Ubisoft Terminates Assassin’s Creed Developer Over Public Criticism
▼ Summary
– Ubisoft Montreal lead David Michaud-Cromp was fired after previously receiving a suspension for publicly criticizing the company’s mandatory return-to-office policy.
– Ubisoft’s recent corporate restructuring, funded by Tencent, led to game cancellations, layoffs, and the new policy requiring employees to work from the office five days a week.
– In a statement, Ubisoft claimed dismissals result from breaches of its Code of Conduct, not from employees respectfully sharing feedback or opinions.
– Michaud-Cromp argued that effective remote or hybrid work depends on fundamentals like clear goals and trust, not physical proximity, and can enhance inclusion and documentation.
– He noted that while remote work isn’t a universal solution, the most productive creative environments are those with clear expectations and thoughtfully implemented policies.
Ubisoft has dismissed a lead developer from its Montreal studio following his public disagreement with the company’s new return-to-office mandate. The termination of David Michaud-Cromp, a level design team lead, occurred shortly after he received a disciplinary suspension for voicing his criticism on LinkedIn. This situation highlights the ongoing tension between corporate policy and employee advocacy within the gaming industry, particularly as companies like Ubisoft enforce stricter in-office requirements.
The developer was initially punished after posting his concerns online in late January. Ubisoft’s corporate restructuring, supported by an investment from Tencent, has included significant changes such as game cancellations and staff reductions. A central component of this plan involved ending flexible work arrangements, requiring employees to be physically present in their local offices full-time. Michaud-Cromp’s public dissent led first to a three-day unpaid suspension, and now, to his outright dismissal from the company.
In a statement on LinkedIn, Michaud-Cromp confirmed his departure was not voluntary. “Today, I was terminated by Ubisoft, effective immediately,” he wrote. He declined to elaborate on internal specifics, stating he was taking time to regroup before determining his next steps.
A Ubisoft spokesperson defended the action, stating that respectful feedback does not result in termination, but breaches of the company’s Code of Conduct do. The spokesperson emphasized that the company has established procedures that escalate based on the nature and severity of any breach. This framing suggests the company viewed the developer’s public comments as a violation of internal policies rather than protected speech.
In correspondence, Michaud-Cromp elaborated on his support for remote work, arguing it can enhance game development and team collaboration. He noted that remote environments often give quieter team members a stronger voice and help keep project decisions documented and organized. He believes knowledge builds more effectively when discussions happen in public, searchable channels that team members can reference later. However, he was careful to note that remote work isn’t a perfect solution for every situation, acknowledging that activities like brainstorming and mentoring can benefit from in-person interaction.
The developer argued that team effectiveness hinges less on physical proximity and more on foundational elements like clear goals, trust, and strong communication practices. He observed that teams investing in these areas tend to perform well regardless of location, while teams neglecting them struggle even when sharing an office. For creative fields like game development, he stressed that environments fostering trust, stability, and thoughtful policy implementation are crucial for long-term success.
This incident underscores a broader debate about workplace flexibility in the tech and gaming sectors. As companies roll back pandemic-era remote work options, employee pushback is becoming more visible, sometimes with significant professional consequences. The clash between Ubisoft’s corporate directives and a developer’s public advocacy presents a clear example of how these policies are being enforced and the potential fallout for those who challenge them openly.
(Source: Kotaku)
