Talk:Ubisoft

Semi-protection?

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

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2017

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

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

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

Ubisoft's new logo

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)

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304051626/http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/98935-Ubisoft-Blames-DRM-Outage-on-Server-Attack to https://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/98935-Ubisoft-Blames-DRM-Outage-on-Server-Attack

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)

Useful sources for "Games as a Service" style section

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)

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)

@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)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2018 - redundancy

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)

•  Done. Lordtobi (✉) 19:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Founding location

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. The same address is also found in a company profile two issues later, and by June 1986, the company had moved to Créteil. @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)

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)

Source

• https://web.archive.org/web/20020204232452/http://www.gamespot.fr/stories/news/0,1610,2002070,00.html

Question on recent studio "acquisition"

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

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)

Thanks, will add. --Masem (t) 15:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Section issues

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)

Axie Infinity X Ubisoft

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)

Subsidiaries Section

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)

@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)

Edit reversion for pronunciation source

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)

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)

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)

The source currently given actually provides us with both French and English pronunciations already. IceWelder [✉] 07:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Ubisoft Executive

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)

Anti-Ubisoft bias?

It seems like some of paragraphs are written by people who dislike the company. Wyll Ravengard (talk) 09:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

It's not bias if it's true. ~2026-39934-46 (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Continued expansion (2003–2015)

It is strange that Far Cry is not mentioned in this section at all, as it's major Ubisoft first-person shooter franchise that produced four major entries and a bunch of reworks/spin-offs in this timeframe.

Ubisoft/Gameloft

I am opening this discussion regarding the removal of a well-sourced statement about the Ubisoft–Gameloft relationship.The removed content concerns the fact that Ubisoft and Gameloft were sister companies that collaborated for over 15 years on numerous projects, and that this long-standing collaboration ended following the Vivendi takeover of Gameloft, with documented consequences for both companies’ strategies. This material is supported by multiple reliable sources, and I am prepared to provide or re-list them if needed in the discussion. I do not agree with the suggestion that the content is unsourced, as it is clearly and extensively documented in independent sources.I am open to discussing wording or scope, but I would appreciate that objections be based on sources. Royge 12 (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

You need at least one reliable source that explicitly states that, what I'm seeing is not well supported by the sources, and also feels like how presented, original research to make the claim. Obviously, when a competitor buyouts a studio from the publisher, it would not be expected for the studio to keep working with its former owner, so this is something that can be left unsaid most likely. Masem (t) 04:10, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

There are two points that I think deserve at least a brief mention on Ubisoft's page.

1. The Ubisoft–Gameloft relationship (2005–2016)

The collaboration between Ubisoft and Gameloft from roughly 2005 to 2016 was a significant part of Ubisoft's history. The two companies were sister companies, sharing the same founders and majority shareholders, and Gameloft was responsible for bringing a large number of Ubisoft franchises to mobile devices during a period when it was the leading mobile game publisher (Prince of Persia HD , Assassin's Creed II , Assassin's Creed Brotherhood , Assassin's Creed Revelations , Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Shadow Vanguard , Tintin, Avatar The Game, Far Cry 2, Brother In Arms : Earned in Blood, ect)

And it's not simple ports. In several cases, Ubisoft and Gameloft produced dedicated mobile versions or complete remakes of Ubisoft games. For example, The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn received a fully redesigned 2D mobile adaptation (and that was the case for a lot of Ubisoft games developed by Gameloft, notably in Java). This period is well documented through game databases, reviews, and contemporary coverage.

A short paragraph on this relationship would be useful, as Ubisoft's strong presence on mobile in the 2000s and early 2010s was largely driven by Gameloft, yet this is not currently mentioned on the page.

Sources for this section are provided below :https://www.pocketgamer.biz/gameloft-profile/https://www.pocketgamer.com/the-adventures-of-tintin-the-secret-of-the-unicorn/review-6634/https://www.ign.com/games/producer/gameloft

2. After Vivendi's acquisition of Gameloft

It could also be worth mentioning that, following Vivendi's acquisition of Gameloft, Ubisoft invested heavily in its own mobile gaming activities in order to reduce its dependence on Gameloft. Around the same period, Ubisoft also stopped publishing Gameloft titles on PC and consoles, leading Gameloft to handle the publication of its games on those platforms itself

Sources for this section are provided below :

https://www.pocketgamer.biz/ubisoft-soft-launches-hungry-dragon/

https://news.ubisoft.com/en-au/article/2xWaMgJcJBXYmGEFqi8XeY/ubisoft-acquires-mobile-game-studio-kolibri-games

https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2016/09/27/1785493/0/en/ubisoft-entertainment-ubisoft-acquires-mobile-publisher-ketchapp.html

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/ubisoft-makes-major-move-in-mobile-with-2048-devel/1100-6443985

https://www.pocketgamer.biz/ubisoft-announces-assassins-creed-rebellion/

https://www.vivendi.com/nos-actifs/gameloft/ Royge 12 (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

For context: Gameloft was number 1 in the world from 2007 to the years that followed, so this collaboration had a major impact on Ubisoft's presence on the global mobile market, going through collaboration with Gameloft, Ubisoft's licenses were pioneers in the mobile market. (https://www.numerama.com/pop-culture/6081-le-francais-gameloft-numero-1-mondial-du-jeu-sur-mobile.html)

This whole section is missing from Ubisoft's English page, which is a shame, it would be good to find a good approach to discuss it together. Royge 12 (talk) 22:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

None of these talk about the relationship between ubisoft and gameloft directly, making this original research. Masem (t) 00:32, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

To add, under "Attempted takeover by Vivendi (2015–2018)", we already talk about how Vivaldi bought into Gameloft as to try a hostile takeover of Gameloft, and in the end, just bought out Gameloft completely. Masem (t) 00:53, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

You are confusing two things: it is not because there has been no journalistic investigation on the subject that there are no sources mentioning it. In fact, many sources document this collaboration, listing the games and providing commentary (as shown in the sources I cited above and others I can provide), and numerous reviews of these games explicitly discuss and demonstrate that Ubisoft’s titles were completely reworked and turned into 2D remakes or adaptations on mobile, as I have already referenced in my sources (and I can find additional reviews discussing this as well). Royge 12 (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

So this is by no means original research, since these games are officially listed, these transformations do exist and are mentioned in reviews, and Gameloft was indeed the number one player in the mobile market during that period and therefore highly visible; there is no original research in my statements. Royge 12 (talk) 10:18, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Its still original research to try to describe broader patterns based only on a few examples. Masem (t) 11:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

But what trend are you talking about? Where did I ever mention trends? You're the one engaging in original research here. I'm relying solely on the facts: a major collaboration involving dozens of games that gave Ubisoft a very strong presence on mobile. It is a fact that most of those games were completely remade for mobile by Gameloft, and it is also a fact that this entire aspect is currently absent from Ubisoft's English Wikipedia pag Royge 12 (talk) 12:53, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Tnd thse are not just "a few examples." Have you even read the sources I provided? At this point, I get the impression that you're simply looking for reasons to reject this automatically rather than trying to find any common ground. Royge 12 (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, the goal is to propose solutions rather than simply rejecting content while remaining vague, or even disregarding sources without offering anything concrete in return. In this case, a whole aspect of Ubisoft’s history is currently missing from the Wikipedia page—namely its presence in mobile gaming since the 2000s, including its connection with Gameloft. Instead of trying to find a way forward together, I get the impression (though I hope I’m wrong) that the discussion is focused mainly on dismissing and overlooking the sources, without ultimately proposing any constructive alternative. Royge 12 (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

we need the sourcing to start with, thats the only way you go forward. It probably doesnt help that around this point in time involving Camelot, Ubisoft, and Vivendi that mobile game coverage was extremely minor making it difficult to find articles that talk specifically on the connection of gameloft to ubisoft. But we can't use OR to make that lack of sourcing up. Masem (t) 13:14, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it is not very widely covered in the media (but media coverage is independent from encyclopedic relevance in this case, since we are talking about history on Wikipedia). However, several of my sources already explicitly mention these links, and I can find more (https://www.pocketgamer.biz/gameloft-profile/)

Similarly for the 2D games, there are many examples showing that Gameloft and Ubisoft completely reworked Ubisoft games into 2D on mobile (through journalistic reviews or trailers).Again, this is not original research but established facts; at no point am I inventing or inferring anything: the game is fully remade in 2D even though it is 3D on PC and console, and the developers are Gameloft and Ubisoft. There is no original research in this reasoning. Royge 12 (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I will agree that we should have more about pre vivendi events around gameloft, and how it was connected to ubisoft. Eg like . But we have to be careful with sone of these claims. Sone of these sources promoting gameloft as a major mobile player are based on ganelofts own press releases, so we can't use those. But again, we can't just use examples to make broad claims, we sources explicit in making those claims. I'm trying to see what's there but currently limited right now. Masem (t) 13:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Here are some additional sources. The most important one is the source about mobile Assassin’s Creed games, which shows that the collaboration went beyond simple publishing or distribution and included remakes and original games (at least for the Assassin’s Creed franchise, as stated in the article). There are also other examples, such as the Tintin game, which was completely remade for mobile, as I mentioned earlier and supported by a source provided above.

https://www.pocketgamer.com/features/gameloft-assassins-creed-retrospective/ (2024)

https://www.marketingdive.com/ex/mobilemarketer/cms/news/gaming/4996.html

https://www.pocketgamer.biz/gameloft-to-expand-iphone-relationship-with-ubisoft/

https://www.ft.com/content/9dccbed6-6006-11d9-bd2f-00000e2511c8

There are also two sources confirming that this collaboration worked both ways: Ubisoft ported certain Gameloft titles to PC and consoles :

https://www.boursier.com/actions/actualites/news/ubisoft-real-football-2008-sera-distribue-avec-gameloft-248288.html

https://www.digitalfoundry.net/games/ds/assassins_creed_altairs_chronicles

https://www.digitalfoundry.net/games/psvita/asphalt_injection

https://www.digitalfoundry.net/games/ds/asphalt_urban_gt

https://www.digitalfoundry.net/games/psvita/dungeon_hunter_alliance

https://www.gameloft.com/blog/players/establishing-legend-asphalt-5?utm_source= Royge 12 (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

This source provides a genuine journalistic investigation that explicitly reveals the Gameloft/Ubisoft relationship regarding the Assassin's Creed franchise; it's very detailed.

https://www.pocketgamer.com/features/gameloft-assassins-creed-retrospective/ Royge 12 (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, you forgot to reply to me, it seems to me that we now have enough sources (in view of the two messages above), what do you think? Royge 12 (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Again, we cannot use sources that talk about singular games to make broader claims. That last article on the AC retrospective, it only mentions Ubisoft in a subheadline, taht's nowhere close to enough. You need sources that explicitly discuss the business relation between Ubi and GL. Now, I did add stuff about the founding of Gameloft, how they did do work with Ubisoft's games particularly for the iPhone, and then the sale of Ubisoft's control up to about 2010, but until the Vivendi involvements, that's all I've been able to find that's usable without engaging in original research or overtly promotional content. Masem (t) 01:36, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

No, you are wrong here.

First, your claim that this is promotional content is false. The article dates from 2024, at a time when these games were no longer legally accessible. On what basis are you claiming that it is promotional? It is an independent media outlet discussing a Gameloft game, and according to you that automatically makes it promotional?

You do not have the right on Wikipedia to make assertions such as “this is promotional” when absolutely no element supports that conclusion. Wikipedia evaluates sources and content based on facts. Furthermore, I already mentioned that the article dates from 2024. At this point, I feel like I am wasting my time talking with you, and that you are not here to seek the truth.

Let's get back to the content:

The source explicitly discusses how Ubisoft and Gameloft collaborated on mobile games, especially on Gameloft’s Assassin’s Creed games, which are based on a Ubisoft franchise. So you are not disputing the content or the facts themselves, but rather an editorial approach, namely that, in your opinion, the article does not mention Ubisoft enough. However, that does not change the actual content or subject of the article: the collaboration and the existence of numerous games from Ubisoft’s most important franchise developed by Gameloft. At this point, you are going too far. No Wikipedia rule requires what you are claiming. The partnership is sourced, notable, lasted over a long period of time, and is directly connected to Ubisoft (we are talking here about their most important franchise, for example). There is no original research involved. I invite you to reconsider your position and reread the sources. If you cannot provide any concrete arguments, I will request input from a third party to close this discussion, as it is no longer progressing despite the dozens of sources that have been added. Royge 12 (talk) 06:24, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

After rereading Wikipedia’s rules, I believe you are going much too far. The sources are more than sufficient: there are both secondary and primary sources spanning more than three years and directly related to Ubisoft. What matters is not the number of times a journalist mentions Ubisoft in an article, but whether the connection is direct, and here it clearly is, since these are official partnerships.

For your information, even when something is not part of an official partnership, it can still have a place on Wikipedia if it is notable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a corporate profile page. Its purpose is to document what happened, without depending on the level of media coverage or marketing surrounding it. Royge 12 (talk) 06:32, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

This collaboration is proven by sources, and is important, with almost all of Ubisoft's franchises involved over several years, the debate should end there, and this is factually not new research: the partnership is even official, we have found primary and secondary sources mentioning it, what you are ultimately criticizing is just a lack of media coverage, which is not enough to invalidate it on Wikipedia in this case.

In fact, I went even further in my research by analyzing each case individually (even though general sources are more than sufficient) and now you're telling me that "we can't generalize from 1 source that talks about 1 franchise" even though other sources mention dozens of games and even some official partnerships, that's more than what Wikipedia asks for. Royge 12 (talk) 06:38, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

And obviously you have absolutely no source that contradicts the other sources Royge 12 (talk) 06:40, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

First off, remember that this is the article about Ubisoft, not Gameloft. It's important, with respect to Ubisoft, to establish that Gameloft was tied to Ubisoft early on, and that Vivendi's takover of Gameloft was part of how they were trying to take over Ubisoft (all which is in the article right now so we're not ignoring Gameloft), but beyond that, there's not much more that needs to be said about Gameloft when talking about Ubisoft here. Some of this stuff may be more appropriate on the Gameloft page. WP:DUE is somewhat important here as well; if sources have not gone into any great detail on the business ties between Ubisoft and Gameloft, we can't give undue weight to weak sourcing that emphasizes that.

This also not a page about any of Ubisoft's games or franchises outside of how those impacted Ubisoft's businesses (eg things like the origin of Assassin's Creed or how they got the Tom Clancy games). Obviously, the various series' pages should be mentioning any mobile games alongside the flagship ones, but a company's page is not where to go into these types of specifics.

And again, WP:SYNTH is a driver here. Just because you can list dozens of games made by Gameloft based on an Ubisoft property does not give any type of usable inference on the business connections or how important that connection is to the companies. That has to be explicitly stated in the article, something specifically like this article (regarding the selloff of Gameloft shares by Ubisoft). Otherwise, you're making interpretations or synthesizing ideas from different sources to come to a novel conclusion, which we absolutely cannot do. Masem (t) 11:09, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I reiterate my point: what you are saying is false. Wikipedia does not require that only press releases or media coverage discuss a piece of information for it to be considered notable (many cases exist where simple archival or cataloging sources are sufficient).

The impact on Ubisoft is major: we are talking about its presence on mobile, with dozens of games involved. We are also talking about its franchises, for Assassin’s Creed, Ubisoft’s strategy was, together with Gameloft, to release mobile entries and remakes from the very birth of the mobile gaming market (unlike most other companies).These facts are factual and sourced. I have only relied on sources from the very beginning, while you keep saying things like “I feel that’s not enough” or “I don’t see enough Ubisoft in this article.” Wikipedia is not supposed to rely on impressions, but on facts.Factually, most major Ubisoft games were ported to mobile by Gameloft during the 2000s. Is this sourced? Yes.(https://www.ign.com/games/producer/gameloft, https://www.pocketgamer.com/features/gameloft-assassins-creed-retrospective/, https://www.gamesindustry.biz/ubisoft-sells-stake-in-gameloft-a, https://www.pocketgamer.com/the-adventures-of-tintin-the-secret-of-the-unicorn/review-6634/, https://www.pocketgamer.biz/gameloft-profile/, among others). Is it notable information regarding Ubisoft’s mobile strategy during the 2000s? Yes. Is it original research? No.End of debate. Since you are the only person opposing this point (which is the case), I will propose within the next few hours that a third party intervene to put an end to this debate, which should not even exist given the discussion and Wikipedia’s rules. Royge 12 (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

And I reiterate that there is NO source whatsoever that would call into question the partnership between Gameloft and Ubisoft. It is sourced and factual, with a literal impact on Ubisoft through original games and remakes of its main franchises, as well as on its entire mobile presence throughout the 2000s and 2010s.That is MORE than significant enough to be mentioned on Ubisoft’s page (and I repeat, Gameloft being the world leader in the mobile market at that time, this was not a small partnership https://www.numerama.com/pop-culture/6081-le-francais-gameloft-numero-1-mondial-du-jeu-sur-mobile.html ).. It is unfortunate that more people are not paying attention to this discussion to point out what is, frankly, obvious. Royge 12 (talk) 12:56, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I invite you to reconsider your position, or to explain to me (with sources ) how this could be considered a minor partnership, when it involved the mobile market leader of the time, dozens of original Ubisoft games (including 2D remakes and entirely new entries made exclusively for mobile), and an official partnership with a company that was also owned by the same shareholders (the Guillemot family, founders of both Ubisoft and Gameloft). Royge 12 (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Lets look at those sources:

https://www.ign.com/games/producer/gameloft - Simply a listing of games, there is no usable content we can use here.

https://www.pocketgamer.com/features/gameloft-assassins-creed-retrospective/ - Only place Ubisoft is mentioned in the subheadline, so thre's no statement regarding Ubisoft's business here.

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/ubisoft-sells-stake-in-gameloft-a - the only useable source and already in the article

https://www.pocketgamer.com/the-adventures-of-tintin-the-secret-of-the-unicorn/review-6634/ - Ubisoft not even mentioned, so certainly not usable.

https://www.numerama.com/pop-culture/6081-le-francais-gameloft-numero-1-mondial-du-jeu-sur-mobile.html - Using google translate, it is Gameloft making its own claim about about being the world leader in mobile phone games. That is absolutely unusable, we don't use such self-stated claims at all.

I'm going to quote WP:NOR "To demonstrate that one is not adding original research, one must be able to cite – even if not yet expressly cited – reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support[a] the material being presented." Everything you're stating, outside of what already in the article, is not following this, and thus qualifies as original research. Masem (t) 13:32, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Your dishonesty is totally unacceptable! IGN “unusable”? When they list dozens of games marked as co-developed by Ubisoft and Gameloft?? Then the article about Assassin’s Creed is TOTALLY acceptable, since these are OFFICIAL Ubisoft games, literally the most important franchise of the company, and it clearly states that it is indeed a collaboration between Gameloft and Ubisoft. You complain that they only mention it once in the article???

That’s normal, they’re not going to repeat the same information 20 times, what world do you live in?The article details the different Assassin’s Creed mobile games, showing that it was a broad partnership with remakes and original games. The same applies to the Gameloft profile article on the well-known media outlet Pocket Gamer, which explicitly mentions this Ubisoft/Gameloft partnership as important, making it an additional secondary source alongside the press release.

Also, how is it unacceptable that it is in French??? Wikipedia English accepts French-language sources if they come from important media outlets, which is the case for Numerama.

Furthermore, you still have NO valid argument on Wikipedia: the Gameloft/Ubisoft games are PROVEN by hundreds of sources, and most of them even have their own Wikipedia pages. You are being dishonest and ignoring a large part of what I said above, while only keeping sources you selectively interpret. And it is YOU who are doing original research by questioning the statements of the media and press releases with ZERO evidence to justify your statements. Royge 12 (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Finally, all the sources I have cited are admissible on Wikipedia and considered reliable, that is enough, I am going to request the intervention of a third party because I cannot continue with someone who misuses sources and ultimately does not respect Wikipedia's rules, which accepts the sources I have given, contrary to what you claim. Royge 12 (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

The IGN source is unusable because its just a list of games. It speaks nothing to the business dealings between Ubisoft and Gameloft. That's why I pointed out the NOR quote, the source has to speak directly to the business relation, you cannot just infer there is a big one because there's a lot of gameloft titles based on ubisoft properties. That's fundamentally original research.

I didn't say the numerama source was unusable because it was in French, its unusable because it is based on claims by Gameloft themselves as to their importance. That's overtly promotion material that we cannot use at all, regardless if it was in English, French, or some other language.

Again, read WP:NOR and understand what we cannot do: You need sources that speak directly to the Ubisoft/Gameloft relationship and requires no interpretation to understand that. Masem (t) 13:45, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Once again, this is a response that both distorts Wikipedia rules and still ignores the sources.

1)No, this is not original research. The fact that dozens of Gameloft/Ubisoft games are listed by IGN proves that they have made many games together. That is not original research, and you know it very well. It is factual: Ubisoft developed dozens of games with Gameloft on mobile during a period. There is NO original research in that statement, and the source (IGN) clearly addresses this topic by listing Ubisoft/Gameloft games. My game database sources are widely acceptable on Wikipedia (I know this because I make many contributions on cinema, where film index websites for films from the 1900s are systematically used as sources since no dedicated articles exist for each film).

This is precisely not interpretation, but a FACTUAL element: dozens of Ubisoft and Gameloft games were made. I can also cite 30 sources showing the one by one titles. It is not because no media outlet has discussed all of these games together at once that these games do not exist or are not admissible on Wikipedia.

2)Then you obviously ignored the two Pocket Gamer articles in your response: the first one literally states that Ubisoft and Gameloft had an important partnership regarding Ubisoft’s main franchises, and the second focuses on the Assassin’s Creed franchise within this partnership, explaining how the games were remade or developed in that context, with mention that they were made by Gameloft under Ubisoft supervision. Again, this is a fully admissible Wikipedia source, and it does not need to repeat “made by Ubisoft and Gameloft” 20 times in the article, contrary to what you claimed earlier.Finally, hundreds of sources state that Gameloft was “one of the market leaders” in the 2000s and 2010s. In the end, it doesn’t even matter whether they were first or not: was Gameloft important in the market? Yes. This reinforces the idea of a significant partnership. Royge 12 (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Those are 100% arguements that fail our original research policy. You are missing the key word being "directly", they do not directly support what you are trying to say. Masem (t) 14:03, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Here's another source, mentioning 12 Ubisoft games that will be completely remade by Gameloft for mobile as part of the partnership between the two companies; it couldn't be clearer :

https://www.pocketgamer.com/news/gameloft-bring-ubisoft-classics-to-mobile/ Royge 12 (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

That one is actually fair to include, though its associated with material already covered in the article. But see how that directly speaks to ubisoft and gameloft's relationship? That's what's needed for sourcing. Masem (t) 14:27, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

ok, here’s what I propose: include a paragraph that would logically be placed around the year 2007 (in Ubisoft’s timeline, since the source above dates from that year)

“from the mid-2000s and during the following years, Ubisoft entered into a partnership with Gameloft to release several of its games on mobile (a relatively new market at the time, less than 10 years old) via 2D remakes, as well as the creation of original mobile entries for some of its franchises, such as Assassin’s Creed. it is also worth noting that Ubisoft also published some of Gameloft’s games on consoles, such as Prince of Persia Classic, Dungeon Hunter Alliance or Asphalt 3D.” (I can provide additional sources even though the Wikipedia pages for these games already have evidence showing that they are published by Ubisoft)

then as you suggested a second paragraph in 2016 like :

“Gameloft was acquired in 2016 by Ubisoft, Ubisoft continued its mobile strategy afterward without going through Gameloft, and no longer publishes Gameloft games on consoles"

(The wording needs to be reformulated; this is just to give you an idea.) Royge 12 (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Upon review, "mobile market still young" would be sufficient to provide context, because "for 10 years" is too precise and can be contradicted; some give the birth of the mini market at different dates, even if all close to 2000.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274127044_The_Evolution_of_Mobile_Gaming

https://www.pocketgamer.biz/a-brief-history-of-mobile-games-2000-a-brave-new-world/ Royge 12 (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

There is already a few sentences in the article, in the period covering 2006 and 2007 about Gameloft and Ubisoft. I add some to that in the last few days. We are missing details on console versions of Gameloft games, that's probably something that can be added.

And the 2016 is the acquisition of Gameloft by Vivendi, and that's definitely already discussed as part of the possible hostile takeover of Ubisoft.

Any work from 2000 is going to be too early, Gameloft wasn't even formed by then. Masem (t) 15:17, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Perfect, glad we've reached an agreement. I added a short sentence to make it less vague, using the Assassin's Creed franchise as an example, for which we have a solid source, and I think we can stop there^^ Royge 12 (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

No mention of the StopKillingGames campaign?

Come on, it was literally triggered by the dissatisfaction with Ubisoft's practices regarding Trackmania and 'Games as a service'. ~2026-39934-46 (talk) 22:54, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

It is under Other Lawsuits. Masem (t) 03:58, 16 July 2026 (UTC)