Slashdot Mirror
Ubisoft CEO Speaks out Against EA Move
Gamespot is reporting that Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot has spoken out against EA's "hostile action". From the article: "Considering the industry practice of communicating informally about such decisions, we were disappointed, to say the very least, that EA chose not to inform us of their specific plans beforehand." Further, Voodoo Extreme is reporting that a financial report may suggest the French government is going to assist Ubisoft in staying out from under EA's thumb.
UBI can speak out against it all they want, but what they really need to do is give their current shareholders more reasons to hold onto the stock. Maybe they should have spent more time polishing Ghost Recon 2...
Isn't government interference a violation of France's WTO agreement?
... assist the reader by saying what this hostile action is, why it's occurring, where (France?) and so forth. The summary, as it stands, seems written for people who are already in-the-know, which is a foolish assumption in the face a global internet.
... it's not just for journalists any more!
Who, what, where, when, why, and how
I agree, and I didn't have any problem understanding the submission, but the original poster is right, it is uunnecessarily confusing.
It wouldn't have taken much to clarify that the "hostile action" was the sudden purchase of 20% of Ubisoft's shares by EA.
I've often been frustrated by similar submission, so I sympathize.
iana EA Employee, but it seems to me that EA Stopped being about games a long time ago... it's your typical board of directors type shop it seems to me now, who so happen to see videogames as a method of getting rich. I'm sure the people working on "the floor" care very much about their products, but I get the impression that at the top they will dop whatever they can to get the highest Return on Investment, not "make the best game possible"... I don't get the impression that they have any idea how to make the best use of the franchises they have other then sports and Sims, and even that is questionable. K done ranting, back to work for me
Tsk, tsk. America wouldn't even be here without France. They financed America's Revolutionary War for independence and saved us at the last hour in the War of 1812.
Josh
Or in the words of Eddie Izzard:
If you don't want to lose control of your company, don't go public - it's really that simple.
Everyone likes to play by the rules as long as they're in their favor, but as soon as someone else gets the upper hand and threatens your (insert precious item here) the rules suddenly become unfair and need to be circumvented. Human nature I guess. Hooray for "free" markets though - greed really is the best motivation for human endeavors, right?
If the French were as good at surrendering and as bad as standing up for themselves and others as some people would like you to believe then all you Americans would still be singing "God Save The Queen".
Think about that next time you reach for the cheap and ignorant jibes or the next time you celebrate Independence Day.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
France does not want to lose France based companies.
It is good that EU countries are now subject to the same buyout and then layoff trend that the USA went through in the 1980s.
The loss of companies that move out of France + the loss of jobs from buyout/layoffs will force France to actually support a pro-business environment instead of a entitlement burdened nanny state.
The euro has greatly facilitated free trade, free capital, and personal freedom.
Ubi's also got the Rainbow Six team... And they've got guns.... lots of them.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
Boeing received $3.2billion USD in tax benefits and cuts to place the 7E7 factories in Washington State. Boeing outsourced the wing and center fuselage construction to Japan, where the three firms making the sections are 75% subsidised by the Japanese government, allowing these sections to be sold to Boeing much cheaper than they otherwise would be. This has already been judged by analysts to be illegal under the 1992 agreement, and is currently the subject of an EU investigation with an eye on ammunition if the current WTO stuff goes ahead.
Airbus receives Launch Aid in the form of interest based LOANS. These loans must be paid back to the respective government within 17 years of its inception, and must account for no more than 33% of the total development cost of the aircraft. This was agreed in the 1992 trans atlantic agreement, as was the clause that states that Airbus doesnt have to repay these loans if the aircraft fails to ship. So far, every loan lent to Airbus has been paid back within the terms laid down. Airbus does lease factories off of local governments at a favourable rate tho, but this isnt covered under hte 1992 agreement, and so is a gray area. This is not the same as getting tax cuts for relocating production tho.
Boeing isnt exactly the pure virgin dressed in white you think they are.
"Mostly, their troops are glorified police officers. Their troops did not see anything like the action the US Special Forces saw in Afghanistan."
I fail to see how you can say something like this, and not realize you're shitting on any serviceman whose job isn't exactly "first wave, front line, point."
It almost seems like some people are afraid of finding any reason to respect the French. Or something like that. There seems to be a subculture that carries some value assumption that the French are somehow bad, counter to American interests, or generally deserving of hostility or criticism. But that idea is only held within that subculture, and the rest don't even understand the premise.
But the important thing to me, is if you want to dismiss the contribution of anyone who is your ally in combat, who has soldiers in your military operation, you might as well be wiping your ass with the flag after you shit on the grave of a soldier. In my opinion, that is precisely what you did when you tried to squirm out of accepting that the French sent soldiers to fight alongside your army in Afghanistan.
If you can tell me what unit YOU were in, and what combat YOU personally saw in Afghanistan, and if you can give an eyewitness account of the cowardice and lack of contribution by the French, maybe I can hold a higher opinion of you. Somehow, I think you won't be able to do that, but I'll keep the option open.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
>My criticism is with the French government.
You have a funny way of expressing that:
"Mostly, their troops are glorified police officers."
That sounded to me, a whole hell of a lot like criticizing soldiers, not governments.
I'm just sick and tired of hearing about France this and the French that, as if they are some sort of enemy of the US. I don't know where it originated (maybe something Pat Robertson said, who knows), but what's strange is that the anti-French sentiment *persists*, and seems to be persisted by people who, if pressed, would not be able to make a cogent argument of what exactly is the matter with France. Whatever it is, was supposed to be so terrible that we can't even eat French Fries (A New Jersey invention, correct?), and we weren't even supposed to drink Champagne. But that idea was also supposed to be some kind of self-evident, obvious fact. Nobody has ever explained it to me, just repeated the whole "cowardly, surrender-monkeys" thing.
So when I get to your message, where you claimed to know the contribution of the French troops to be nothing more than glorified police officers, it raised my blood pressure a bit.
I still wonder where you're coming from. You're a soldier yourself. Seems like you of all people should know better. What are, for instance, MP's in Iraq supposed to think about that sort of thing? After all, they really *are* nothing but glorified police officers. Think about this please.
And maybe somebody can explain to me what makes France such an obvious goddamned scapegoat? I really don't get it. It will never be appropriate, in my ethos, to hold contempt for a nation that is supporting your own in a time of war. If they have boots on the ground in Afghanistan, they are to be held in precisely the same regard as any US soldier. They are, after all, in the same force, on the same side, taking risks and making sacrifices.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.