Ubisoft "Not Safe From a Hostile Action"

By Chris Remo, Sep 22, 2005 10:57am PDT In the months following Electronic Arts' initial purchase of 20% of Ubisoft's shares, Ubi CEO Yves Guillemot admits that there is little his company could do to prevent a takeover. After the transaction occurred last December, an Ubisoft represented stated that EA's "acquisition of 19.9[%] of the groups capital is unsolicited and currently considered as hostile." Since then, the situation died down but over the months there were various tentative offers by the French government to help protect a buyout, though they did not seem to pan out. Bruno Bonnell, head of fellow French publisher Infogrames, also voiced his support for Ubisoft.

Now it seems that Guillemot is resigned to the fact that if EA is determined to take control of his company, there's little he can do to resist. "We are not safe from a hostile action from Electronic Arts, which it would be difficult to block if they make a genuinely interesting offer," Guillemot said in French newspaper Les Echoes, though he is sure to note that "I doubt that our shareholders could be won over by a cut price." By this point Ubisoft has become a major industry player and any buyout offer seriously considered by the company's shareholders is going to have to be sizeable to say the least. After Guillemot issued his statement, Ubisoft stock jumped 1.36 euros to 42.40 euros. EA stock held steady at US$58.46.

In the increasingly consolidated world of today's games industry, it would be a little disheartening to see a company like Ubisoft become folded into the world's largest company. Its shareholders would certainly be well taken care of, but Ubisoft is one of the few publishers around offering serious competition to EA and more competition is always a good thing for consumers as well as for the improvement of products.

Click here to comment...

advertisement

Comments

25 Threads | 69 Comments
  • 1. Jupiter has higher surface gravity. Saturn would be easier to escape. First, let’s just assume Jupiter has a hard surface instead of gas down to its core. If I were on the surface, the gravity would be proportionally larger than Saturn (or something of equal volume). We can’t explain gravity, but know that more mass causes more of it. If Jupiter was 500 times bigger than Saturn, but weighed the same, then the situation might change.
    2. using F= GM2m1/r^2, we can assume that if the mass of the sun expanded to 16 times its current size, the force of gravity on the surface would be 256 times less.
    3. the new earth in this problem would come out like this in newton’s law of gravity F=GM*0.5m2/r^2. So, the force of gravity exerted on objects on the surface would be half as strong.
    4. It’s difficult to look at these numbers in scientific notation and make snap assumptions about them, but it looks like it would be easiest to throw a rock off the surface of Mr. Spock, since it’s obviously very small (so, low escape velocity)… but you probably still couldn’t do it. You would either weigh the least on the moon or Mr. Spock, I’m not sure.
    5. You would weigh the most on Jupiter. You would weigh the least on the moon. Mr. Spock would be the easiest to escape. Jupiter’s escape velocity is the most. My answers are calculations, not assumptions like in question 4.
    6. I can’t throw a ball 232 meters per second. That’s way fast. Mr. Spock owns me.

  • Can someone explain to me why a company like Valve can't provide an alternative to publishers like EA? They have a delivery system. They have the engine technology and tools already in place. Why doesn't valve make an open offer to any developer to use their tools, engine, and delivery system for no up front price? Rather, they would take say, 30% of the revenue? It would be a zero risk way of Valve making money. Then any garage mod group that wanted to make a stab at making a commercial quality game could step up to the plate. Any commercial developer that could get enough seed money from investors could also benifit from it. I am sure this has been suggested before. What is keeping it from happening?






  • ANY competition to EA is welcome. Even the "value" game publishers that get mentioned oh-so-often on Something Awful.

    EA consistently vomit out rehashed games with no redeeming qualities, massively bugged games which are then followed by million dollar advertising campaigns, and then completely abandon supporting them whatsoever.

    I didn't care about game companies at all until what happened with games I got involved with. Battlefield 1942, the expansion packs, Battlefield Vietnam, Battlefield 2, Command and Conquer Generals, and Zero Hour.

    Zero Hour is the one that does it for me. This was a game I really really wanted to love.

    What's happened? Well, EA just canned support. That would be fine if the game WORKED.

    Instead, Real Time Strategy players of a game with plenty of history and appeal, has been left to rot with absolutely unforgivable problems. I gave up playing this game mainly because Multiplayer games tended to fall over with mismatch errors. I didn't even bother finding out if they fixed the GLA Scud Storm bug. Who cares, when the game is so riddled with minor bugs that you are too frustrated to care.