Unclear and Inequitable Future of Ubisoft

Warning: This article contains discussions of sexual abuse and harassment, racism, homophobia, and misogyny.

In our last update regarding the ongoing exposures of abusive practices and work environments at Ubisoft, we learned that Tommy François resigned. Francois was one of the Vice Presidents of Ubisoft’s Editorial department, and resigned “effective immediately” as an investigation into multiple allegations of misconduct against him began.

At the time of writing, it was understood that François was but the last of several to step down. He followed Maxime Béland, François’ fellow Vice President of Editorial, Serge Hascoët, Chief Creative Officer, Yannis Mallat, Head of Ubisoft Canada, Cécile Cornet, Global Head of Human Resources, and Ashraf Ismail, Creative Director of Assassin’s Creed Valhalla.

As of a more recent update from Kotaku, as well as additional coverage from Gamasutra and French outlets Libération and Numerama, it has since come to light that the proverbial waters of resignations and dismissals at Ubisoft are even murkier than initially understood. As the situation continues to evolve, most of the sentiments are those of uncertainty, disappointment, and frustration. These sentiments come from both within and outside of the company, meriting ongoing coverage and a deep dive into what’s happened since.

Most of the accounts of harassment and abuses allegedly committed by François and others have been documented by French news outlet Libération, emerging from extensive witness accounts. A Libération article from the 1st of July details instances of François touching the genitals and buttocks of both male and female staff at Ubisoft. It also refers to Francois making explicitly sexual remarks toward a number of staff including references to oral sex and masturbation.

As one witness explained to Libération at this time, all these behaviors were part and parcel of a “culture of cool,” that should be regarded as acceptable and funny, all part of an ongoing joke. Meanwhile, François was surrounded by a “pack” of loyal members of the old guard, a “boys’ club” that maintained, encouraged, and enabled this behavior. A former member of this circle told Libération under the condition of anonymity that one had to either play along or face exclusion and dismissal.

At the same time, one witness explained that female Ubisoft staff working in François’ vicinity felt the pressure to “avoid being too cute.” Particularly when moving through open spaces in the office. They warned each other not to spend time alone with François or accept invitations from him.

All the same, François continued to pressure young women and new employees at Ubisoft into dining with him. When one witness rejected his overtures, he allegedly cornered her in a bar until her colleagues were able to intervene. Referencing another incident, one witness told Libération that François attempted to kiss her against her will while members of his team held her in place.

When she confided in a manager at Ubisoft, she was simply told that she had misinterpreted his actions and that this was a prank he played often. Ultimately, François was protected by his position of “immense power” within an “extremely toxic” work environment.

For instance, as another witness added, Serge Hascoët laughed when witnessing the incident during which Francois attempted to kiss a female employee by force. Others told Libération that Hascoët gave Ubisoft employees cannabis edibles without their knowledge or consent. It was also mentioned that he made comments about performing anal sex and group sex on female staff who “hampered his creativity.”

Such behavior was so prevalent that it essentially became a “trademark” for the editorial team. It was further entrenched when Hascoët pressured creative directors to drink until they became ill at work dinners. His response if they refused, was slinging homophobic slurs at them.

Francois was more than protected. One witness explained that François was “promoted, valued, and treated completely differently from other people of the same rank year after year.” He was profiting from a system of “privilege and impunity,” within which female staff at Ubisoft were at the bottom of the ladder.

François, in turn, responded to Libération and these allegations through his lawyer, Jérémie Assous. He maintained that victims and witnesses “imprudently” relayed their stories to the press. He suggested that they should proceed to make their complaints to the judicial authorities, such that the allegations’ falsehood could be demonstrated by François’ legal team.

As we now know, by the 2nd of July this year, Tommy François and Maxime Béland were “suspended pending the outcome of an outside investigation” into the accusations leveled against them. Alongside these suspensions, Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot announced in an email to Ubisoft staff that the Editorial Department, of which both François and Béland were Vice President, would see its composition revised from what was. As mentioned, at the time it was an all-white male group of executives.

Guillemot further announced the creation of two new positions within Ubisoft “to specifically deal with issues of workplace toxicity.” Namely a head of workplace culture and a head of diversity and inclusion are to be added. While the former role has been filled by Lidwine Sauer, previously Projects Director of Ubisoft’s Strategic Innovation Lab; the latter has not been filled by any named person. Guillemot clarified that both employees “will report directly to him.”

As of a 3rd of July update to this Kotaku article, Guillemot announced through a follow-up email that Béland had resigned from Ubisoft and François had been placed on disciplinary leave. Investigations would continue; and a third (at the time unnamed) individual from Ubisoft Toronto saw their employment terminated for “engaging in behaviors that do not align with what is expected of Ubisoft Employees.”

This distinction may seem subtle, but it’s an important one. In particular, the picture of resignations or terminations at Ubisoft in recent months is complicated by three turning points in particular.

The first is the firing of Stone Chin, former PR director, in the wake of harassment and assault allegations against him in the week of July 13th. The second is the revelation, first reported by Gamasutra on the 4th of August, that François had not “simply ‘left the company” but was in fact “terminated with cause.” This was revealed according to a close source, along with the knowledge that François would “retain whatever Ubisoft shares he’d already acquired,” though he would not be permitted to acquire any future shares.

The third is what was initially proclaimed as a leave of absence for Assassin’s Creed Valhalla creative director Ashraf Ismail. It came in the wake of allegations of infidelity and abuse of power, later being seemingly contradicted by a message from Ubisoft’s internal communication network Mana. A copy obtained by Kotaku announced that Ismail had in fact been “fired following an investigation by an outside firm” on the 13th of August.

It’s worth noting that Gamasutra further explained that the classification of certain high-ranking departures as resignations may be the result of certain conditions in French labor laws. These conditions could disallow Ubisoft from describing these instances publicly as dismissals or terminations.

Nonetheless, the corollary is more of a hop than a jump. If this is the case, how many more of these “resignations” were in fact firings? Why have these been obscured when Stone Chin’s termination was a matter of open record, and no such persistent cover was provided for Ashraf Ismail?

To be clear, none of this is to lessen or underestimate the severity of the harassment and abuse of power of which Chin and Ismail have been accused. Nor is it meant to posit that they are in any way “not as bad” as those actions taken by François, Béland, Hascoët, and others. We stand firmly with the victims, witnesses, and those who have been harmed but have felt unable to come forward.

It nonetheless remains striking that these legal and jurisdictional considerations don’t seem to apply when it comes to lower-ranking men of color within the company. Yet protections of stock and reputation have been extended to shelter higher-ranking white men at Ubisoft.

True enough, Ismail’s resignation and/or termination has not been addressed publicly by Ubisoft at the time of writing. There is little doubt that Ubisoft did not intend for this internal communication to be shared with the press either. Especially given how many witnesses within the company have only come forward under the condition of anonymity. Equally, it’s unclear at present to what extent the French legal considerations around discussing a termination openly would apply to Ismail, given that he predominantly worked from Ubisoft’s Montreal studio.

Certainly, no such ambiguity was extended to Stone Chin, though he claims his termination was a result of complaints about his management style and continues to deny the allegations of sexual assault. The question, nonetheless, remains a significant one, and one that is still unaddressed by any of Ubisoft’s public remarks to date. This is especially the case in light of reports of openly racist comments made “across the publisher’s various offices.”

This is, however, only one sign of the lack of clarity, inequitable consequences, and overall murky waters that characterize the future of Ubisoft at the time of writing. Kotaku further reported on August 14th even more examples of this. Indeed, despite the ongoing — and ostensibly deliberate — ambiguity surrounding resignations and terminations of alleged abusive employees and executives, in many respects, not much has changed.

Ubisoft hyped its July Ubiforward showcase with a free offering of Watch Dogs 2. It attracted further attention still away from the abuse allegations when attempts to access the game were riddled with log-in problems so widespread and perfect one might almost think the system was deliberately set up to fail. Just in the same way, they are now doing a giveaway of Tom Clancy’s The Division.

It hardly seems incidental that they have used these two games with which to continue pitching their showcase, either. Despite Ubisoft’s claims of not making political content, it’s hardly a stretch to say Watch Dogs 2 and The Division are some of the more overtly political titles to emerge from the publisher in recent years.

There’s nothing ambiguous or apolitical about a Black male protagonist combating mass surveillance and big data. Nor is there anything ambiguous about playing as a sleeper agent tasked with “restoring order” to a widely destabilized New York City in the wake of a viral epidemic. Yet these are exactly the games Ubisoft likes to make freely available to gamers worldwide when they find themselves (yet again) needing to deflect attention from overtly racist game designs and continuing reports of abuse and discrimination in-house. All so their showcase can be pulled off without a hitch.

Time and again, Ubisoft will have insisted it isn’t a political publisher. That doesn’t stop it from trotting out the appearance of a socially aware stance when it will benefit its bottom line, and distract people from what happens the moment the cameras are turned off. Elsewhere, the hype for Far Cry 6 and Watch Dogs: Legion continues. These games center on a guerilla fighter facing off against a fascist dictator in the former case and hackers combating automation of labor and surveillance states in the latter.

These avenues provide yet more convenient titles for Ubisoft to demonstrate how “progressive” they are. All in the hopes gamers will forget they represent a hotbed of in-family nepotism, rampant abuse and exploitation of those employees actually developing the games in question. They hope people will ignore a corporate structure that uncannily resembles the very administrations these games’ protagonists are tasked to take down.

Meanwhile, ten weeks since accounts of the toxic work environment across Ubisoft’s various studios began coming to light, former and current Ubisoft employees remain frustrated, demoralized, and mistrustful. Such witnesses spoke to Kotaku under the condition of anonymity as current employees are not “authorized to speak about the company.” Former employees or outside sources “asked that their names not be used, out of concern for harassment.”

These restrictions speak for themselves. Vows of improved accountability amount to very little if those positioned to speak to workplace abuse are placed under what effectively amounts to a gag order. In early August, a Ubisoft spokesperson responded to inquiries from Kotaku by email. This response asserted that Ubisoft is “committed to creat[ing] an exemplary culture where everyone feels valued and respected,” and that Ubisoft is “at the beginning of a long journey.” They describe that the company is “determined to implement the necessary changes to make Ubisoft a better place to work.”

The representative also affirmed that “the entire company is mobilized around this ambition” and that “the comprehensive set of initiatives and the decisions taken by Yves Guillemot over the past weeks are the proof of his determination to improve the company’s workplace culture.” This comment seems, to say the least, out of step with realities that have been unearthed.

One developer currently working at Ubisoft told Kotaku of feeling “a great deal of anger at senior HR and other leadership that would allow this culture to persist in the first place.” They also expressed frustration that it took them so long to even begin addressing the problems raised. Another spoke to feeling deeply “jaded” and losing faith in their job and project.

They continue to work “for the great people [they] work with directly” but feel that any changes made internally by executives and senior leadership would simply feel like “lip service.” Even the most optimistic remain wary and in some ways unconvinced. They continue expressing concerns that “the biggest danger right now is the risk of sliding back into complacency,” and worry that Guillemot “knew about this stuff for years” and did nothing.

To date, Ubisoft’s efforts to address their workplace culture has not shown meaningful signs of creating systemic change. Rather, most of the focus seems to be on carefully crafted PR statements and ambiguous resignations and/or terminations that serve only to “make an example of a few “bad apples” like Hascoët.” These actions come with what would appear to be inequitably applied consequences for lower-ranking men of color when compared to white male executives.

Meanwhile, though Lidwine Sauer has been appointed as head of workplace culture, she is a “15-year veteran of the company.” That makes it hard to ignore the possibility that she will be no more able or willing to hold senior leadership and managerial staff accountable than the HR department has historically been.

The head of diversity and inclusion role remains vacant at the time of writing. The fact that both these employees would report directly to Guillemot may not inspire as much confidence as intended if indeed he was aware of and responsible for enabling these abusive practices over the longer term.

Ultimately, Ubisoft has faced its “reckoning” with neither transparency nor accountability. It was also quoted that “many [employees] are finding it hard to place trust in a system and its leader who waited until now to address what they say has been years of workplace issues around sexism, harassment, and misconduct.”

The goalposts of Guillemot’s intentions for the future of Ubisoft aren’t just being moved. Few to none of us know where they are in the first place. Meanwhile, the company seems keen to distract us with another showcase that will tell us nothing except what we already know. Ubisoft is all style and no substance and even its style seems to be insidious and rotten through.