxes wouldn't have been paid anyway had UbiSoft not set up shop.  The fact that they're spending $500M to open a studio, clearly they'll be here for a while, thus creating more jobs... 

The Canadian province of Prince Edward Island is currently home to an office of Longtail Studios, a development house started by Ubisoft co-founder Gerard Guillemot.

But, as reported by CBC, the firm is apparently relocating to Nova Scotia. Last week all 23 employees were offered comparable positions in a proposed new location in Halifax. P.E.I., however, is not giving Longtail up without a fight.

Innovation Minister Allan Campbell told CBC:

I am concerned with the possible loss of these positions on P.E.I. I've asked staff in my department to put together a package that is attractive to the company and that incites them to remain here on P.E.I.

Why Nova Scotia in particular has targeted this particular company, I'm not sure about that.

A package of tax breaks and subsidies which P.E.I. previously granted to Longtail expires later this year. Campbell said that talks aimed at keeping the developer in the province have been ongoing.

Longtail, which primarily develops games for mobile platforms, is based in New York City. According to its website, the developer also has maintains an office in Quebec City.

The provincial government of Ontario will make a massive investment into a new Ubisoft studio, reports Toronto's National Post.

Premier Dalton McGuinty (Left) announced today that Ontario will sink $263 million into Ubisoft Toronto over the next 10 years. Ubisoft itself plans to invest more than $500 million in the project.

A projected increase of 800 jobs is a large part of the Ontario government's motivation to invest in the new studio, which will be Ubisoft's fourth in Canada. Said McGuinty:

Our world is one where you can borrow capital, you can copy technology and you can buy natural resources. But to build a high wage and a high standard of living you need talent. By investing in Ubisoft, we're building Ontario's economy now and for the future.

Players needn't worry that their lack of aerial combat skills will get a fictional version of President Barack Obama shot down in the upcoming HAWX.

According to MTV Multiplayer's Patrick Klepek, HAWX publisher Ubisoft maintains that the real-world Prez isn't depicted in the game:

While checking “HAWX” a few weeks ago, the group of journalists I was playing with routinely failed to defend Air Force One. Boom! There’s another failed mission, resulting in a successful attack (again) on the virtual President.

After the inauguration of Barack Obama, I started thinking about what President I was defending during “HAWX.” With our first African-American President now in the White House, would Ubisoft try something different with its representation of a video game President?

My question was far more interesting than the answer, unfortunately. A Ubisoft representative told me the President is not a character in “HAWX” and is merely referenced as “the President” during the game. Oh well.

Ubisoft's 2008 holiday card is complicated, but cool.

Upon arrival it looks like what you see at left. The card has pieces that you can punch out and assemble to make figures from the Rayman: Raving Rabbids series.

It seems that there are four different possibilities. GP's card included the black rabbid pictured here, which was assembled by a team of experts at GP HQ.

The nice thing is that you're left with a toy that will last the whole year through.

Like the Jelly-of-the-Month Club, it's the gift that keeps on giving...

UPDATE: Ubi, full of good cheer, also has an animated holiday card.

The just-released PC version of Prince of Persia is free of DRM software, an increasingly rare circumstance in today's paranoid game publishing climate.

As Ben Kuchera of Ars Technica notes, PoP publisher Ubisoft has burned its customers badly in the past with flawed DRM implementations:

Assassin's Creed suffered from a shoddy PC port, and the game constantly tried to authenticate online, causing problems for players who bought the game. "The address is 216.98.48.53:3074 random local, 3 attempts every 75 seconds, registering to Ubisoft in Ontario. DRM messing with honest patrons again... as long as the game is running it will keep hammering away at that address," one forum member wrote. Gamers often had to shut off their Internet connection to play the game. 

So, what's up with the DRM-free PoP? Is it a holiday gift to consumers, or, as Kuchera suggests, a ready-made "we told you so" when the game is inevitably pirated:

Ubisoft has given itself an out whenever they're taken to task over DRM in the future. "We tried removing it, and we lost money!" will be an easy answer from now on. The remarks from the Community Manager already sound surly and antagonistic, as if the company is simply waiting to get ripped off to prove its own point

Ubisoft could let the pirates do their thing and remove the DRM without framing it as a challenge to the community—rarely is a pirated copy a lost sale—but that's asking a lot from an industry that continues to see its customers as guilty until proven innocent.

We note that Prince of Persia is getting good reviews. MetaCritic currently has the PC version of the game rated at 86/100.

GP: Noting that a game has no DRM and then getting suspicious of the publisher's motives is, admittedly, a bit like finding a $20 bill and worrying that it's counterfeit. Still, that's what the current DRM controversy has come to. I can't fault Ubi for releasing a DRM-free PoP and I can't fault Ben for his suspicions, either.

SCi, the parent company of Tomb Raider publisher Eidos, is apparently a takeover target.

UK newspaper the Daily Mail reports that Electronic Arts and Ubisoft are both considering an acquisition of the troubled firm.

Given that SCi is on hard times, EA and Ubi are no doubt enticed by the prospect of picking up Eidos's popular Tomb Raider and Hitman franchises on the cheap. From the Daily Mail story:

[The merger talk] follows a nightmare year for the firm in which its losses have quadrupled and the share price has slumped 92 per cent... From a peak of £1billion at the height of the dotcom boom it is worth just £50million today... As recently as a year ago the games developer was worth more than £600million.

But a series of self-inflicted wounds coupled with the precipitous slide in the stock market have conspired to drag the shares down from a 12 month peak of 243p to just 18½p yesterday...

The source said the suitors have been waiting to see if SCi would deliver the latest Lara Croft game, which has been delayed, but finally came out this week in time for Christmas.

Via: Edge Online

We couldn't help noticing that yesterday's E3 2009 press release the ESA included quotes from two of the most prominent video game industry critics of the 2008 expo.

Both John Riccitiello of Electronic Arts and Laurent Detoc of Ubisoft USA run ESA member companies, so their harsh criticisms of this year's show certainly stung the ESA. It is significant that they are on board with the new format.

Then and now, here's what Riccitiello and Detoc had to say about E3:

Riccitiello:

(July, 2008) I hate E3 like this. Either we need to go back to the old E3, or we'll have to have our own private events.

(yesterday) The E3 Expo will be the pre-eminent North American gaming show next year. The new, larger event is better for industry leaders and for serious gamers.

Detoc:

(July, 2008) E3 this year is terrible. The world used to come to E3. Now it's like a pipe-fitters show in the basement.

 

(yesterday) The video game business will be twice as big in 2009 as it was in 2006 when we had the last real E3 Expo - so get ready for some fireworks! The changes made will ensure that the 2009 E3 Expo conveys the best of what makes us proud as entertainment leaders.

According to videogaming247, the PC flavor of EndWar will not launch at the same time as its console brethren.

The website quotes Ubisoft Shanghai creative director Michael de Plater:

To be honest, if PC wasn't pirated to hell and back, there'd probably be a PC version coming out the same day as the other two. But at the moment, if you release the PC version, essentially what you're doing is letting people have a free version that they rip off instead of a purchased version. Piracy's basically killing PC... You know, the level of piracy that you get with the PC just cannibalizes the others, because people just steal that version.

GameSpot reports that Ubi has a track record for this sort of thing. The publisher delayed the PC versions of the Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter series as well as Assassin's Creed.

GP: So, PC piracy is affecting sales of console editions in a significant way? Does that even make sense?

Did game consumers throw down $300-600 for Xbox 360s and PS3s in order to play bootlegged versions on their PCs?

Color me skeptical.

A number of GamePolitics readers have suggested that Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon, a 2001 first-person shooter, foreshadowed the current hostilities between Russia and Georgia.

The Bulletin serves up a detailed analysis:

Sometimes life imitates art, rather than the other way around, and the 2001 video game "Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon" stands as a prime example. The game... accurately predicted the eruption of hostilities between an expansionist Russia and Georgia... the player takes on obstacles posed by South Ossetian rebels intent on creating a pretext for a Russian invasion.

 

The game's opening sequence features a Russian leadership intent on bringing the former Soviet republics back under its control. The narrator describes a Russian leader eerily similar to Vladimir Putin... As the game's intro opens, a lone 2008 flashes on the screen before the narrator reads the following words: "The year is 2008, and the world teeters on the brink of war. Radical ultranationalists have seized power in Moscow - their goal, the reestablishment of the old Soviet empire... The world holds its breath, and waits."

The Bulletin also points out that the National Review Online has noticed the eerie similarity between game and real-life events in McCain, Obama Respond to Scenario Out of First Level of 'Ghost Recon.
 

Yesterday GamePolitics reported on a planned protest march outside Ubisoft's San Francisco office.

Peace group Direct Action to Stop the War hoped to persuade Ubisoft to drop its support of the America's Army franchise, which the organization claims violates U.N. protocols against recruiting children into the military.

Two representatives of the group apparently scored some face time with Ubi's U.S. CEO Laurent Detoc. MTV Multiplayer has a response statement from Ubisoft:

Ubisoft is a leading publisher that strives to create the best entertainment experiences possible. Ubisoft worked with the U.S. Army to create America’s Army games for the Xbox and Xbox 360 in order to deliver a compelling experience for our customers. As we discussed with the Direct Action to Stop the War (DASW) organization, our games are created to meet a diverse range of interests and not to express or endorse any political view. We respect DASW's First Amendment rights, and would hope they also respect and recognize ours.

Wired Game|Life's Chris Kohler has a lengthy (if slightly snarky) running commentary on the protest.

Does the America's Army game franchise violate United Nations protocols regarding military recruitment of children?

GameDaily reports on a group called Direct Action to Stop the War which says that it does and has taken Ubisoft, which publishes console versions of America's Arm, to task. On its website, the San Francisco-based Direct Action writes:

"America’s Army” ...is the property and brainchild of the US Army, which admit freely, and with pride, that it is one of their principal recruitment tools...
 
The military recruitment of children under the age of 17, however, is a clear violation of international law (the U.N. Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict). No attempt to recruit children 13-16 is allowed in the United States, pursuant to treaty.  In May, the [ACLU] published a report that found the armed services regularly target children under 17 for military recruitment.  The report highlighted the role of “America’s Army...”

 

The game is having an effect.  An informal study showed that 4 out of 100 new recruits in Ft. Benning, Georgia credit America’s Army as the primary factor in convincing them to join the military... 

Direct Action will be staging a protest today at noon near the San Francisco office of Ubisoft as well as two other local companies, GameLoft and Secret Level:

Ubisoft is not the only South Park neighbor engaged in the development of the game, Gameloft is working on the cell phone application and Secret Level was a designer on the 2005 Xbox version...  This August 6, on the 63rd Anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima, come out and ask the producers and developers of America’s Army to stop helping the Army recruit children. 

Last month Direct Action sent a letter of protest to Ubisoft CEO Laurent Detoc. The group claims that it has heard back from Detoc, who said:

Ubisoft has already planned not to make any further games of America's Army, that they may announce that decision in the future and he discouraged us from continuing our Hiroshima Day action... If Ubisoft's claims are true, why have they not publicly announced the end of the work for the Army's recruitment videogame, and why have they not ended their contract with Army, set to expire in 2015?

As expected, Electronic Arts has once again extended its deadline for Take-Two Interactive stockholders to tender their shares at $25.74. The new deadline is August 18th.

EA is apparently beginning to make some progress in its bid to acquire T2. The game publisher says that 11,741,339 shares have been tendered under the offer, nearly double the amount turned in when the previous deadline expired in late June. That is almost certainly related to T2's sagging share price of late. The stock has been trading below EA's offer price, making the deal more attractive to shareholders. TTWO closed on Friday at 25.04

This morning's EA press release links the extension to the Federal Trade Commission's review of potential anti-trust implications:

Extending the tender offer allows the FTC review process to continue. The proposed transaction is still subject to certain conditions that include regulatory approval. EA retains the right to terminate the offer if the conditions are not satisfied.

Coming up later today: Take-Two's obligatory press release explaining why, in its view, EA's offer is a bad deal for shareholders.

UPDATE: Wow, that didn't take long. In a press release which followed EA's by less than an hour, Take-Two, as expected, slams EA's offer. T2 chairman Strauss Zelnick alludes to "multiple" suitors, but does not name them (Activision? Ubisoft?):

We are fully engaged in a formal process to evaluate strategic alternatives that have the potential to deliver greater value than EA's inadequate offer. As part of this process, we continue to engage in meaningful discussions with multiple parties, a number of whom have been conducting due diligence.

UPDATE: In a lively interview wiith VentureBeat's Dean Takahashi, EA CEO John Riccitiello touches on the T2 deal:

Having clever verbal sword play about Take-Two doesn’t really matter. I’m not really playing for a headline in the New York Times...

 

I don’t think we’ve played a poker hand. We have expressed our interest. We have made a public bid. We are in the Hart-Scott-Rodino antitrust review. All of the information has been disclosed. We’re playing it to the way we’ve said we would play it. There have basically been three moves and there have 6,000 articles on it. It’s sort of amusing. I feel a little bit like those strobe light things where it looks like a guy is moving a lot. The flash goes off but the body doesn’t move. Every time a flash goes off, somebody writes a story on it. To be honest with you, the last time there was news was a couple of months ago.

Video game execs apparently hated this week's E3 .

They shouldn't feel bad. Everyone else hated it too.

I'll have more to say about that, but for now, digest these quotes from today's San Francisco Chronicle:

John Riccitiello, CEO of Electronic Arts:

I hate E3 like this. Either we need to go back to the old E3, or we'll have to have our own private events.

Laurent Detoc, president of Ubisoft North America:

E3 this year is terrible. The world used to come to E3. Now it's like a pipe-fitters show in the basement.

A quartet of leading publishers have come out in favor of the Pan-European Game Information (PEGI) rating system for the UK market.

The game industry there, including publishers association ELSPA, does not look favorably upon the British Board of Film Classification, which itself hopes to claim a bigger piece of the UK's video game content rating pie. The BBFC is probably best known to gamers for its 2007 ban on Manhunt 2 which was later overturned on appeal.

As reported by Next Generation, ELSPA head Paul Jackson minced no words in remarks to British government officials at a media forum in Whitehall.

PEGI is the solution for today, and the solution for tomorrow.

Execs from Nintendo, EA, Ubisoft and Sega also weighed in, with Sega Europe CEO Mike Hayes adding:

If you look at the PEGI system against the film ratings board in the UK, you will see that PEGI is the only system that has the power to prevent games publishers distributing unsuitable content to children. It can ban a publisher’s entire output, rather than just a single title. This power is backed by the entire industry.

The House of Commons yesterday debated the merits of requiring game developers to ensure that their software won't cause players to experience epileptic seizures, reports Spong.

The issue was raised by Conservative John Penrose after a constituent's son experienced what is known as photosensitive epilepsy (PSE) while playing Ubisoft's Rayman Raving Rabbids. Penrose argued:

A couple of games-makers, notably Ubisoft, with which I have been in contact, have decided voluntarily and admirably to apply the sort of screening that I am suggesting to their games... and I hope that many other games manufacturers will follow their example. 

The point is that some games manufacturers may decide to do that, but there is a huge number of games-makers and manufacturers throughout the world. Some are large and responsible, such as Ubisoft, but as in any industry, there is a large number of manufacturers who are relatively tiny, and although some may be responsible, we cannot be sure.

Minister for Culture, Media and Sport Margaret Hodge, however, seemed to favor pursuing a voluntary compliance approach rather than a statutory one:

If I am unsuccessful in extending voluntary agreement for a voluntary code of conduct or if we find that it is insufficient, we can always return to the matter at a later stage.

I would like to take the issue away from today's debate and meet with ELSPA ... to see what progress can be made on a voluntary code of conduct.

In our previous GamePolitics story we described how the Federal Trade Commission went to U.S. District Court in an attempt to force Grand Theft Auto IV publisher Take-Two Interactive to cooperate in an anti-trust investigation related to Electronic Arts' potential takeover of T2.

So, why would Take-Two thumb its nose in the government's face, even to the point of reneging on previously agreed-upon conditions?

We asked financial analyst Michael Pachter (left), who covers the video game sector for Wedbush-Morgan:

I think that the reasons range from A) being incredibly savvy and holding off the FTC as a tactic to slow the process to Z) being incredibly arrogant.

 

It's hard to know where Take-Two fits on the scale from A to Z.  Their general counsel is pretty experienced, and it surprised me that he would allow the company to deal with a subpoena this way.  The FTC's action of seeking a court order is pretty severe, and shows how seriously the FTC takes this slight.

 

I'm not sure what Take-Two hopes to gain from this, other than the obvious delay to the process.  However, the process won't be delayed if Take-Two's failure to comply with the subpoena results in the FTC granting approval without looking at these documents. There is NOT a presumption of anti-competitiveness, and if EA demonstrates that the combination would not be anti-competitive, Take-Two would be better served to provide evidence to the contrary if it wishes to remain independent.

 

It seems to me that they would be best served by cooperating fully with the FTC, and by pointing to records that show how competitive their business is with EA's business.  Apparently, they have reached a different conclusion.

 

 

UPDATE: So, what's to be gained by delaying? We put that question to Pachter as well:

I think it's always in their best interest to buy more time.  Management has an incremental 720,000 shares of restricted stock that vest if the takeover happens after March 31, 2009.  More time buys them a greater ability to prove the impact that they've had on the company, and they appear sincere in their belief that they have turned Take-Two around.  More time allows Activision to close its Vivendi deal and give Take-Two a look.  Ubisoft might be interested...

As reported by Silicon Valley Insider, Take-Two Interactive execs claimed in a conference call this week that they have potential suitors other than EA. Forbes speculates that, if such suitors really exist, they might be Activision or Ubisoft.

GP: Personally, I wonder if it might make some sense for Sony to go after Take-Two. That would make the GTA series a permanent PS3 exclusive, supercharge system sales, and they could sell off the rest.

Meanwhile, GameSpot reports that Evan Wilson, financial analyst with Pacific Crest Securities, told investors that once you get past Rockstar, there's not much to like about T2:

Rockstar has supported this organization for too long and it is right to spend every dollar that it can get from Take-Two for keeping the business alive. Unfortunately, management appears to be doing the same thing without it being nearly as deserved.

 

At the same time as its cost structure is deteriorating, management is telling investors that it is the most efficient organization in the business. That simply is not true. Management talks about having a lean sales, marketing, and corporate infrastructure behind its development talent. We disagree with this as well.

Wilson also dinged Take-Two for missing release schedules and recommended that investors take EA's buyout offer before it disappears:

If it appears that virtually every major game has been delayed, you would be correct.

 

It is starting to appear that the company is back to where it started. After the success of Grand Theft Auto [IV], it will be looking at a bloated cost infrastructure relative to its revenue opportunity, which will likely be further muted by game delays and underperformance.

 

We believe that the risk of EA dropping its bid for [Take-Two] is greater than the reward of EA coming back with a modestly higher bid, and we continue to recommend that investors take profits. EA's $25.74 offer is more than fair, in our view.

Recently, GamePolitics reported that Ubisoft would be releasing a smoking cessation game for its handheld DS system.

That news did not escape the notice of the Penny Arcade crew. Hit the link for the full comic.

GP: Thanks to GP correspondent Colin "Jabrwock" McInnes for the heads-up.

Ubisoft has announced that it will release a handheld video game designed to help users kick the cigarette habit.

Allen Carr’s Easyway to Stop Smoking is scheduled for November release on the Nintendo DS. The game  is based on the smoking cessation program of the same name, which currently features books, DVDs and clinics. According to an Ubisoft press release, over 10 million people have already availed themselves of the Carr method. Ubisoft exec Christian Salomon commented:

Ubisoft’s creative team has worked hard to deliver a game that successfully communicates Allen Carr’s Easyway method via play. The player experiences a truly interactive engagement with the game through which he or she learns that it can actually be enjoyable to quit smoking.

Robin Hayley, managing director of Allen Carr’s Easyway to Stop Smoking, added:

There was an amazing synergy between Allen Carr’s Easyway team and Ubisoft as we worked on this project. Our experts worked hand in hand with the Ubisoft team to create an entertaining and illuminating game that delivers Allen Carr’s Easyway method in a new, dynamic and highly effective way.