News from the lovely world of the Games Industry.

[Syt]

Meanwhile in Ubisoftland:

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2021-07-30-ubisoft-group-says-yves-guillemot-has-sidelined-its-demands-as-ceo-responds-to-open-letter

Ubisoft group says Yves Guillemot has "sidelined" its demands as CEO responds to open letter

Over 1,000 current and former staff claim Assassin's Creed publisher "continues to protect and promote known offenders and their allies"

The group behind the open letter to Ubisoft's management has criticised CEO Yves Guillemot for failing to address their points and demands.

The original letter was published earlier this week, and called for the Assassin's Creed publisher to remove all offenders from the company and for industry-wide collaboration on new reporting processes.

GamesIndustry.biz has been told that, at the time of writing, over 1,000 current and former Ubisoft staff from 32 of the publisher's global studios have signed the letter.

CEO Yves Guillemot reacted to this letter in an email sent to all Ubisoft staff, as shared by Axios' Stephen Totilo on Twitter. GamesIndustry.biz has verified the contents of this email.

The letter mostly reiterated previous statements from Guillemot -- in particular the one he released in the wake of the Télégramme article -- saying that the company "made important progress over the past year." It also repeated Ubisoft's initial statement following the open letter about taking "the issues it raises seriously."

The statement also listed changes at the company over the past year, once again mostly reiterating measures that had been previously announced. It did add that a "new company wide survey" will be launched by the end of 2021 and that the company is currently looking for a new VP of global employee relations.

Guillemot added that Ubisoft will provide an update on these matters in Q3, "including next steps on the Values Project, D&I and [its] HR roadmap."

"Yesterday's letter expresses concern from employees who want to make Ubisoft a better place," Guillemot said. "We have heard clearly from this letter that not everyone is confident in the processes that have been put in place to manage misconduct reports. This is a top priority for Anika [Grant, chief people officer], who continues to ensure they are robust and independent."

Guillemot concluded by offering for any member of staff to reach out to him personally, or other members of management.

However, the group behind the original letter has reached out to GamesIndustry.biz with a final response, in which it says the "majority of our demands were sidelined and few of our points seem to have been addressed."

"We are aware that the company has made some improvements, and we are happy to hear that Yves and the leadership team agree that it is not enough," the group continued.

"However, Ubisoft continues to protect and promote known offenders and their allies. We see management continuing to avoid this issue. It is also worth clarifying that an invitation to reach out to company management personally is not the same as having a collective seat at the table."

The group said it "[looks] forward to a full response" and reiterated the issues and demands the letter raised, emphasising the need for cross-industry collaboration on ground rules and processes for how these offences should be handled in future.

"By being the first to start this collaboration Ubisoft has the opportunity to be at the forefront of creating a better future for the games industry," the letter concluded. "We demand that this work be done in collaboration with employees at all levels.

"We want to see real, fundamental change within Ubisoft and across the industry, for the sake of our members. Again, we look forward to a response that addresses all the issues raised and properly acknowledges our demands."

Additionally, a member of the group told us: "Even though change has been happening and there seems to be a major restructuring happening internally, it's hypocritical of management to say that they're working on it while still harboring, protecting, permitting, and shuffling around known toxic and abusive people to other positions of power. Morale and trust is low.

"It's exhausting, frustrating and it counters the messaging they give us. We cannot be happy or satisfied with this hypocrisy. For the one person who signed there are countless others who simply were too terrified. Do better or keep losing good people."

In its original letter, the group also showed support for the Activision Blizzard group that has been protesting over the company's response to the lawsuit regarding alleged discrimination and harassment of its employees.

[Valmy]

Ok after reading all of this I feel like not even frat boys deserve to be associated with the crazy shit video game companies do. The name of douchebags everywhere is being dragged through the mud here.

It is pretty ridiculous that this kind of thing would ever be tolerated in a business environments. I hope people stop buying their games but it seems like too much to expect consumers to police this stuff. The courts and law enforcement and the institutions are really failing the employees at these companies.

They should really consider forming a video game developers union, nobody else is likely to help them if these kind of conditions keep getting tolerated even years after outright scandals occur.

[Valmy]

(In case you find the 50 million p.a. a bit silly ... seems in line with his IRL paycheck: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/activision-blizzard-pulls-out-a-win-on-say-on-pay-proposal-after-delaying-vote-for-a-week-11624299616 )

Kotick is notorious for paying himself huge amounts of money to do nothing while firing actual productive developers. I am not sure why share holders put up with it.

[Syt]

PC Gamer have a summary of the issues at Blizzard of the last 3 years: https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/how-blizzards-reputation-collapsed-in-just-3-years/

It seems after the hits that were Hearthstone and Overwatch they've gone downhill a fair bit.

[Tonitrus]

Is WoW not raking in the steady cash that it used to, or does that just pay their minimum wage now?

[Syt]

Probably. But a lot of big WoW streamers have switched to Final Fantasy 14 recently because of how tired they were of WoW, and took a chunk of their viewers with them. Remains to be seen if they stay with FF14 or not.

[Grey Fox]

PC Gamer have a summary of the issues at Blizzard of the last 3 years: https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/how-blizzards-reputation-collapsed-in-just-3-years/

It seems after the hits that were Hearthstone and Overwatch they've gone downhill a fair bit.

It's a lot like Bioware. The people who made the company the darling success it was have moved on to other ventures.

[Berkut]

All that being said, these kind of letter writing campaigns are kind of problematic.

I mean....a thousand people sign a letter. OK. That means how many did not sign the letter?

These "articles" from journalists quote anonymous sources making statements as statements of fact. You cannot (or should not) fire people based on some letter that someone convinced some people to sign. Is employment a popularity contest? If I can find X people at my company who will sign a letter saying they don't like someone, should I fire them on that basis alone?

Shit like this:

Additionally, a member of the group told us: "Even though change has been happening and there seems to be a major restructuring happening internally, it's hypocritical of management to say that they're working on it while still harboring, protecting, permitting, and shuffling around known toxic and abusive people to other positions of power. Morale and trust is low.

A "member of the group" told "us" that management is "shuffling around known toxic and abusive people". WTF does that actually mean? What people? Who? How are the "known"? Is there a paper trail? What does "toxic" and "abusive" mean here, specifically to the particule people in question?

There is no way to know, and nothing that can or should be actioned based on this kind of bullshit. There is an awful lot of smoke here, so I am confident there is certainly a fire going, but this reporting is basically just gossip and mob pressure to get people fired some minority of workers have decided ought to be fired.

Maybe those people in question really do deserve to be fired for good reasons. But I sure as hell cannot tell because some thousand people signed a letter. According to wikipedia, they ahve about 18,000 employees. That means 17000 of them did NOT sign a letter demanding that "known toxic and abusive people" (presumably the letter writers have a list?) be fired. What does that mean?

[The Brain]

I don't see the problem. The person quoted says that the company should get rid of known abusers. I would be surprised if the person quoted or the people signing the letter want the company to get rid of people based on just the letter or the person's statement to the press.

[Berkut]

I don't see the problem. The person quoted says that the company should get rid of known abusers. I would be surprised if the person quoted or the people signing the letter want the company to get rid of people based on just the letter or the person's statement to the press.

The problem is that hiring and firing people is a legal process, not a political one. And this kind of public mob shaming campaigns turn it into a farce, and it seems pretty clear to me that the goal of this exposure is to generate outrage and clicks, which makes careful investigation and reasoned response to what is (or ought to be) a pretty careful, thoughtful process basically impossible.

"The person quoted says the company should get rid of known abusers".

OK - but that is true whether some person is quoted or not. And the fact that 1/18 employees signed a letter doesn't tell us much of anything about whether or not the company is in fact doing that or not.

[Oexmelin]

I think the dynamics of a work place such as those documented re: Afribisi at Blizzard or Ubisoft make it pretty clear this isn't about a popularity contest. I am likely not convinced at all this is all about clickbait. And having been in work places prior to "me two* movement that bent over backwards to transfer people rather than fire them, despite clearly abusive or predatory behavior, this rings a lot truer than some sort of witch hunt based on vague rumors about unpleasant people.

[The Brain]

I don't see the problem. The person quoted says that the company should get rid of known abusers. I would be surprised if the person quoted or the people signing the letter want the company to get rid of people based on just the letter or the person's statement to the press.

The problem is that hiring and firing people is a legal process, not a political one. And this kind of public mob shaming campaigns turn it into a farce, and it seems pretty clear to me that the goal of this exposure is to generate outrage and clicks, which makes careful investigation and reasoned response to what is (or ought to be) a pretty careful, thoughtful process basically impossible.

"The person quoted says the company should get rid of known abusers".

OK - but that is true whether some person is quoted or not. And the fact that 1/18 employees signed a letter doesn't tell us much of anything about whether or not the company is in fact doing that or not.

I still don't really understand what the problem is here. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

[The Minsky Moment]

Maybe those people in question really do deserve to be fired for good reasons. But I sure as hell cannot tell because some thousand people signed a letter. According to wikipedia, they ahve about 18,000 employees. That means 17000 of them did NOT sign a letter demanding that "known toxic and abusive people" (presumably the letter writers have a list?) be fired. What does that mean?

It means that they have a very serious personnel problem, if 1000 of their people are angry or desperate enough to put their names on a public letter criticizing management.  Whatever the truth of the accusations may be. it is not a good sign for management.

[The Minsky Moment]

Ok after reading all of this I feel like not even frat boys deserve to be associated with the crazy shit video game companies do. The name of douchebags everywhere is being dragged through the mud here.

"Frat" being shorthand here for industries traditionally dominated by men and with a distinctive culture.

This has always been a problem in the banking industry but because of the sheer amounts of money involved and the social pretensions of the bankers (you don't see a lot video game designers on the board of the Metropolitan Opera) the banking firms have been more aggressive blanketing their firms with professional compliance people then it appears the gaming industry has.

[Sheilbh]

I think the dynamics of a work place such as those documented re: Afribisi at Blizzard or Ubisoft make it pretty clear this isn't about a popularity contest. I am likely not convinced at all this is all about clickbait. And having been in work places prior to "me two* movement that bent over backwards to transfer people rather than fire them, despite clearly abusive or predatory behavior, this rings a lot truer than some sort of witch hunt based on vague rumors about unpleasant people.

Yeah - I also think there's a particular issue with industries people are desperate to be often the more creative/"calling" sectors: journalism, fashion, arts, charities etc - or where there's huge financial rewards: finance (especially I think the asset management/PE sort of world).

I think in more "normal" sectors - especially ones without a "rainmaker" culture as well - things are normally different. But the combination of "talent" that need tolerating or special treatment and a huge pool of potential juniors desperate to get in is very dangerous.