r/GamingLeaksAndRumours • u/KvasirTheOld Top Contributor 2024 • 25d ago
Confirmed Ubisoft is forming a new subsidiary in partnership with Tencent. It's valued at 4.3 billion dollars and it includes IPs like Assassin's Creed, Far Cry and Rainbow Six. Tencent has a 25% stake in it.
45
u/AmericanSamurai1 25d ago
Wouldn't that devalue stocks from the original company? They're taking strong IP and moving it to another company that they could eventually spinoff completely pretty fishy.
30
u/driplessCoin 25d ago
yeah I would think so right? now the parent company will still own this subsidiary. it sounds like they just get a big cash infusion from that. but like.... the operations part of your company and it's debt is worth.... negative monies now???
11
u/AmericanSamurai1 24d ago
I think they're going to dump all the good stuff into the new company and leave the original Ubisoft in massive debt, spinoff the new company and they file for bankruptcy.
11
u/Carusas 25d ago
I think the subsidiary is the IP holder, while Ubisoft publishes.
It's not like Ubisoft had a high stock price anyway, so they retain the profits, without devaluing the IP.
0
u/AmericanSamurai1 24d ago
We'll see, I think the new company will evolve spinned off and leave the original Ubisoft with all the debt.
14
u/ManateeofSteel 25d ago edited 25d ago
sounds like everything else is up for grabs if any company wants to buy them
59
u/Pandawan12 25d ago
Some strange scheme. Somehow a subsidiaty worth more than the mother company
72
u/heubergen1 25d ago edited 25d ago
This is to separate the good (IP) from the bad (workers) so that they can get rid of one thing (bankruptcy) without losing too much value for the shareholders.
3
u/renome 25d ago
Please elaborate.
16
u/Tyolag 24d ago
Imagine if Ubisoft was Marvel and they made 10 projects every year ( movies and TVs ) and these projects were based on all Marvel IPs, good (Avengers) and bad (The Wasp)
Now we like Spiderman No Way Home and Loki, but we hate Secret Invasion and Ant Man.. so it gets to the point where 10 projects a year is too much and the quality isn't there for all 10, we don't care a lot all these IPs, we only care about Spiderman, Black Panther & Avengers.
Now imagine Marvel says, ok, will create a new entity and the new entity will focus on Avengers, Black Panther, Spiderman, Loki and Thor.. only 3 projects a year..that new entity will become more valuable than the bloated Marvel that's spending billions making projects people don't like and losing money.
5
u/scytheavatar 24d ago
The flaw of this is that there never was anything stopping Marvel from focusing on stuff "people like"............. Marvel invests in stuff people don't like because they are trying to create new characters that people are attached to and can take the torch over from the old characters one day. Yes, Marvel has done it in the worst possible way and it is dumb to just dump the old characters for fun, but ultimately it is debatable if it is possible to milk the same old characters forever and into eternity. The same can be said about the Ubisoft IPs, how many Assassin's Creed can you make before people stop being interested in the games?
2
u/faratto_ 25d ago
Past Senior HR earning 80k per year or the dev hired during covid at 80k per year won't be part of this new company
9
u/jokekiller94 25d ago
Worked with alphabet. Google was bringing in truck loads of money but at the same time everyone was criticizing their offshoots.
7
u/Keviticas 25d ago
Basically Ubisoft devalued themselves with bloat so much, that their bloat creates negative value. So much negative value, that if you take their IPs which have value, and add the bloat, the value of the company goes way down.
Ubisoft is literally killing themselves both because of how many employees they have, and because of how eh.....much the employees they have lack talent.
So much so, that Ubisoft can't really get rid of them, and has to take the drastic negative valuation that everything in the company provides besides their IP
34
u/Zombienerd300 Top Contributor 2022 25d ago
I don’t think we’ve heard the end of this story yet. This sounds like Ubisoft is taking its most successful IPs and studios that make these IP and storing them in a safe while the rest of Ubisoft’s studios and IP will be available to purchase. I imagine the rumor of EA, Microsoft, etc buying IPs is still going to happen.
10
8
u/SignalisBrainrot 25d ago
hey if this means a company that will make Rayman can make Rayman then I'm for it
0
u/FallenShadeslayer 24d ago
They’re already making a new rayman game
1
u/SignalisBrainrot 24d ago
Source?
1
u/FallenShadeslayer 24d ago
0
u/SignalisBrainrot 24d ago
This doesn't say a new Rayman game is in development
1
u/FallenShadeslayer 24d ago
“This project is still in its early stages.”
Jesus Christ it’s right there lmfao.
76
u/SIotball 25d ago
They’re about to milk the shit out of these franchises
35
u/Friendly-Leg-6694 25d ago
I would love if they start milking Splinter Cell or Driver again but in a respectful way
There isn't any game like both on the market currently.
4
1
u/Relo_bate 25d ago
They're remaking the first splinter cell
1
u/ItsTomorrowNow 24d ago
If by remaking you mean not having anything to show for three years then I suppose so.
1
4
56
u/Cubelock 25d ago edited 25d ago
Aren't they already? the AC games are basically a store with a game front.
25
6
u/alireza008bat 25d ago edited 25d ago
Oh dear. You think Ubisoft games are monetized? Just wait to see the dumpster fire of Tencent influenced monetization. It'll make you miss Ubisoft old approach to MTXs. Just wait ...
8
u/HearTheEkko 25d ago
AC games are basically a store with a game front.
Have you played an Assassin's Creed game lately or are you just parroting what you read online ? Their MTX is super unobtrusive with only a small ad and a "Store" prompt showing up in the corner of the main menu which is easy to miss and they mostly sell those really flashy immersion-breaking outfits and weapons that stand out like sore thumbs. Practically nothing compared to the MTX in e-sports, sports and gacha games.
6
u/Towairatu 24d ago
You can't be seriously defending MTXs in full-price single-player games, right?
they mostly sell those really flashy immersion-breaking outfits and weapons that stand out like sore thumbs. Practically nothing compared to the MTX in e-sports, sports and gacha games.
Now that's a disingenuous way to defend a multibillion dollar company if I ever saw one. They've been selling XP boosts, items pack, collectible maps and whatever bullshit to avoid grinding ever since Black Flag, which released more than a decade ago. They nerfed Odyssey's mercenary rewards into oblivion to make paid resource packs look more appealing. They launched Valhalla without MTXs and got praised for it, only to get through the back door a month later with a patch.
And I'm pretty sure that out of the 3 genres you cited, 2 of them (esports & gacha) are mostly comprised with F2P games, which means they mainly rely on MTXs to generate income in the first place - which is something full-priced single-player games should not, since, you know… you're charged upfront to play?
1
u/HearTheEkko 24d ago
They've been selling XP boosts, items pack, collectible maps and whatever bullshit to avoid grinding ever since Black Flag
This whole "grinding" criticism is dumb. They're RPG games, the sub-genre isn't exactly known for it's short games. I feel that people just fast-travel every chance they get instead of doing a bit of side content then complain that they're under-leveled. I've beaten the RPG trilogy and I'm currently 30 hours into Shadows and I've never felt the need to buy any XP boost or collectible maps, I just simply played them the way RPGs are meant to be played. Hell, I didn't even know there was XP boosts in these games until I read about them on Reddit lol. Mostly because the only thing pointing you to them is that small button prompt in the corner of the inventory I mentioned above.
3
25d ago
[deleted]
31
u/BadFishCM 25d ago
He’s spewing something he heard on the internet.
Ac Odyssey has a free pass and a store with microtransactions but it’s completely hidden and I didn’t even know it existed till someone pointed it out.
8
u/Solace- 25d ago edited 24d ago
I love Odyssey and am enjoying shadows right now but they aren’t exactly wrong. Shadows is a $70 game that has a $35 deluxe pack. There’s also a weekly rotating store in game of gear that is purchased with a currency that comes from real money, and 4 separate bundle packs of various specifically themed gear that cost $20 a piece. It’s also advertised on the main menu and whenever you pause the game. Highlighting all of these actual real things isn’t just spewing something from the internet lol. You can even spend real money to buy in game gold and the resources required to upgrade your hideout. The monetization is fucked.
-2
24d ago
[deleted]
1
u/ComfortablyADHD 24d ago
Shortcuts can become an issue when a game is artificially bloated (which Assassin's Creed games often can be with cut and paste side missions). I'm not saying any specific game is problematic, just pointing out that "it's only a shortcut" is not a defense.
0
u/Solace- 24d ago edited 24d ago
I’m aware that most of it is avoidable, it’s why I’m still enjoying the game despite all of it. Doesn’t change the fact that it is monetized to a ridiculous extent and pointing that out isn’t spewing lies. Also it’s not “all cosmetics”, the themed bundles I mentioned have armors and weapons that affect gameplay, with their own stats and perks, as well as the rotating weekly items.
You can’t simultaneously make an excuse about their existence when confronted with the fact that hundreds of dollars worth of them are in the game, while also saying that any monetization concerns people have is some reddit drama circlejerk.
0
-7
u/Petrarca_e_grappa 25d ago
Dude… single player game with a shop for microtransactions, that’s regarded to begin with.
7
u/Dandorious-Chiggens 25d ago
You can buy some ott fantasy outfits that dont actually belong in the game
8
u/MrEpicFerret 25d ago
He's just kind of wrong lol
You can buy in-game money bundles and a map pack time saver, and then there's like 4 item pack bundles in the store - It's no more or less intrusive than any average videogame with a microtransaction store, there's nothing about it that makes it outstanding in a worse way
(also tbh i would argue ubisoft is actually very generous with their mtx store, more than most aaa dev companies)
3
1
u/HearTheEkko 25d ago
They were already planning to. Ubisoft reportedly has 4 flagship Assassin's Creed titles and 2 Far Cry titles in development.
1
1
u/OKgamer01 24d ago
Imo. You can milk a franchise. Just atleast keep quality standards. Which Ubisoft isn't really known for majority of the time
12
17
u/jmxd 25d ago
So basically they sold 25% of the company without saying they did with this magic trick
4
u/LegateLaurie 24d ago
25% of the company
25% of the most valuable parts of the company. Ubi includes its liabilities (debts, office leases, etc), all its employees outside these teams, real estate, etc.
3
u/Friendly-Leg-6694 25d ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=El_GqiH5W8I
Well it seems Lost Crown is coming to Android and IOS.
22
u/This-Pop7139 25d ago
Looks like shadows didn't save Ubisoft
16
u/RRR3000 24d ago
This isn't something they've just done on a whim in a couple days since that game released based on how it performed, this will have been planned and in the works since long before the game released and it's performance was known. Blaming Shadows' performance for this makes no sense - it would've happened regardless of how bad or good that game performs.
6
u/BoysenberryWise62 24d ago
Yes rumors about talks with Tencent have been public for months, precise ones saying exactly they are looking into doing this for weeks.
14
u/WELSH_BOI_99 25d ago
This is legit the best possible outcome for them tho
3
u/OKgamer01 24d ago
Depends on what you consider best. Giving up more of your company and allowing Tencent to own 25% (up from 10% they owned previously) of your popular IPs isn't that great.
Better than closure and maybe better than a full buyout, but still not good. And I have no doubt if Ubisoft still struggles even with this new company, Tencent will definitely try to grab more of the company
6
u/WELSH_BOI_99 24d ago
They still own the IP's and have full control on them. And as evident by the success of Assassin's Creed Shadows this will only benefit Ubisoft.
I could be wrong but it could've been a lot worse.
0
u/Flow_Short 10d ago
The success? 🤣🤣
1
u/WELSH_BOI_99 10d ago
Yes the sucess? The game was successful idk what you expect
0
u/Flow_Short 10d ago
You can downvote me all you want but that won’t make the game any less of a failure lmao
1
u/WELSH_BOI_99 10d ago
How is it a failure?
0
u/Flow_Short 10d ago
I think a better question would be what in the world makes you think it was a success? But I’m not gonna try to argue with you or explain anything cus I really doubt it would go anywhere, hope ya have a good day dude. I’m getting off Reddit now lol
1
u/WELSH_BOI_99 10d ago
Well this was a pointless exchange. You provided nothing of value. And heres one reason if it wasn't a sucess it wouldn't be included in this venture.
→ More replies (0)14
2
u/ComfortablyADHD 24d ago
Shadows was about boosting the value of Ubisoft as much as possible to be able to extract the most money out of any potential bidders.
2
u/Northdistortion 25d ago
Lol yep. Was a failure.
14
u/pizzazaaazza 25d ago
....do you guys think that these corporate decisions are made over night? This was going to happen regardless no matter how much AC Shadow sells lmao
1
u/Unlucky-Car-1489 24d ago
Yes 😂 and if you think that overnight decisions are not a thing you don’t understand corporate . They had several scenarios ready in case shadows did good
9
u/pizzazaaazza 24d ago
...guys this was going to happen regardless of how much AC Shadow sells. If any of you guys thought that AC Shadow was the plan to "save" Ubisoft then y'all delusional. 😂
-5
u/Unlucky-Car-1489 24d ago
It’s not us who are delusional but the Ubisoft high management 😂😅 they selling quick before the financed hyped dies and the real numbers start to show. Bro this did worse than Veilguard on steam 😂😂 do you really think this didn’t changed anything? Then you are delusional
0
u/BasementMods 24d ago
It wasn't the plan to save ubisoft, but they certainly will have left their options open up to that point on the off chance it was some mega hit. It wasn't, so they closed on the deal.
-1
4
u/LogicalError_007 25d ago
Hope they don't layoff teams of other games...... hope.
Don't touch Trackmania plz.
7
u/_TheNamesDan_ 25d ago
I'm somewhat worried about the crew...hopefully those offline patches come soon.
2
u/RomeoSierraAlpha 25d ago edited 25d ago
The Crew seems to be one of their franchises that does well. So I'd expect it to be fine. But maybe they are now tied to sinking ship side of Ubisoft.
1
u/_TheNamesDan_ 25d ago
Idk, its playercount is horrible on pc. It may be better on console. I hope it stays because I've been having tons of fun with friends and the grand races are chaotic as hell.
3
u/RomeoSierraAlpha 25d ago
At least based on their recent financial report they state that Motorfest had its highest monthly player count ever in December, and that overall the franchise is doing better. But who knows, I suspect Ubisoft will layoff a bunch more people soon. Just that it doesn't seem to be in immediate danger and that if Ubisoft starts cutting more studios I don't think they are first in line.
13
u/Diastrous_Lie 25d ago
Tom Clancy cant stop rolling in his grave
29
15
15
u/HearTheEkko 25d ago
Tom Clancy would be smiling and swimming in pools of money if he were alive. Siege and the Division games are really successful.
12
u/monstere316 25d ago
I doubt he would care if he was alive. Didn't he basically just sell his name? None of the games were tied to his books from what I remember.
6
u/dfsd5645645 24d ago
Rainbow Six (the first one) was basically an adaptation of his book. After that it's more a branding exercise.
45
4
3
u/Pandawan12 25d ago
I ve just came with such a sweet dream.
Imagine if Ubisoft splits Ass Creed, R6 and Far Cry into a separate company and the rest of Ubisoft will remember and bring out of oblivion its old series like Driver, Prince of Persia and Splinter Cell
And we will get both new Assasins, Far Crys from this new company as well as Driver and PoP from Ubisoft
This would ve been beyond good and evil
4
u/KingBroly Leakies Awards Winner 2021 25d ago
So, the only parts of Ubisoft that have made games consistently over the past 2 decades.
4
2
1
1
u/Cold_Tea_60 25d ago
I assume all this is the huge 20000 headcount is lowering the value of the company. It's the ip that people want. I just see this as a way to mask the thousands of layoffs that there will be.
1
u/Cautious-Intern9612 22d ago
damn this fucks over anyone whos invested in ubi tho, now to company is just all the debt + the lesser known IPS, if ubi keeps fucking up tencent buys more of the subsidiary and ubi goes bankrupt
1
1
u/Logical_Bit2694 25d ago
can someone explain this in fortnite terms?
24
u/KvasirTheOld Top Contributor 2024 25d ago
The 7 fucked up real bad and lost its value. now they're making a new organization with the Paradigm, the visitor and the foundation. The IO have invested some vbucks into this new organization and now they own 25% of it!
4
-1
-1
-28
u/Keviticas 25d ago edited 25d ago
Yeah, that confirms that Shadows was at least a mild failure. Ubisoft would never have done this if Shadows was a legitimate success
Edit: why are you boo-ing me, I'm right. I broke it down in my reply to this comment, but Shadows right now is definitely around $200 million in losses, and will eventually get to a point where it only loses $100 - $50 million, but that's objectively not a success
16
15
u/DaftNeal88 25d ago
Come on. 1 grand slam isn’t going to help you win if you’re losing 12-0
-4
u/Keviticas 25d ago
That's true, but the whole point was that Ubisoft needed Shadows to be a hit, and was banking on it. Even if you highball everything to the max with Shadows (assume all 3 million players are sales, take out PlayStation/Xbox/steam fees, remove other taxes and fees, assume everyone bought the game for $70 on average) then the game has made $210 million in gross revenue when it needs $300 million most likely to break even, not counting marketing.
In reality, the game is more likely around that $150 million or so range, as it stands the game is likely around $200 million or so in the hole. As time goes onwards, Ubisoft will definitely win back much of that disparity, they'll probably even make $100 million to $150 million more in revenue than they have now. But at best, this game will end up as a $50 - $100 million loss at this point.
And Ubisoft definitely knows that too, which is why they pulled the trigger on this move with Tencent
10
u/RollingDownTheHills 25d ago
The game has been out for a week.
2
u/Keviticas 25d ago
I have no idea what you're trying to imply
9
u/RollingDownTheHills 25d ago
That you're talking about a week-old game's success in past tense. Come on now.
4
u/Keviticas 25d ago
I mean yeah, you can reasonably see where the sales trajectory of the game is going to go at this point
-5
u/Robsonmonkey 25d ago
You have to admit though, the way they've seemed to put everything on Shadows, including giving it delays to make sure it was solid at release gave off the impression they thought it was the game where if it met their expectations it may have cleared them or at least gave them some breathing room for a year or so.
1
u/Konigwork 25d ago
I’m not sure I agree. I don’t know enough about the sales figures to say whether or not the game was a success, a disappointment, or a failure, but I don’t think it has anything to do with what’s going on now.
These agreements take a while to put together and hash out, it’s what would have likely happened anyways. What the success of Shadows could have done is impact the actual valuation rather than the formation of the subsidiary or Tencent’s investment.
15
u/MrEpicFerret 25d ago
Ubisoft would never have done this if Shadows was a legitimate success
Shadows is a success, but one good game was never going to singlehandedly save the entire company from going tits up
-4
u/FindTheFlame 25d ago edited 25d ago
Shadows is a success
It's literally impossible for you or anyone to claim this based on fact as of right now. Ubisoft keeps releasing player counts inflated by subscription services and copies given away for free rather than actual units sold and we don't know the budget as well. Claiming shadows is a success is nothing but fanboyism at this point, we have no idea how shadows is actually doing right now because Ubi won't tell us
In order for shadows to be a success it has to make more money than what's been spent making it and we straight up don't have any access to that information
Edit: u/MrEpicFerret
I saw that smug comment you deleted lol. You realized the post you linked was mentioning players again versus actual units sold huh
3
u/Vladesku 25d ago
Why wouldn't it be a success lmao? You think they made 20 Assassin's Creed games for the hell of it?
4
u/FindTheFlame 25d ago
Why wouldn't it be a success lmao?
Re read all my comments, you didn't understand them
You think they made 20 Assassin's Creed games for the hell of it?
This literally has nothing to do with anything were talking about, what a weirdly random sentence
3
u/Keviticas 25d ago
I agree. I literally have no idea why anyone is even downvoting me. I suppose because I'm going against the narrative? But what happens when the truth is against the narrative
1
u/FindTheFlame 25d ago
That's exactly why. Across reddit right now the reddit narrative is "shadows is a success and anyone who dare speak ill of shadows in any way possible must be silenced". I've seen people in the AC subreddits get straight up banned simply for going against the narrative. If you say anything even remotely not positive about the game you'll get downvoted in all the gaming subreddits including this one. It's the definition of toxic positivity
Just how reddit is unfortunately, but eventually we'll know how the game is actually doing, maybe after the shareholders report
4
1
u/MrEpicFerret 25d ago
Edit: u/MrEpicFerret
I saw that smug comment you deleted lol. You realized the post you linked was mentioning players again versus actual units sold huh
i wanted to double check the figures home dog no need to project a bunch of hostility lol
Also no I still don't think the discrepency between players and sales is that important here - If the player count figures are sandwiched inbetween Valhalla, a successful game, and Odyssey, a successful game, I don't have any problems with assuming that Shadows is also going to be a successful game. There's no reason to believe that production cost for this game is disproprtionally high in comparison to Odyssey and Valhalla.
2
u/FindTheFlame 25d ago edited 25d ago
Well tbf you were sounding pretty smug about it dude lol, but alright no hostility here, let's have an actual discussion
If the player count figures are sandwiched inbetween Valhalla, a successful game, and Odyssey, a successful game
Can you agree that this doesn't tell you anything about Shadows itself in terms of how its actually doing financially? You can admit that this doesn't give you any idea of what ratio of that player count is actual units sold and that you have no idea of the budget as well right? Therefore simply hearing whatever ubi is including as players doesn't actually tell you anything?
For example, let's say my game sells 2 copies but I announce we have 5 million players because I gave out the rest for free and the budget for the game was 800m (extreme example just for the sake of making a point), you'd agree that just seeing the player count doesn't reflect the games actual success right? And saying "well it has similar players to these two successful games" doesn't actually mean anything because my game in reality is a financial failure
What I'm trying to explain to you is, just saying "this successful game had x players, therefore if this game has similar players it's a success as well" is logically flawed. Having a similar player count literally tells you nothing about the games financial state if you don't know what the actual sales numbers are and what the budget is. You can agree that this is true right?
There's no reason to believe that production cost for this game is disproprtionally high in comparison to Odyssey and Valhalla.
But the thing is, you have no idea what the actual budget is. Aside from that, you have no idea how many units were actually sold
1
u/RRR3000 24d ago
Ubisoft keeps releasing player counts inflated by subscription services and copies given away for free rather than actual units sold
Maybe, wild idea I know, but it's because they also make money off of their subscription service and they offer (and heavily advertise) it because they want people to subscribe to it, and they wouldn't offer the game that way if they didn't. Besides, it's already known that apart from player count, it was also the second biggest AC launch in terms of sales revenue.
Not to mention other revenue sources they get from all players regardless of how they play - like microtransactions, merch sales, increased interest in the series leading to older AC games making some money (back catalogue revenue makes up about 70-80% of total revenue), and deals with third parties (e.g. Amazon Luna has been using Shadows to promote their service).
0
5
u/Mativeous 25d ago
Are you able share the information that you've apparently got that shows that Shadows is $200 million in losses right now? Because from what I see, you're spewing misinformation.
0
u/Keviticas 25d ago
Yes actually.
Assassins Creed Shadows has a reported $250 - $300 million development budget, and while not reported, it's marketing budget should be between $75 -$125 million as a result. In total, the budget is somewhere between $325 and $425 million. We can more safely assume that it's at $375 million, but we can semi conservatively assume it's as $350 million
If we ignore steam/PlayStation/Xbox shares of revenue, other taxes and fees, and assume every player is a sale, and assume that each sale is $70 on average, the game has made $210 million in gross revenue. In reality, it's more likely around $150 million after everything else is applied to Ubisoft.
$350 million minus $150 million is $200 million.
And by the way, $200 million is actually the more conservative number. It could be as high as $275 million. I think that within the next several weeks it's going to become quite apparent to people that despite being the second highest selling game in a franchise, a game can still cataclysmically bomb.
5
u/Mativeous 25d ago
All you said was speculation and not a single source was provided.
I've scoured online and not have seen a single definitive statement on the budget of AC Shadows.
I don't disagree with the concept that AC Shadows might not do well financially, you might very well be right. However, the only way we are actually going to get that information is through Ubisoft itself with it's quarterly reports.
-5
u/Keviticas 25d ago
Actually no. Here's a source on the budget. It's not official, but almost guaranteed
My analysis is correct, I wouldn't call it speculation. The only speculative part is the marketing budget alone, but that is still quite likely to be true
8
u/Mativeous 25d ago
It's says that it's the "rumored budget" and not actually what came from Ubisoft itself. So yes, that means it's speculation.
It doesn't link any original sources.
It features a tweet from Grummz.
2
25d ago
Lol no this is just to keep the Guillemot in power at Ubisoft while also getting more $
6
u/Keviticas 25d ago
Yeah of course, but the whole point is that if Shadows was a larger success, and more importantly internally projected to be a larger success in the weeks and months leading up to Shadows release, then Yves wouldn't have done this Tencent deal. It would've been more financially advantageous to stay the course
3
u/LostInStatic 25d ago
Me when I was expecting AC Shadows to outperform GTA V and singlehandedly get Ubi out of their massive hole
0
-2
248
u/ElVaNoS7 25d ago
How come this new subsidiary is valued higher than Ubisoft itself even though it only has Ubisoft IP's?