The recent turbulence surrounding major gaming publisher Ubisoft—marked by significant share price volatility and the cancellation of numerous projects—has sparked intense debate online. A prominent narrative circulating in certain circles attempts to link these corporate challenges directly to the company's Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. However, a former key employee is stepping forward to challenge this framing as damaging misinformation.
Kensuke Shimoda, a former game designer at Ubisoft Osaka, recently took to social media to express his astonishment at the persistence of these claims. As reported by GamesRadar+, Shimoda stated clearly that, from his vantage point as an insider, the internal advocates for DEI held minimal influence over high-level strategic decisions that impact financial performance.
In Shimoda's assessment, DEI initiatives were not a drag on the organization; rather, they were a net positive. He asserts that these efforts actively improved the working environment and facilitated crucial market expansion, specifically citing growth into South American and Middle Eastern territories. This perspective directly contradicts the notion that cultural initiatives are responsible for recent financial headwinds.
Instead of pointing fingers at internal cultural shifts, Shimoda diagnoses the core issues as structural and organizational. He attributes the decline in creative output and marketing effectiveness to what he terms 'Big Business Syndrome'—a common affliction for large, established entities. This syndrome manifests in a lack of upward progression, leading to senior leadership lacking crucial modern expertise in areas like online, mobile, and Free-to-Play (F2P) development.
Furthermore, the transition of a historically French-centric company into a truly global entity has introduced complex management friction. Shimoda notes that navigating the challenges inherent in a 'non-English speaking global company' structure contributes significantly to operational inefficiencies, issues far removed from workplace inclusion policies.
The former designer issued a stark warning: if Ubisoft management chooses to scapegoat DEI advocates for their strategic missteps, the consequences for the company could be severe. Such an action would signal a failure to address the deeper, systemic issues of leadership stagnation and global integration challenges.
This stance aligns with Shimoda’s previous commentary, suggesting that the public perception of Ubisoft as overly focused on DEI often misrepresents the reality within the development floors. For analysts tracking the future of large-scale creative enterprises, this insider account provides a crucial counter-narrative, shifting the focus from cultural debates to the enduring complexities of managing globalized tech conglomerates.