Jump to content

Talk:Ubisoft

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Semi-protection?

[edit]

Is semi-protection necessary for this article? Vandalism is quite common on this page. Zamaster4536 (talk) 07:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2017

[edit]

Could you possibly add Rayman Origins and Legends as one of their established franchises please?

Thanks Something94 (talk) 01:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Rayman as a series was already entered before-hand, and single games are not franchises. Lordtobi (✉) 07:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Ubisoft has changed its logo yesterday. Therefore, I shall ask this community to get the company's permission to upload its logo to WikiMedia Commons and update the logo in this page.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamAntoshin (talk • contribs) 13:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a French company, the logo can't be uploaded to Commons because of the copyright law in France - X201 (talk) 13:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ubisoft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Useful sources for "Games as a Service" style section

[edit]

This source might be worth adding in the future in a "Games as a Service" style section either in this article or The Division. 2. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really good piece, thanks for the link. Due to vast amount of content in it, I think it is best covered here, with bits related to the individual games covered on the games' articles (namely Assassin's Creed, Far Cry, Watch Dogs, The Crew and The Division) in a compressed fashion. Lordtobi (✉) 19:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lordtobi: You're welcome! Where abouts do you think it should be in the hierarchy/layout of the article? Do you think it should be a sub section of "Games" or its own? Also, do you think that that section would be a good spot to retarget the Anne Blondel-Jouin redirect to (considering that is quite literally the area of the company she is the VP/in charge of?--TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2018 - redundancy

[edit]

In the History section, change:

"Ubisoft announced plans in 2013 to invest $373 million into its Quebec operations over seven years, a move that will generate 500 additional jobs in the province. The publisher is investing in the expansion of its motion capture technologies, and consolidating its online games operations and infrastructure in Montreal. The significant investment is expected to generate 500 jobs in Quebec over a seven-year period."

to:

"Ubisoft announced plans in 2013 to invest $373 million into its Quebec operations over seven years, a move that is expected to generate 500 additional jobs in the province. The publisher is investing in the expansion of its motion capture technologies, and consolidating its online games operations and infrastructure in Montreal."

The last sentence is almost entirely redundant, as the number of jobs to be generated was already mentioned. Apex Editor (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Founding location

[edit]

I think we might have to amend the location of where Ubisoft was founded. Currently, the article says this was in Carentoir, however, their announcing ad, published in a March 1986 magazine, lists a Paris address.[1] The same address is also found in a company profile two issues later,[2] and by June 1986, the company had moved to Créteil.[3] @Masem: Given your sources, the company had development staff in Carentoir but operated from Paris/Créteil, which would you consider to the founding location? I removed the city from the founding parameter for the time being. Lordtobi (✉) 00:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I furthermore changed the founding date, the 12 March date was introduced in this malicious edit over two years ago. Their annual report from 2001 (their first one) reads "The company was founded on March 28, 1986". Masem, please let me know if you have any source that puts the foundation prior than the incorporation. Lordtobi (✉) 08:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source

[edit]

Question on recent studio "acquisition"

[edit]

@Lordtobi: Would you consider this - gaining 75% stake in a company - an acquisition? [4]. That is, does that go in the table or separate? --Masem (t) 15:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ubisoft bought a majority holding and thus has full control over the company, so I do think that it should be in the same table as the other acquisitions (it is the same as with Green Panda Games). Only minority holdings (fancily titled "non-controlling investments" in many cases) should be listed in a separate table (I don't think there are any we know of, though). If really necessary, we can still go with a note for Kolibri and Green Panda. Regards, Lordtobi (✉) 15:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will add. --Masem (t) 15:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Section issues

[edit]
The "Subsidiaries" section includes a "Main" template to List of Ubisoft subsidiaries with a following embedded list. All of these are presented as blue links, actually just pointing to different sub-sections in the same article listed as "Main". This just creates redundancy that gives the appearance of over-promoting Ubisoft and is unnecessary. Otr500 (talk) 14:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Axie Infinity X Ubisoft

[edit]

The Sky Mavis team will be working closely with Ubisoft experts to prepare Axie Infinity for a mainstream release. https://medium.com/@AxieInfinity/axie-infinity-is-participating-in-ubisoft-entrepreneurs-lab-season-5-faaa69efd5f5 2A02:2455:460:2400:74A2:BA0B:FBCF:507B (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Subsidiaries Section

[edit]

The link for Piedmont Canada should not point to Italy, but rather Piedmont, Quebec. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piedmont,_Quebec) (I don't know how to replace links in articles all that well) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SquashEngineer (talk • contribs) 13:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SquashEngineer: I fixed the link in question. For more information on links, see Help:Link. In short:
  1. You can wrap the name of an article with double square brackets to create a link: [[Piedmont]] produces Piedmont.
  2. If you need the text to be different from the article name, you can use a piped link: [[Piedmont, Quebec|Piedmont]] produces Piedmont.
I moved your message down here as your edits indicated that you wanted to create a new section but instead edited the title of an existing section. Editing other people's content on talk pages should generally be avoided; to create new sections, you can best use the "New section" button at the top-right of the page. Also remember to sign your comments by adding four tildes (~~~~) after your message. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 13:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit reversion for pronunciation source

[edit]

The English pronunciation was not sourced. I added a source. This citation was promptly removed. I don't know why an editor would prefer to have unsourced info in the article, but if there's a reason I guess we should discuss. Since as a general thing a valid citation is preferred to, you know, no citation, I have re-added my edit. Discussion is invited in lieu of a revert war. Thx 2601:741:1:65E0:710A:85A7:5BF7:60E1 (talk) 03:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, WP:BRD would indicate you discuss before reinstating your edit. Simply put, we don't need to source that the sky is blue. We certainly don't need to prove this basic detail by linking to a random game trailer from the company in order to see the text buried in the video of "A Ubisoft Production". Many of their games make this clear and obvious in their title cards. It's very atypical for us to "source" the punctuation of any topic. -- ferret (talk) 03:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another way to put it - it is pronounced how it looks in the English tongue so there's almost no need to provide this. If, for some reason, the company wanted us to pronounce it "ubIsoft" with a long-i sound, then I would agree we'd want some type of source for that phonetic approach. But as it is just "ubisoft" with no special inflection, we're fine. --Masem (t) 05:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source currently given actually provides us with both French and English pronunciations already. IceWelder [✉] 07:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I didn't even notice this actually ISN'T unsourced at all, we already have a specific source that is specific about the pronunciation, no WP:OR required. -- ferret (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, what an odd situation I return to. In fact the current source actually does not provide the English pronunciation the article claims. I mean, why do y'all think I added a citation in the first place? 2601:741:1:65E0:95D4:B446:BEAF:4D29 (talk) 02:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised at how much attention this has attracted. I am, to be frank, surprised at several things.
The English pronunciation of the spelling Ubisoft is indeterminate. You may consult the relevant article if you wish. There was no question about a "long" i sound; I don't even know where Masem gets this idea. The obvious ambiguity is whether the word starts like use or like oops. That was clearly stated in the reference I added. It's also addressed in the prior citation already found in the article, whose title makes the question plain: "Is it OO-BE-SOFT or YOU-BE-SOFT?" So while good faith and all that, sure, I would request editors at least know what the question is before providing their opinion on the matter.
Now, about that prior reference. Apparently no one has checked it, because it does not provide the information the article claims. It shows folks saying the name different ways and repeatedly tells the viewer to say it however they want.
I get the sense there is some aesthetic concern here over the nature of the citation I provided. I mean, as much as some editors here may claim otherwise, information about the pronunciation must not be "not really necessary" as stated in the initial revert, or as obvious as the fact that "the sky is blue" as very helpfully stated here. If it were that obvious, one wonders why 1) Ubisoft made that video and 2) editors added the pronunciation to the article ! From an objective standpoint, the pronunciation appears to be both uncertain and of interest to the general public. I would ask editors involved in this discussion to reflect whether something is obvious to them perhaps because they spend a lot of time involved in Ubisoft-related things. This article also serves people who encounter the company rarely. I would note that for such readers, the fact that many games and title cards make the company's pronunciation "obvious" is not helpful, for the obvious reason that such readers don't play those games or encounter those title cards very often. Indeed with only slight reflection it is obvious that a vast number of words' pronunciations are "obvious" to those who encounter them frequently because of personal interests (or work etc.), even while at the same time many laypersons find it quite helpful to have a reference indicating pronunciation. Wikipedia is full of such terms.
Now, speaking of BRD, the policy advises editors to revert only when necessary. I would like to ask directly what necessitated removal of a valid citation that provides information claimed in the article but sourced in no other citations. BRD further advises editors to refine rather than revert when possible. The claim that many games and title cards make the pronunciation obvious would clearly imply that, ferret, if you know of such other sources, refinement should have been an option.
Also, ferret, who's talking about punctuation here? I certainly am not. Again good faith and all that, but it seems like you're reverting a constructive edit without even understanding the content and source in question.
So, to summarize. Regarding the initial revert justification that the citation I added really isn't necessary, in fact some such citation is necessary, because the information claimed in the article is not found in any other source, is unclear to the general public, and is of interest.
Options? Well, we shouldn't keep unsourced info in the article. So we should either remove the English pronunciation currently in there, or reinstate my edit, or add in a better source for the English pronunciation. As an alternative, we could add the various additional English pronunciations found in the prior reference (the "Is it OO-BE-SOFT or YOU-BE-SOFT?" video). This last option would at least maintain consistency between the information claimed in the article and the information that can be found in the citations.
I welcome y'all's thoughts. 2601:741:1:65E0:95D4:B446:BEAF:4D29 (talk) 03:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The key part of the video that is currently linked is that it includes one of Ubisoft's founders and current chainman, Yves G., explaining the small difference between the English and French pronunciations (see around timestamp 1:35). So that's basically authoritative and thus the only source we need. Masem (t) 03:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not unsourced. The source that is literally adjacent to the two pronunciations contains Yves Guillemot, the CEO, chairman, and co-founder (and therefore one of the persons to come up with the name), say:

Moi, je dis Ubisoft ([ybisɔft]); but in English you can say Ubisoft (/ˈjuːbisɒft/).

The person who created the name should be the one able to tell you how it is pronounced. We do not need a spearate video with a random voice-over as a source, nor would we need to consider how various employees call it. IceWelder [✉] 08:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Folks, this is head-spinning. Guillemot literally says: In English [...] you can pronounce it the way you want. In that video. The one you're talking about. This is something I already pointed out in my previous remark above. So if you think there's a specific English pronunciation that should be provided to readers, it requires some other source.
I am removing the English pronunciation since there is a strange unwillingness to source the information. We shouldn't have unsourced information. 2601:741:1:65E0:1EE:B9D:923E:486E (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are purposely cutting out the part where Yves says what the English pronunciation is preferred: "In English, you can say "Ubisoft" or you can pronounce it the way you want". That statement is the one we should be resting on. You're purposely twisting claims about the video to ignore that. --Masem (t) 18:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's definitely not twisting anything. IceWelder twisted the original remark by excluding relevant info. I, on the other hand, explicitly noted in my quotation that information was elided. I did not need to re-state information IceWelder had already mentioned. My purpose was, clearly, to emphasize information that had already been omitted in a way that distorted the information in the original source. Let me provide a rather straightforward analogy. If a person tells us the number x can be 5 or it can also be any number, and you insist x must always be 5, clearly that is not an accurate representation of the information we are given. I am removing the unsourced info again. Further, I want to recap:
  • When I made my original edit, it was reverted on the basis that a source for English pronunciation was not even needed. I provided reasons it was needed. No one has contested these reasons. Does anyone still assert that an English pronunciation is so obvious that a source for it is unneeded?
  • At this time, the discussion has shifted without any explicit acknowledgement that the original basis for reverting my edit did not stand up to discussion, and focuses on what Yves says in a video. Unfortunately, Masem wants only some of the information in the video to be used while ignoring other information which, if Yves is for some reason the desired authority on this question, should obviously be included. Can anyone address explicitly why Yves saying "you can pronounce it the way you want" should be ignored if Yves is the authority on the matter?
My take is that there is a preferred pronunciation, but the video that includes a clip of Yves does not indicate as such. That video is playful, polite, intentionally ambiguous. Now, maybe I'm wrong and there really isn't a specific pronunciation for this word. But if there is, it clearly requires some other source, which is what I provided: some other official marketing material showing how the company wants English speakers to use the word. As I have already said, it would be great if someone had an even better source than the one I added to the article. But until some source, whether it's the one I originally provided or some better one, is included in the article we shouldn't present unsourced (or badref) information in the article. 2601:741:1:65E0:44CD:26A4:3D18:5711 (talk) 02:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are making a very pendantic, nitpicky argument. The way Yves pronounces Ubisoft in English is the way everyone else pronounces it, so unless you have a source that denies this is a pronouncation in English, you have no argument here. Masem (t) 02:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are making a very pendantic, nitpicky argument.
Since that is the only thing you have to say about my argument, may I conclude you concede the actual substance of the argument?
The way Yves pronounces Ubisoft in English is the way everyone else pronounces it
The very video you are claiming as your source directly, repeatedly refutes this claim. This would be striking enough if we hadn't already directly addressed this fact in the discussion here. Please, watch the video with Yves (the source you wish to use) and tell me everyone in English pronounces it the same. 2601:741:1:65E0:4178:F475:7D35:523E (talk) 01:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yves is the authority on how the name is pronounced in English, given that he is the founder and CEO. The rest of what's the in the video is clearly jokingly saying "we otherwise don't care how you pronounce it in English", but no reasonable person would take those other cases as having authority over Yves. Masem (t) 02:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
no reasonable person would take those other cases as having authority over Yves
While that claim itself is dubious, I have to point out again that Yves himself said you can say the word however you want. This video simply does not work as a reference for the information claimed in the article. 2601:741:1:65E0:9871:8D61:BE64:2DD2 (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, ferret, who's talking about punctuation here? This was a simple dyslexic typo. I meant pronunciation. -- ferret (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ubisoft Executive

[edit]

According to multiple news outlets, a Ubisoft Executive stated that people need to get comfortable with not owning their games. The statement was met with criticism. GuyUser81 (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ubisoft&oldid=1209812228"