RTOs are most often a “one free layoff”-card that businesses play, so firing someone for criticizing it is very much in line with the underlying intent of the policy.
Is there a company that’s trying to destroy itself as much as Ubisoft? The CEO and board that’s running this company are genuinely some of the dumbest motherfuckers in the world. These idiots are still dedicating significant resources to make NFT games, they’re still trying to insist that microtransactions are fun, they refuse to do anything to make their games more enjoyable to players, and they’re trying everything in their power to squeeze out their talent. At this point, Ubisoft deserves to collapse.
They released one game last year that I’d expect to make money (Assassin’s Creed 14).
Not sure how they’re actually in business right now. Surely they need more than that to stay afloat. None of their microtransaction games are whale milking machines like EA’s FIFA/Madden or Activision’s COD series.
I’ll kind of miss them when they’re gone. They’ve always been the least evil of the big publishers.
And yet there are still a lot of players who buy their games lol.
I’ve been waiting for Ubisoft’s collapse for years now. Unfortunately, the consumer has proved me wrong time and time again.
I am so thankful that the executives took a productivity and happiness survey when we went full time remote.
Any time a new manager brings up maybe we should return to the office, our offcial remote manual begins with data: we are far more productive remote working. There is the data, the proof.
The second part about being overall happier reminds us that we didn’t really like being in the office either.
We also have two more metrics: amount of time saved by a company in commute reduction, and the increase in safety.
But the first two are the most important.
shouldve came out with better propaganda than using apple tv+ show to make your company look good(mythic quest)
Wth it was supposed to make them look good???
I (begrudgingly) enjoyed the first season of Mythic Quest. Knowing that it’s meant to be a fluff piece to improve the image of Unisoft boggles my mind. It’s in no way flattering to the industry, and I question the intelligence of anyone who thought it would be.
I stopped buying Unisoft games decades ago. Because they suck. The owners suck. The management sucks. The corporate culture sucks. I feel bad for the coders working for them.
Stop. Buying. Ubisoft. Games.
I tried to uninstall a game but was blocked because I didn’t remember my ubisoft launcher password. Wtf, its my PC get the fuck out
Probably wanna check
BulkCrapUninstaller for windows. https://www.bcuninstaller.com/
It’s pretty good.
Revo Uninstaller is really good too.
Or as someone else mentioned, just ditch windows. It’s a sinking ship. I’ll end my spiel there.irunarchbtw
Or just drop Winblows and finally move to freedom by installing a good Linux distro.
The last Ubisoft games I played to the end were AC: Black Flag and Watch Dogs, which were both like 12-13 years ago. Neither game was GOOD, but they seemed decent to me at the time. I’ve play tested a few titles since then since then, all of which were hot garbage. Ubisoft is as dead to me as EA these days.
siege was pretty cool for the first two years
You just sail the high seas and never pay a single cent.
And you should! But most of them still aren’t worth the download.
Ubislop. I stopped buying them after AC2.
I wonder who will get the Tom Clancy name?
So Ubisoft, that failed hard on their own launcher. Made several mistakes when it comes to the games they’ve released, made the wrong kind of news with “The Crew 2”, cancelled a bunch of games (but don’t worry, Beyond Good and Evil 2 is definitely coming out…), goes and fired a lead designer.
Let me break out my magnifying glass to check on their stocks. Oh, they made a slight “comeback” from earlier this week, they’re up to 92 cents a share.
Mgmt at that place is making bold decisions for a company; when if their stock gains a penny, it’s worth celebrating.
Ubisoft, they are still alive. Wow. Well not much longer we can hope.
yeah, that’ll make him show up to the office!
I get the impression Ubisoft wants to lay off as many people as possible anyway. They don‘t care who so as long as they can meet some quota. I’m guessing they‘re trying to push operating costs down while they‘re looking for buyers of their IPs.
The beatings will continue until morale improves!
It’s big brain moves like this that’ll surely return the like … 20x? … value they’ve lost over the last few years.
I’m sure the publicity of it I’ll land this guy a higher paying job anyways
I mean, it’s not hard to understand why their stock is down 95% over the last 5 years…
bad-companies.md:Ubisoft
2026:
- fires team lead after return-to-office critique
- closes Halifax studio 1 month after Union formed
2025:
- full-in on gen-AI after shares plummeting
- NOYB sues because of covert user tracking
- Ubisoft wants to monitor your RAM (🏴☠️)
- EULA demands deleting delisted games
2024:
- deletes inactive customer accounts with purchased games
- “Gamers need to get comfortable not owning games”
- adds Denuvo after reviews were made
2023:
- ads in games
- started that list here
To be fair, they also want to be bought up (rebranding), after multiple buy-outs and mass-layoffs.
For things before 2023, there was sexual harassment (multiple) bullying and hostile workplace and their excitement over NFT. They had a boys club and made it a really toxic atmosphere, where the CCO literally said “Women don’t sell”.
I feel like this file would be valuable for every company we might purchase from, and also nearly impossible to maintain.
The website that pulls this off would get the $2.75 I keep not giving Wikipedia.
I have to wonder what the end goal here is for Ubisoft. you got people leaving in droves, people leaving and forming their own studios and producing games that are quite literally games of the year, and they’re axing people left right and center.
And lets not kid ourselves this company is essentially the cockroach of gaming, how it’s still alive in 2026 is in it’s own right quite the achievement. I can’t even recall the last good Ubisoft game I played.
The strategy is to milk the zombie brand until there’s not a drop left.
Management have over inflated egos. They think, oh, fuck John, John’s division only did $25m. They only see bottom lines. But they fail to realize they killed off John’s ideas that would have brought in $500m. So John leaves, gets to develop his own ideas, then shocked peakachu face.
The goal of companies mandating RTO is attrition. They want people to quit without firing or laying them off.
Their goal is to hire younger, hungrier (both literally and figuratively) coders who are cheaper and less experienced and will use “AI” to clean up their code.
Last Ubisoft game I purchased was Rainbow Six Vegas. Great game, but nothing else after that has interested me.
I believe they want to divert all their resources into one huge Fortnite like success story. Something that can bring them a reliable recurring revenue stream.
All they have to do is make the best game of the year. Yet they have a severe case of skill issue
This is why I’m so happy I’m 3000 miles away from my office. No way I’m getting a call back to office. Never was and never will be.
The company I worked for (late stage startup) was bought by a giant mega corp, which has an office nearby. Literally my first month there and they announced a return to office policy.
We technically have a space in a city by me. But it’s like 12 random desks and some video conferences rooms. No way we could actually go back to the office. That sucks for you guys tho. My old man lost his long time remote role and is back on the road again every day.
We need socialism
Cooperatives and unions are the future!
Always.
But we need to get this huge problem away that always a power hungry dictator gets to power and then it turns into just any dictatorship!!! And not socialism!
Does it involve letting the party work with industrial unions, rather than the state?
This huge problem stems from “we need”. Collectivism leads to hierarchy, because a collective isn’t semantically compatible to one person. A collective can’t be responsible, a collective can’t make a decision, a collective can’t think, a collective can’t speak in one voice. But collectivism means trying to treat a collective like one person. Leading to dictatorships.
You talk as if with corporations a single person can be held responsible…
You can have syndicates and get close to socialism
Thats then syndicalism which is a form of socialism
Yeah but only when it’s the dominant form of doing business? We have a bunch of them in my country but we’re definitely still capitalism.
Show me where.
My country has a bunch of syndicates, even some big coops, it’s not uncommon in Europe. You just need the legal structures for it.
Syndicates and coops are fine, just show me how you do that with power. Police, financial regulations. That usually doesn’t work so well.
Even in late USSR coops were a thing and could function, while everything was falling apart. It’s just that the pressure of power matters.
shit, the average public corporation is a more representative democracy than the US’s actual government is.
With voting power weighted by the amount of money they have invested.
Kind of like the way the US actually works.
I had to scroll back up to make sure I was stilling the same thread
average US corpo is just 1 vote 1 share, just right there it’s more equal representation than the US government has been for it’s entire existence.
throw in shit like recalling/installing new c-suites etc.
far more responsive/equal form of government than the clown show that is US “democracy”
average US corpo is just 1 vote 1 share, just right there it’s more equal representation than the US government has been for it’s entire existence.
And an individual can hold multiple shares. So some have more votes than others. That’s not democratic in any way.
throw in shit like recalling/installing new c-suites etc.
That’s a lot harder than you make it sound. That dysfunction is the main executive pay relative to performance has massively inflated over the years: accountability to shareholders in matters of compensation is piss-poor.
Finally, someone had to say it. While capitalism is far from perfect, I’d rather have billionaire capitalist assholes that I can then call on their bullshit than so-called ‘socialism’ which is just the pretty way to call a dictatorship. Show me one ‘socialist’ country that has thrived. One, come on.
OK, I can name one. It’s Israel. Before 90s it was (administratively, politically, socially) socialist (not like marxist, but with collectives and communes and kibbutz, and much of economy being state monopolies). One reason after 90s everything changed about it was because there were certain reforms which, eh, significantly raised level of life, making all the old institutions unpopular. So it’s no more socialist in anything.
A-and, of course, the part about collectivism was present. Some things I’ve heard about Israel before 90s emotionally reminisce USSR. Sort of a procrustean bed of a society, if you don’t fit it’s your problem.
Calling pre-1990s Israel socialist is like calling the Confederate States of America democratic.
Yeah, it was, except for a large disenfranchised population. If you count them as people too, then it’s not. And don’t come back at me with false distinctions about what was “Israel proper” versus the bantustans-- oh, sorry, “occupied territories.” Those places have no real sovereignty.
Occupation is a normal legal term and its presence doesn’t limit calling the system inside “Israel proper” socialist.
I think that to properly limit the difference we should compare how these all came to exist.
CSA were a split off part of a state created by rich landowners, and so it was a republic of rich landowners. Nothing surprising in that.
South Africa was part of the British Empire where natives were considered inferior from the very beginning, and their “bantustans” were sort of British traditional “to each his own” decorations, similarly to how even in the British Isles technically they have a United Kingdom and even Wales is not the same as England and so on, but in fact it’s more or less one state. Tradition.
While Israel was initially a bunch of Zionist settlements on sparsely populated land, like Tel-Aviv and such, which didn’t have much of said disenfranchised population and had lots of socialist traits in organization. Also among Zionists in the beginning of XX century the left part was far more numerous and popular than the right part (which has captured dominance in Israel since about 80s), especially after WWII, these things tend to make effect. That left part basically had just one Zionist idea - that Jews should have a nation-state in Palestine, all the rest was pretty normally leftist for the time (a bit obsolete by now, with planned economy traits and collectivism and so called meritocracy and so on).
Then that bunch of settlements in the war of 1948 became state of Israel. And then in subsequent wars it captured/occupied territories, without expelling much of populace. Which then lived under occupation status.
So the difference is that for Israel occupied territories were really occupied territories. There’s a clear difference between Tel-Aviv and Haifa on one side and Hebron on the other. While in South Africa bantustans were sort of big zoos\reservations with people set here and there through its territory, and CSA was in its entirety a republic of rich landowners.
Then you have to fight for it.
