GameSpot may receive revenue from affiliate and advertising partnerships for sharing this content and from purchases through links.

Ubisoft Buys Back More Shares Amid Takeover Concerns

Ubisoft picks up 3.6 million shares previously held by a bank.

73 Comments

With the possibility of a hostile takeover by Vivendi looming, Ubisoft recently announced that it is buying back a number of shares of the company from the Bpifrance bank.

Ubisoft is buying the 3,625,178 Ubisoft shares held by Bpifrance, which represents a 3.2 percent stake in the company overall. The publisher is paying €33.80 ($38) per share for a total amount of €122.5 million ($137.9 million). The deal is expected to close by the start of November 2016 and is part of the company's share buyback program, it said.

No Caption Provided

"We want to express our warm gratitude to Bpifrance for its support during all these years," Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot said in a news release.

The buyback (via VentureBeat) comes as French media conglomerate Vivendi continues its push towards a possible takeover of Ubisoft. Having already acquired Gameloft, which was founded by the Guillemot family, there is the possibility that Ubisoft could be next.

Ubisoft has said Vivendi's actions are "unsolicited and unwelcome." The last we heard, Vivendi held a 20.1 percent stake in Ubisoft and was considering buying up even more shares.

GameSpot recently spoke with Guillemot about Vivendi's action and the important of remaining independent.

"Creativity, agility, and risk-taking is intrinsic to our industry," he said. "If you are independent, you know the level you can go to, but if you're part of a conglomerate that doesn't understand what your industry is, how fast it's moving, or the decisions you have to make at speed, they can limit your possibilities. Then, automatically, you don't create new experiences that are coming out of nowhere. Sometimes when you take risks, it doesn't work and you have to cancel a project because you thought the business was going in one direction, but it didn't.

"When the management allows that, you aren't blamed for not succeeding, your management says, 'OK, we learned this and that, and we can use that on this new opportunity.' When you're in an organization that's less risk-taking, you don't do that. And then when you don't take risks, you don't get rewards. Yes, companies merging is normally not a problem, but in our industry, which is changing a lot of time, it's actually risky."

Read our full interview here.

2016 is Ubisoft's 30th anniversary. To celebrate the milestone, Ubisoft put out a nice video featuring top creators talking about some important milestones in the company's career such as the release of Assassin's Creed. Ubisoft also launched a website called We Love Ubisoft.

Got a news tip or want to contact us directly? Email news@gamespot.com

Join the conversation
There are 73 comments about this story
73 Comments  RefreshSorted By 
  • 73 results
  • 1
  • 2
GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.

Avatar image for TheEternalGamer
TheEternalGamer

262

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I love how they call these things "hostile takeovers" when the companies would not even be in danger of being taken over if they were not public. A company decides to go public for more money. That's just one of the risks involved.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for ricky9999
ricky9999

100

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Time wil tell who is right or wrong. But as a freshman game design, I can see that being in this industry is kinda stressful! Everyone wants good game, yes, and then? They dont even care their favorite game company is going down. Everyone made mistake, just like Ubi. But in business, a taken over is a lost to everything they have built. And if I have your own business, you will understand. All we can do is hoping the best will come to Ubi. To me, I dont like the idea of making AC every year, but I still enjoy the series with my bro n frds.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for G4mBi7
G4mBi7

426

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

Someone explain to me how Vivendi screwed up Activision. Activision had no games pre 2007 except Spiderman that peaked my interest.

The merger was announced in 2007 and in that same year MW4 was released. That one game reinvigorated the modern shooter and started a sensation, yes it created yearly releases but it also lead Activision to be hugely popular.

It wasn't until 2010 that Blizzard released SC2 under Vivendi leadership, maybe the trilogy was a cash grab but the game had no cash shop.

Ubisoft in it's current form has been greedier and more exploitative of us gamers than Activision ever has been under Vivendi ownership.

This all boils down to one thing, Guillemot founded Ubisoft, it's his baby and he doesn't want to lose it to anyone. He doesn't want to have to answer to anyone, he's been on top so he refuses to be 2nd place. Mostly tho, he doesn't want to lose his cash cow which he's been milking for years now.

The point is, Vivendi didn't drastically interfere with Activision or Blizzard but they did lead both companies to huge financial success by providing business leadership. I don't think a Vivendi buyout would be a bad thing, at least no worse than seeing 2-3 AC games per year.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for CagedOkami
CagedOkami

370

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@G4mBi7: mw4 came under one year of vivendi. i dont think its acurrate to attribute that success to them. and after that beautiful game, they just started churning one out every year with a new coat of paint. not exactly something to be in awed of when compared to mw4 leaps and bounds.

2 • 
Avatar image for G4mBi7
G4mBi7

426

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

@CagedOkami: Talks of merger occur years before it actually happens, just like game development. They were aware of everything coming down the pipe. Activision went a soso company to a leader in the industry.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for CagedOkami
CagedOkami

370

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By CagedOkami

@G4mBi7: that didnt change game development. the games like cod and rockband and guitar hero were on their way that year. these game laid activisions foundation. vivente bought the winning kid.

and really since then its just been recycling.

2 • 
Avatar image for hurfdedurf
hurfdedurf

6

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

"Creativity, agility, and risk-taking is intrinsic to our industry," said the CEO of the company responsible for the Assassin's Creed and Far Cry series.

3 • 
Avatar image for Fia1
Fia1

892

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

yea don't wish for ubisoft to be taken over, you people that hate ubisoft don't know that this would harm a lot of the industry, ubisoft may not be a stellar company, but at least they have some experimental franchises besides the yearly AC stuff, i doubt nobody knows how greedy activision and blizzard became after vivendi's take over, vivendi is truly cancer, ubisoft is fine, it just needs to crank up their overall quality a bit...

6 • 
Avatar image for G4mBi7
G4mBi7

426

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

@Fia1: one fact to show me how activision or blizzard is greedy. Ubisoft is already the greediest company around. The only one i can think is worse is Square Enix.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Atzenkiller
Atzenkiller

4977

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Smart move for a company to sell all their shares only to buy them back later at a higher price. Well, who could have ever thought of the possibility of a takeover? Nope, nobody.

7 • 
Avatar image for Thanatos2k
Thanatos2k

17660

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Maybe if Vivendi takes over they'll shut down Uplay. Oh god, now I'm getting excited.

8 • 
Avatar image for sargentpsgamer
sargentpsgamer

1191

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Thanatos2k: The opposite would happen. UPlay would become even more relevant in their games as Vivendi tries to milk everything.

4 • 
Avatar image for Thanatos2k
Thanatos2k

17660

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@sargentpsgamer: Not necessarily true. Activision under Vivendi never made their own digital distribution platform, like EA did and Ubisoft did.

It's possible they're smart enough to know it's a dumb idea.

2 • 
Avatar image for sargentpsgamer
sargentpsgamer

1191

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Thanatos2k: Vivendi sold Activision before that became an option. Vivendi is a big reason WoW numbers slipped, and everything got milked instead of time being put into each title. Vivendi basically comes in, milks everything for huge profits, then sells it at the peak. Leaving the company to rebrand itself under a new owner.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Thanatos2k
Thanatos2k

17660

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@sargentpsgamer: "before that became an option"

Uh, what?

Origin came about in 2011. Uplay in 2009. Vivendi separated from Activision in 2013. It was always an option.

3 • 
Avatar image for sargentpsgamer
sargentpsgamer

1191

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Thanatos2k: Vivendi was already in the process of selling before they actually sold. Second it takes more than a year to plan and develop an online service, let alone implement it. Vivendi was too focused on other assets. I don't know what else to say to spell it out.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Thanatos2k
Thanatos2k

17660

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By Thanatos2k

@sargentpsgamer: ....Did you notice the 4 year difference between Uplay and the sale? They had all the time and resources to make their own service, but they explicitly did not want to. You have no evidence whatsoever to the contrary.

2 • 
Avatar image for sargentpsgamer
sargentpsgamer

1191

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Thanatos2k:

Step 1 Vivendi see's an asset, Step 2 Vivendi buys said asset and exploits it for profit, step 3 Vivendi sells said asset when at it's peak for more profit. In Activision's case the profit wasn't an online service, it was games and peripherals. What did Vivendi do? They exploited that with no intention in innovating an online environment, with one exception. Blizzard. Vivendi already owned Blizzard and already had an online infrastructure that was expanding.They mixed the two together. If they would have stuck to it longer that could have easily spread.

What was my original comment implying? In this instance Vivendi see's Uplay as an asset and once they buy Ubisoft Uplay will become a bigger asset for them as they milk it for money. Along with the games or other name brands Ubisoft has. It will hinder new IP's and new adventures because those are potential risks that could lower the stock, which is why Ubisoft doesn't want them to take over. Vivendi could be looking to expand UPlay, not kill it. They want profits.

Really, don't take words for face value. Look into the context. I wasn't saying an online service was impossible for them, I don't know why I've had to explain that three times now. I was saying they simply focused where the money was. Vivendi doesn't care what you or I want, they want money and a way to cash in. Thus Uplay won't be canned, it will be expanded against our will. Uplay is just an example of their tactic.....

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Thanatos2k
Thanatos2k

17660

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@sargentpsgamer: "Blizzard. Vivendi already owned Blizzard and already had an online infrastructure that was expanding.They mixed the two together."

But they didn't. Vivendi COULD have merged Activision's games with Battle.net but they explicitly didn't.

"In this instance Vivendi see's Uplay as an asset"

Based on what evidence? You're just making this up, aren't you.

2 • 
Avatar image for Xangr8
Xangr8

27

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Thanatos2k: Most probably Uplay will turn into some subscription based service :)

2 • 
Avatar image for scodiac
Scodiac

21

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Scodiac

I like Assassin's Creed a lot. Syndicate was awesome. It's my favourite AC, and I've played through all the main entries. That said, I think they made a smart move in taking a year off. That's the kind of choice that probably wouldn't happen if they lost control, so I'm glad they've been able to retain it.

Plus, I grew up on Ubi games like Prince of Persia and Splinter Cell, and it's been cool to watch them grow. They don't always make the right decisions, but they usually listen to feedback and correct.

I think the design choices from AC: Unity to AC: Syndicate are a good example of that. I can't wait to see what they can do with another year of development time for the next Assassin's Creed.

4 • 
Avatar image for speed45823
speed45823

874

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

Edited By speed45823

Ubisoft was once a great company making fun and innovative games. Now they're as much if not worse than EA. Yearly stale hashed out sequels and sequels, constantly ripping off customers, false advertising, downgrading games, poorly optimized PC port, its CEO thinking 90 percent of PC users are thieves, uPlay, always-on DRM...these are just some of the things Ubisoft has come to be known infamous for in recent years.

If Vivendi takes over Ubisoft, it's not really a loss anyways. Ubisoft managed to all but destroy their current IPs as is.

5 • 
Avatar image for sickko
sickko

108

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 1

they are still a healthy rich company but tbh all the lies that were swept under the rug with ease will kill em slowly...

significant downgrades: watch dogs (both), wildlands, the division, siege (only one that kept ppl interested)

bad optimization and support for PC, milking every title possible till you can't stand it (AC, Far Cry) etc.

i stopped buying ubicrap after the Unity Bomb... what's the point? same games, different skins...

i know we live in a copy-pasta-remaster-consolefail-era but c'mon... for honor is your only good concept atm?

each with it's own but i prefer a new ubi with innovation and not cheap skinned games that are the same in concept

6 • 
Avatar image for Acillatem1993
Acillatem1993

1103

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By Acillatem1993

Glad to hear that, to hell with Vivendi.

10 • 
Avatar image for crusadernights
Crusadernights

779

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Acillatem1993: Pardon my ignorance but is Vivendi that bad?

2 • 
Avatar image for Acillatem1993
Acillatem1993

1103

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@crusadernights: Well pretty much everything is bad when someone buys you out and you're no longer independant. Also Vivendi has a history of screwing up Blizzard and Activision.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for G4mBi7
G4mBi7

426

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

@Acillatem1993: It already isn't independent, you can't have that word and publically traded. It just doesn't work. Also excuse my ignorance but he asked if it's that bad. You stated an opinion, not a fact. Provide one piece of evidence to support how Vivendi screwed up Blizzard and Activision.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Acillatem1993
Acillatem1993

1103

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By Acillatem1993

@G4mBi7: I have followed the gaming industry closely so I know what went on there. Google is your friend, there are hundreds of hits regarding Vivendi ruining Activision. Also Ubisoft is independant, it doesn't have a major shareholder that would dictate how and what they should do.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for G4mBi7
G4mBi7

426

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

Edited By G4mBi7

@Acillatem1993: I google'd, found no proof. Check my post above. I welcome any actual evidence you can provide rather than just your opinion.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Acillatem1993
Acillatem1993

1103

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@G4mBi7: Too bad for you.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for playstationzone
PlaystationZone

3403

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Good on Ubisoft don't like company much but shouldn't taken over .

7 • 
Avatar image for lucidique
lucidique

791

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 150

User Lists: 0

One hell of a lecture coming from a company that churns out sequels like it's noboby's business. Sorry Yves, but with the way you handle games and how you threat your employees, you and your family name can go down in flames as far as i am concern.

I don't believe Vivendi could do a worse job at the helm than you did.

Cheers!

9 • 
Avatar image for suicidesn0wman
suicidesn0wman

7490

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

@lucidique: If he actually treated his employees that badly, Ubi wouldn't have some of the longest tenured employees in all of gaming.

3 • 
Avatar image for G4mBi7
G4mBi7

426

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

@fanboy_slayer94: hypocrite much

Upvote • 
Avatar image for rosinmonkekyx17
rosinmonkekyx17

3019

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@fanboy_slayer94: You took that far too seriously

4 • 
Avatar image for lucidique
lucidique

791

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 150

User Lists: 0

@fanboy_slayer94: Look up the way Ubisoft has been exploiting it's employees in Montreal and the legal loophole they are using to fire new employees after a few months and then get back to me.

Let's see if you still think i'm an asshole then. I live 20 minutes away from their office, Ubisoft's doing are a bit more intimate to you when friends and family are affected.

4 • 
Avatar image for Acillatem1993
Acillatem1993

1103

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By Acillatem1993

@lucidique: I think thats not a fair thing to say. Sure the last few years were kinda so-so for Ubisoft, but the man started this company and without him we would never have gotten quite a few classic games. So no matter what, I'm with him on this one.

7 • 
Avatar image for suicidesn0wman
suicidesn0wman

7490

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

I am hopeful Ubi can stay independent. Though some may not have as much appreciation for their titles as I do, you cannot deny they continuously try to invent new AAA IPs when everyone else is rehashing old shit. It seems popular to blame Ubi for the annualization of games, but they've created at least 6 brand new IPs since 2013. Where EA has 2(and both are CoD variants), and Activision only has Destiny(a Halo MMO wannabe).

You think you're tired of seeing the same shit over and over again every year, imagine how much worse it'll be when the only big publisher left bringing new IPs are the FP studios for Sony and MS.

12 • 
Avatar image for speed45823
speed45823

874

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

@suicidesn0wman: Ubisoft, EA and Activision are not the only 3 video game companies in the industry. There's a lot of other devs / studios that makes excellent new IPs AND without the stale yearly repetitive rehashed sequels and constant trend of ripping off customers.

4 • 
Avatar image for suicidesn0wman
suicidesn0wman

7490

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

Edited By suicidesn0wman

@speed45823: And which 'top publisher' would you be talking about?

2K Games has 2 new IP in 3 years(Evolve and Battleborn).
Activision has one(though every other franchise they have released has at least 2 releases in 3 years).
How about Bandai Namco? Ohhh, looks like they've released multiple rehashed fighting games with swappable anime franchises.
Bethesda? 0
Blizzard? 0
Capcom? HAHAHAH Don't make me laugh...
Konami? Seriously, don't...
Koei Tecmo? Well, if you count the 7 variations of Dynasty Warriors...
Sega might have one or two...
Square Enix had 2, plus 5 DQ games and 12 FF games in 3 years...
Telltale has a few new IPs, if you count those since they're all basically the same game with licensed franchises swapped out.
Warner Brothers? 2

I found one other company putting out a large amount of new AAA IP the past 3 years, and you could argue they're as hated as UbiSoft is. Deep Silver.

I guess looking around at what the top publishers are doing, it's clear that people actually hate companies that make brand new AAA IP, and love the ones that put out the same game every other year or more.

7 • 
Avatar image for speed45823
speed45823

874

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

@suicidesn0wman: It would help if Ubisoft's "new IPs" were actually any good. Heck, even their existing IPs are now becoming quite stale and boring.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for suicidesn0wman
suicidesn0wman

7490

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

@speed45823: I enjoyed The Division and Watch Dogs so far this gen. Many enjoyed the new South Park games. The Crew was a nice idea but didn't pan out. Steep is not my kind of game, but I am hopeful it can fill a need that hasn't been filled since SSX3 many years ago. For Honor is getting a lot of praise from people who played the alpha.

Thing is, even if the game is a failure, it sets a measuring point where other game developers with similar ideas can say "OK, this worked, but there are a few things we'd do differently that may pan out for us." Steep may not light the world on fire, but it may open the door for another SSX that does.

I'd rather see the company take risks and fail than not try at all. Which is basically what everyone else is doing.

5 • 
Avatar image for suicidesn0wman
suicidesn0wman

7490

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

@7tizz: You should have gotten on The Division and joined me and my buddy, really fun when played co-op.

Upvote • 
  • 73 results
  • 1
  • 2