Ubisoft Fires Employee Over RTO Criticism: The Full Story and What It Means for Gaming Industry Culture [2025]

In February 2025, Ubisoft made headlines for all the wrong reasons when it terminated David Michaud-Cromp, a level design team lead at Ubisoft Montreal, shortly after he publicly criticized the company's mandatory return-to-office policy. What started as a three-day unpaid suspension escalated into immediate termination, raising serious questions about employee rights, corporate culture, and how major game studios treat their workforce.

This wasn't an isolated incident. It's part of a larger pattern of workforce management decisions at Ubisoft that has drawn criticism from employees, industry observers, and labor organizations. Over the past 18 months, the company has shut down studios, conducted multiple rounds of layoffs, faced unionization efforts, and dealt with strikes. Each event adds another layer to a troubling narrative about how the gaming industry's largest publishers treat the people who create their products.

What makes the Michaud-Cromp situation particularly significant isn't just the termination itself—it's what it reveals about how corporations respond when employees speak up about policies they believe are harmful. The incident forces us to examine critical questions: Do employees have the right to voice concerns without fear of retaliation? How much control should companies have over what employees say publicly? And what does this moment mean for the future of work culture in the gaming industry?

This article dives deep into what happened, why it matters, and what the broader implications are for game developers, corporate accountability, and the future of remote work policies in an industry that's fundamentally changed how it operates.

TL; DR

• The Incident: David Michaud-Cromp, a level designer at Ubisoft Montreal, was fired after publicly criticizing the company's mandatory return-to-office policy following a three-day suspension without pay.
• The Pattern: This termination is part of a series of workforce management controversies at Ubisoft, including studio closures, layoffs, and strikes from unionized workers.
• The Contradiction: Ubisoft claimed the firing wasn't about sharing opinions, yet terminated an employee shortly after he did exactly that.
• The Industry Impact: The situation highlights growing tensions between remote work advocates and corporate mandates in the gaming industry.
• The Takeaway: This case demonstrates how companies can use vague codes of conduct to suppress employee dissent while claiming to support open dialogue.

The rapid progression from criticism to termination, occurring within a week, suggests that the criticism was a primary factor in the decision-making process. (Estimated data)

Understanding the David Michaud-Cromp Case

David Michaud-Cromp wasn't a junior designer. He was a level design team lead, meaning he had responsibilities, expertise, and presumably credibility within the organization. His role involved designing game levels, mentoring junior designers, and contributing to the creative direction of projects. This wasn't some entry-level position where the person could be easily replaced.

On social media, Michaud-Cromp shared his concerns about Ubisoft's return-to-office mandate. He didn't attack the company or individuals. He didn't leak confidential information. He expressed his opinion about a corporate policy in public, using his personal platform. This is something millions of workers do every day on LinkedIn, Twitter, and other social media platforms.

Ubisoft's response was swift and severe. First came the three-day suspension without pay—a financial punishment designed to send a message. Then, days later, came the termination. The speed of escalation is notable. Most companies follow progressive discipline: warning, suspension, then termination. Ubisoft compressed this into days.

The company provided a statement to multiple outlets claiming that "sharing feedback or opinions respectfully does not lead to a dismissal." This statement is technically true but fundamentally misleading. The company isn't saying it never fires people for speaking up—it's saying that's not the official reason. Instead, Ubisoft pointed to a violation of its "Code of Conduct" without specifying what clause was breached or how voicing concerns about a return-to-office policy constitutes a violation of workplace conduct standards.

This is a crucial distinction that many observers missed in early coverage. Ubisoft isn't denying the timeline. It's not saying Michaud-Cromp didn't make the criticism public. What it's doing is creating plausible deniability by attributing the termination to a Code of Conduct violation rather than directly acknowledging the connection to his public statements.

The Return-to-Office Mandate: Why It Sparked Criticism

Ubisoft's return-to-office policy didn't emerge in a vacuum. It came after years of pandemic-era remote work that reshaped how game development actually functions. When COVID-19 forced studios to close in 2020, everyone assumed it would be temporary. Instead, something interesting happened: games still shipped. Teams still collaborated. Projects still shipped on schedule, sometimes ahead of schedule.

This observation was not lost on developers. If remote work was just a temporary emergency measure, why did it work so well? Why did it continue to work when it wasn't strictly necessary? The answer, for many, was simple: remote work isn't inferior to office work for knowledge workers. For some tasks, it's actually better. Developers can focus on complex code without constant interruptions. Level designers can iterate without commuting. Designers can communicate asynchronously with better documentation, reducing the need for synchronous meetings.

Then, in 2023 and beyond, something shifted. Major tech companies that had embraced remote work started mandating returns to the office. They cited collaboration, culture, and mentorship as reasons. Apple did it. Meta did it. Google did it. Amazon did it. And the gaming industry, always quick to follow corporate trends, started doing it too.

But there was a problem with these mandates, particularly in gaming. Game development is geographically distributed. Talented developers don't necessarily live near major studio hubs. Someone working at Ubisoft Montreal might live in Toronto, Ottawa, or even further away. A return-to-office mandate doesn't just mean "come back to work where you used to." It means "move your life to be near the office," which for many developers meant selling homes, disrupting family situations, ending relationships, or leaving the industry entirely.

Michaud-Cromp's criticism touched on this lived reality. Developers have families. They have homes. They have lives that were structured around remote work. Asking them to abandon that setup isn't neutral policy implementation—it's a significant life disruption.

The larger context matters here. Ubisoft wasn't just implementing an RTO policy. It was doing so while simultaneously laying off employees, shutting down studios, and cutting costs across the board. From the employee perspective, the sequence of events looked like this: first, layoffs; then, studio closures; then, union busting; and finally, an RTO mandate while salaries stagnated. It didn't look like a thoughtful workplace improvement—it looked like a company squeezing every bit of value from its remaining employees.

Ubisoft's workforce reductions in early 2024 included approximately 1,100 layoffs and 300 employees affected by studio closures, leaving an estimated 3,600 employees remaining. Estimated data based on reported figures.

Ubisoft's Broader Workforce Crisis

The Michaud-Cromp termination didn't happen in isolation. It's the latest chapter in what's become an ongoing crisis of confidence between Ubisoft and its workforce. To understand why his firing landed so hard, you need to understand the context of everything else that's been happening at the company.

The Studio Closures

In January 2024, Ubisoft made a stunning announcement: it was closing Ubisoft Halifax, the Canadian studio known for supporting major Ubisoft releases. The official reason was cost-cutting. The real reason, many suspected, was because Ubisoft Halifax had recently unionized. Within weeks, the parent company also shut down Ubisoft San Francisco and began massive layoffs affecting hundreds of employees across multiple locations.

The timing was too convenient to be coincidental. A studio unionizes. Two weeks later, it's announced for closure. Other studios, seeing what happened, became less interested in unionization efforts. The message was clear: push back on management's terms, and we'll make you disappear. That's retaliation whether it's illegal or not, and it shapes how employees think about speaking up.

The Cascade of Layoffs

Ubisoft cut approximately 20% of its workforce in early 2024. That's roughly 1,000 to 1,200 people. The company framed it as necessary restructuring, pointing to underperformance of certain titles and the need to focus resources. But from the ground level, it looked like chaos. Teams that were mid-project suddenly lost members. Developers lost healthcare and income. Some were given severance. Others were simply let go with minimal notice.

When you cut that aggressively, you send a message to your remaining employees: you're not safe. You could be next. This psychological state doesn't encourage people to speak up about policies they disagree with. It encourages people to keep their heads down, do their jobs, and hope they're not on the next list.

The Unionization Efforts and Strikes

Despite—or perhaps because of—the layoffs and closures, union organizing efforts accelerated. Workers at multiple Ubisoft locations attempted to unionize, seeking stronger job protections, better compensation, and more voice in company decisions. In response, Ubisoft used standard anti-union tactics: reminding employees of the benefits they already had, suggesting unions would hurt negotiations, and carefully messaging that "we value your voice."

When unionization efforts continued, unions representing Ubisoft workers called for strikes. In one coordinated action, unions across multiple Ubisoft locations planned a three-day strike specifically to protest what they described as "penny-pinching and worsening working conditions." This wasn't just about wages. It was about being treated as replaceable and expendable.

The RTO Policy Contradiction

Here's where things get interesting from a corporate governance perspective. Ubisoft's statement about Michaud-Cromp's firing contains a specific claim: "Sharing feedback or opinions respectfully does not lead to a dismissal."

If this statement is true, then the company is admitting that something other than sharing feedback was the actual reason. It's offering a carefully parsed defense that technically doesn't deny the firing was retaliatory—it just denies that sharing opinions alone is sufficient grounds. Perhaps there was something else in how he shared the opinion? Perhaps the timing was problematic? Perhaps there was context we're missing?

But this parsing reveals a critical problem. When a company fires someone days after they publicly criticize a specific policy, and then claims "we value feedback," it creates a chilling effect. Future employees won't know what the actual rule is. They'll assume that if they criticize policies publicly, they might be next. The official statement becomes irrelevant because the real message—demonstrated through action—is clear: criticize our policies, and you're done.

This is what legal scholars call a "chilling effect," and it's particularly problematic in cases where the criticism involves working conditions or corporate policies that employees have a legitimate interest in discussing. When one person gets fired for voicing concerns, everyone else stops voicing concerns, not because there's an explicit rule against it, but because they saw what happened to the person who did.

Examining the Code of Conduct Question

Ubisoft referenced its "Code of Conduct" as the basis for termination but never specified which provision was violated. This is strategically brilliant and ethically questionable. By keeping the exact violation vague, the company can claim there was a legitimate business reason while never having to defend that reason in detail.

Most corporate codes of conduct include broad provisions about professionalism, respect, and conduct that could theoretically cover almost anything. "Maintain a professional workplace environment." "Treat colleagues with respect." "Uphold the company's reputation." These are useful for management because they're elastic. Almost any action can be fit under them.

The question becomes: if criticizing a return-to-office policy violates the code of conduct, what types of criticism are permitted? Can you complain about policy to other employees? Can you do so privately? Can you do so in a formal setting like a town hall? Where exactly is the line between acceptable feedback and code of conduct violation?

Ubisoft hasn't answered these questions, which means employees have no clear guidance. That's the entire point. It's deniability masquerading as policy.

Geographical constraints are the most intense criticism of return-to-office mandates, highlighting the challenge of relocating for many developers. Estimated data.

The Game Development Industry Context

To understand why this situation matters beyond Ubisoft, you need to understand the unique position of game developers. Unlike many industries, game development is concentrated geographically. The biggest studios are in a handful of locations: San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, Toronto, Montreal, and a few other cities. This concentration historically gave publishers enormous leverage over developers.

If you wanted to work on major games, you had to move to one of these cities. You had to uproot your life, your family, your support system. This power dynamic favored employers massively. Publishers could demand long hours, low wages, and difficult conditions because developers had limited options without relocating again.

Remote work fundamentally changed this. Suddenly, a developer in Austin could work for a studio in Montreal. A level designer could work from their hometown instead of moving to LA. The power dynamic shifted, at least slightly. Developers had more flexibility, better work-life balance, and more bargaining power.

Return-to-office mandates in gaming represent an attempt to restore the old power dynamic. They're not really about collaboration or culture—it's about bringing developers back into geographic concentration where they're more dependent on the local studio, have fewer job options, and are easier to replace.

Ubisoft's aggressive response to Michaud-Cromp's criticism is meant to send a message to the entire industry: if you have a problem with how we do things, you're expendable. There are thousands of developers who want your job. Don't rock the boat.

Employee Rights and Labor Law Implications

From a legal standpoint, the Michaud-Cromp case sits in murky territory. In the United States, employment is "at-will" in most cases, meaning employers can terminate employees for almost any reason, with a few critical exceptions. One of those exceptions is retaliation for engaging in protected activities, including discussing working conditions.

The problem is that it's incredibly difficult to prove retaliation. The company doesn't have to admit it fired someone for speaking up. It just needs a plausible alternative reason, even if that reason wouldn't normally be grounds for termination. By invoking a code of conduct violation, Ubisoft created that plausible alternative reason.

In Canada, where Ubisoft Montreal operates, there are stronger labor protections. Canadian law provides explicit protection against retaliation for exercising workplace rights. If it could be demonstrated that Michaud-Cromp was fired specifically for criticizing the RTO policy, and that this was the true reason despite the code of conduct justification, it could be considered wrongful dismissal.

But here's the problem: Michaud-Cromp would likely need to pursue this through the legal system, which means legal costs, months or years of proceedings, and the risk of losing. Most individuals can't afford this, which is why most instances of corporate retaliation go unchallenged.

The Message Ubisoft Sent

Regardless of the legal technicalities, the message from Ubisoft's action was unmistakable. Within the game development community and among Ubisoft's remaining employees, the implicit message is clear: "If you criticize our policies publicly, you will be fired. We may couch it in terms of code of conduct violations, but the outcome is the same."

This message is particularly potent in the context of everything else happening at Ubisoft. Employees have watched studios close. They've watched colleagues laid off. They've watched union efforts get crushed through studio closures. And now they've watched someone lose their job days after publicly disagreeing with management.

The psychological impact can't be overstated. Even employees who might privately agree with Michaud-Cromp's concerns are now less likely to voice them. The cost is too high. Your career is at stake. Your family depends on your income. Is it worth speaking up? Increasingly, the answer for most employees is no.

This is how corporate culture becomes toxic. Not through grand conspiracies or deliberate cruelty, but through a thousand small actions that gradually convince employees that speaking up is dangerous.

Companies that effectively implement policy changes often score high in listening, explaining, and iterating. Estimated data.

Comparing Ubisoft to Industry Peers

Ubisoft isn't alone in pushing return-to-office policies. EA, Activision Blizzard, and other major publishers have all tried to mandate office returns or at least hybrid arrangements. What makes Ubisoft different is the aggressive response to criticism.

EA mandated three days in office. There was pushback, but the company presented it as necessary for creative collaboration. Activision Blizzard, already dealing with massive reputation damage from workplace culture issues, has been quieter about RTO, knowing that aggressive enforcement could trigger more bad press.

Ubisoft's approach has been maximalist: mandatory RTO plus aggressive enforcement against dissent. It's a strategy that seems designed to reassert control and hierarchy in a period when employees are feeling emboldened to challenge the status quo.

The irony is that this approach probably backfires. By firing Michaud-Cromp so visibly, Ubisoft has created a martyr. His story has spread across social media, gaming forums, and industry publications. The company's attempt to suppress criticism has actually amplified it.

The Future of Remote Work in Gaming

The Michaud-Cromp case will likely influence how game developers think about remote work going forward. For years, the industry treated remote work as a temporary pandemic adjustment. Now it's becoming clear that it's here to stay, and employees are willing to fight for it.

Companies that try to mandate office returns without buy-in from employees are likely to face either employee departures or unionization efforts. The game development talent market is tight. Developers have options. If Ubisoft makes the work environment hostile by firing people for speaking up, talented people will leave for more respectful companies.

Some studios are finding a middle ground: flexible arrangements where developers have some say in when they work remotely versus in-office. This approach respects employee autonomy while still allowing for in-person collaboration when genuinely needed.

Others are doubling down on office-first culture, betting that the inconvenience will eventually conform employees to their preference. These studios are likely to see higher turnover and lower morale.

Broader Corporate Culture Implications

Beyond the gaming industry, the Ubisoft case represents a broader tension in modern workplaces. Companies want employee engagement, feedback, and innovation. They hold town halls and suggest that all voices are valued. But the moment an employee's voice challenges the status quo, the welcome disappears.

This contradiction is fundamentally unstable. You can't genuinely invite dissent while punishing dissidents. Employees quickly learn which voice is actually welcome: the voice that says yes to whatever management proposes.

Companies that successfully create strong cultures do so by actually valuing dissent, not just claiming to. They create real channels for feedback. They implement suggestions from employees. They tolerate disagreement. And crucially, they don't punish people for disagreeing, even publicly.

Ubisoft has chosen a different path. It's a path of control, conformity, and fear. Historically, this approach works in the short term but fails catastrophically in the long term as talented people leave and are replaced by those who are risk-averse and unambitious.

Work culture and unrealistic deadlines are leading causes of developer attrition in the gaming industry, surpassing low wages. Estimated data based on industry trends.

The Role of Social Media in Modern Labor Disputes

One aspect of the Michaud-Cromp case that's often overlooked is the role of social media. A generation ago, an employee criticizing company policy would have done so in conversation with colleagues or perhaps in a union meeting. The criticism would have reached maybe dozens of people, certainly not thousands.

In 2025, Michaud-Cromp posted his criticism on LinkedIn and other platforms. This meant it reached thousands of people instantly. It couldn't be contained or managed through internal channels. It was immediately public, immediately searchable, and immediately associated with Ubisoft as a company.

From management's perspective, this is terrifying. The employee has stepped outside the normal corporate hierarchy and appealed directly to the public. The company can't fire him without triggering more social media backlash. But they can't ignore him either because silence suggests weakness or agreement with his criticism.

Ubisoft's solution was to fire him anyway, betting that the reputational cost would be less than the cost of allowing employee criticism to continue circulating. This bet might actually be correct in the short term. A firing might generate a few days of negative news cycle, whereas allowing the criticism to circulate could create ongoing pressure from employees and the public.

But it's a Pyrrhic victory. By firing Michaud-Cromp visibly and shortly after his criticism, Ubisoft has created a permanent record of what happens when you speak up. That record will influence employee behavior for years.

What Could Ubisoft Have Done Differently?

There's an alternate path Ubisoft could have taken. Instead of suspension and termination, it could have engaged with the substance of Michaud-Cromp's criticism. Did he have valid points about the difficulty of an RTO mandate? Could the company have listened, adjusted the policy, and potentially prevented future unionization efforts?

This wouldn't require abandoning the RTO policy. It would require flexibility, listening, and genuine engagement with employee concerns. Companies like GitLab and Automattic have managed remote-first cultures successfully by genuinely committing to remote work and listening when employees have concerns.

Alternatively, Ubisoft could have implemented the RTO policy gradually, with input from employees and flexibility for hardship cases. Many companies that have returned to office have done so with hybrid arrangements and employee choice, recognizing that different people have different needs.

Instead, Ubisoft seems to have chosen a strategy of assertion and control. Implement the policy. Don't tolerate dissent. Make an example of anyone who speaks up. It's an approach that might feel stronger in the moment but ultimately erodes trust and culture.

The Ripple Effects Through the Industry

When one major studio fires someone for criticizing company policy, it sends ripples through the entire industry. Other studios note what happened. Employees note what happened. Labor organizers note what happened. The implicit message becomes: this is what we do to people who step out of line.

For game developers considering their careers, the Michaud-Cromp case is a data point. It's part of the calculation when deciding whether to accept a job at Ubisoft or not. It influences whether people will speak up about concerns at their own studios. It affects whether unionization efforts succeed or fail.

Over time, these individual calculations aggregate into industry trends. More developers avoid publishers known for aggressive management. More push for union protection. More choose to freelance or work on independent games. The talent distribution in gaming gradually shifts away from companies that retaliate against dissent.

The chart highlights key patterns in Ubisoft's employee management, indicating a systematic approach that may undermine employee agency. Estimated data based on narrative analysis.

Union Organizing as a Response

The Michaud-Cromp case almost certainly accelerated unionization efforts at Ubisoft and other studios. When employees witness visible retaliation, they become more interested in collective protection. Unions exist precisely to prevent situations like this—one individual being fired for voicing concerns that represent the concerns of many.

The irony is that by firing Michaud-Cromp, Ubisoft has made a stronger case for unionization than any union organizer could have. Employees now have a concrete example of what happens when you speak up as an individual. The solution becomes obvious: stop being individuals, become a union, and have collective protection.

This is actually one of the most predictable outcomes of aggressive anti-dissent policies. They drive unionization. Companies that manage employee relations well don't face unionization pressure because employees don't feel the need for collective protection. But companies that punish individuals for speaking up quickly find themselves dealing with union organizers.

Ubisoft may have won the battle with Michaud-Cromp but lost something larger in the process. The company has likely accelerated the very unionization efforts it seems desperate to prevent.

Looking at the Broader Pattern

What's important about the Michaud-Cromp case isn't really Michaud-Cromp specifically. It's what the case reveals about how Ubisoft treats employees systematically. When you look at the pattern:

• Studio closures shortly after unionization efforts
• Massive layoffs affecting 20% of workforce
• RTO mandates with aggressive enforcement
• Firing someone days after they publicly criticize policy
• Justifying it with vague code of conduct violations

...a picture emerges of a company that's hostile to employee agency. The company wants employees who do what they're told, don't ask too many questions, and don't organize collectively. This isn't a company that values people—it's a company that views people as resources to be managed.

For game developers considering whether to work at Ubisoft, this pattern should be a significant factor in decision-making. Yes, Ubisoft makes some excellent games. Yes, the projects are prestigious. But the cost is your voice and agency within the organization.

The Legal Vulnerabilities

While the Michaud-Cromp case might be difficult to pursue through traditional legal channels, it does create potential legal vulnerabilities for Ubisoft. If Michaud-Cromp were to file a wrongful termination suit, he would have strong circumstantial evidence: the timing of his termination relative to his public criticism, the lack of specific code of conduct violations detailed, and the pattern of other retaliation (studio closures, union busting).

In Canada particularly, where Michaud-Cromp worked, there's strong protections against wrongful termination. A Canadian court might view the pattern of events and conclude that the company's stated reason for termination (code of conduct violation) is pretextual and the real reason is retaliation for speaking up about working conditions.

Ubisoft almost certainly has lawyers who assessed this risk. The company probably calculated that the risk of litigation is acceptable compared to the risk of allowing employee dissent to continue unchecked. But this calculation reveals how the company views the situation: as a risk management problem rather than a people management problem.

Lessons for Other Companies

The Ubisoft case offers lessons for other companies considering RTO mandates or struggling with employee dissent. The lesson isn't "don't have policies" or "always accommodate employee preferences." The lesson is more subtle: how you implement policy and respond to dissent matters as much as the policy itself.

Companies that have successfully navigated significant policy changes do so by:

1. Listening first: Understanding why employees care about the policy before implementing it
2. Explaining reasoning: Being transparent about why the policy is necessary
3. Building flexibility: Creating accommodations for legitimate hardship cases
4. Respecting dissent: Not punishing people for disagreeing with policy
5. Iterating: Being willing to adjust the policy if implementation reveals problems

Ubisoft's approach has been the opposite on most counts. The company seems to have decided the policy was necessary and then expected compliance. When compliance didn't materialize, the company responded with punishment.

This approach might succeed in forcing short-term compliance, but it fails to build the trust and engagement that makes an organization actually function well over time.

The Human Cost

One element often missing from these discussions is the actual human impact. Michaud-Cromp lost his job. That means lost income, health insurance, and professional status. It means updating the resume, interviewing, and dealing with the social stigma of being fired from a major company.

For someone at his level (team lead), this is a significant career setback. References might be complicated. Future employers will ask why he left Ubisoft. Explaining "I was fired for criticizing company policy" creates its own problems in recruiting.

Beyond the individual impact, there's the impact on the community. Other Ubisoft developers see what happened and become afraid. Family members of developers worry about whether it's safe to work there. Game development becomes a less attractive career path when stories like this circulate.

The human cost of aggressive corporate management gets absorbed quietly and isn't usually tallied in shareholder reports or earnings calls. But it's real, and it's significant.

The Sustainability Question

Look far enough into the future and you have to ask: is this strategy sustainable for Ubisoft? If the company continues to fire people for speaking up, how long before the company culture becomes entirely composed of people who are afraid to speak? And what happens to innovation, creativity, and problem-solving when the culture is built on fear?

Game development requires creativity. It requires people thinking about new ideas, challenging assumptions, and pushing boundaries. You can't create great games with a culture of fear. You create games with a culture of innovation.

Ubisoft has made some truly excellent games: the Assassin's Creed franchise, Far Cry series, Splinter Cell, and many others. These games exist because creative people at Ubisoft were empowered to think innovatively. If that culture of empowerment is replaced with a culture of fear, the creative output will suffer.

This isn't speculation—it's a well-documented pattern in organizational behavior. Companies that suppress dissent eventually lose their creative edge because creativity requires freedom to experiment and fail.

What Comes Next

The Michaud-Cromp case likely isn't over. He may pursue legal action. The gaming community may continue to pressure Ubisoft through social media and public commentary. Other employees at Ubisoft may become emboldened to organize or leave for other studios.

Ubisoft may double down on the approach—the company has shown no indication it believes the termination was a mistake. Or it may eventually recognize the pattern isn't working and attempt to rebuild employee trust. Given the current leadership, the doubling down seems more likely.

What's almost certain is that this case will be referenced in union organizing efforts at Ubisoft and other studios. "This could happen to you," organizers will say, pointing to Michaud-Cromp. "This is why we need collective protection."

In that sense, Ubisoft has handed a powerful organizing tool to unions simply by acting as it did.

The Bigger Picture: Corporate Power and Employee Agency

Zooming out, the Michaud-Cromp case is one example of a larger tension in modern capitalism: the balance of power between corporations and employees. For decades, corporations have had most of the power. They decide when and where you work. They decide what you're paid. They decide whether you keep your job.

Employees have remarkably little power in this relationship, despite being essential to the corporation's function. A game designer doesn't choose to be a game designer for their health—they need income. The corporation knows this, which is why it can impose terms that an employee might not otherwise accept.

Remote work temporarily shifted this balance. When companies couldn't insist on office work, when talented developers could work from anywhere, when the pandemic created labor shortages in tech—in that moment, employees had slightly more negotiating power.

Return-to-office mandates are, in part, about restoring the old power dynamic. They're about reasserting the corporation's control and reducing employee options. And when employees resist, the corporation responds with the ultimate assertion of power: termination.

Whether this approach succeeds depends on labor market conditions. If game development talent is scarce and valuable, employees will have options and Ubisoft will pay a price for its aggressive stance. If game development talent is abundant and replaceable, Ubisoft can afford to be aggressive because someone else will take the job.

Right now, the industry seems to have sufficient supply of people interested in game development that companies feel empowered to be aggressive. But this can change. Burnout rates are high. People are leaving the industry. Talent is becoming scarcer in some specialties.

When talent becomes truly scarce, aggressive management suddenly becomes unsustainable. Companies that have been fired people for dissent will find themselves unable to recruit. The Michaud-Cromp story will become a recruiting liability.

FAQ

What exactly was David Michaud-Cromp's role at Ubisoft Montreal?

David Michaud-Cromp was a level design team lead, which is a mid-to-senior position involving the design of game levels, mentorship of junior designers, and creative direction contributions. His position carried responsibility and expertise, making his termination particularly significant as it affected someone with substantial influence within the studio.

Was Michaud-Cromp's criticism of the RTO policy protected speech?

In Canada, where Ubisoft Montreal operates, employees have strong protections for discussing working conditions. Return-to-office policies affect working conditions, suggesting the criticism likely fell within protected speech under Canadian labor law. However, proving this in court requires establishing that retaliation was the actual reason for termination, which is difficult when companies cite code of conduct violations.

How did Ubisoft justify the firing?

Ubisoft stated that "sharing feedback or opinions respectfully does not lead to a dismissal," then referenced a breach of the company's Code of Conduct without specifying which provision was violated. This framing allows the company to deny retaliation while avoiding detailed explanation of what actually violated the Code of Conduct. It's a legally clever but ethically problematic approach that creates plausible deniability.

What was the timeline from criticism to termination?

Michaud-Cromp first faced a three-day suspension without pay after criticizing the RTO policy. Days later, the company terminated him. The rapid escalation from suspension to termination—normally a progression that takes weeks or months—demonstrates how quickly the company moved against him, suggesting the criticism was the primary driver of both actions.

How does the Michaud-Cromp case relate to Ubisoft's unionization challenges?

The case likely accelerates unionization efforts because it provides concrete evidence of what employees face when they speak up individually. Unions exist to provide collective protection against exactly this scenario. By firing someone so visibly after criticism, Ubisoft has created a powerful argument for why workers need union representation.

What is Ubisoft's broader pattern of employee treatment?

Ubisoft's pattern includes studio closures shortly after unionization efforts, massive layoffs affecting 20% of its workforce, mandatory RTO policies with aggressive enforcement, and termination of an employee days after public criticism of policy. Together, these actions suggest a pattern of viewing employee agency as a threat to be managed rather than respected.

Why didn't Ubisoft just allow flexible work arrangements?

This relates to corporate philosophy and control. Return-to-office mandates represent reassertion of corporate control over when and where work happens. They reduce employee flexibility and options, which increases the employee's dependence on the employer. Flexible arrangements would empower employees—something Ubisoft's approach suggests it's trying to avoid.

Could Michaud-Cromp successfully sue Ubisoft for wrongful termination?

Possibly, particularly in Canada where labor protections are stronger. He has circumstantial evidence including the timing of termination relative to criticism, lack of specified code of conduct violations, and a broader pattern of retaliation. However, litigation is expensive, time-consuming, and uncertain. Most individuals in his position lack the resources to pursue such cases.

How does this compare to RTO policies at other game studios?

Other major studios like EA and Activision Blizzard have implemented RTO policies but without the visible aggressive response to criticism. Ubisoft's distinction is aggressive enforcement and what appears to be retaliation against dissent, which sets it apart from peers in terms of management approach rather than the policy itself.

What should prospective employees ask about when considering Ubisoft?

Prospective employees should directly ask about company policy on employee feedback, what happens when employees disagree with management decisions, and request references from current employees about workplace culture. The company's responses—or evasion of responses—will reveal a lot about actual culture versus stated values.

Conclusion: A Case Study in Corporate Culture Failure

The termination of David Michaud-Cromp represents far more than the loss of one job. It's a case study in how companies damage themselves through aggressive management of dissent. Ubisoft had multiple opportunities to handle this situation differently. The company could have listened to employee concerns about RTO policy. It could have implemented the policy gradually with flexibility for hardship cases. It could have engaged with the substance of Michaud-Cromp's criticism.

Instead, the company chose the path of assertion and control. When an employee criticized policy publicly, the company responded with suspension and then termination. The message was clear: speak up, lose your job.

This approach might succeed in the short term. The policy will be implemented. Employees will learn to keep their heads down and their mouths shut. Compliance will increase while trust, engagement, and morale decrease.

But here's what Ubisoft has actually accomplished: it has given the gaming industry a concrete example of what not to do. It has accelerated unionization efforts by showing why workers need collective protection. It has likely influenced the career decisions of thousands of developers considering whether to work there. It has created a permanent record on social media of what happens to people who speak up.

For other companies watching this unfold, the lesson should be clear: aggressive management of dissent is a short-term strategy with long-term costs. Companies that truly want engaged, innovative, creative workforces need to respect employee voice, even when—especially when—that voice disagrees with leadership.

The question now is whether Ubisoft will recognize the pattern it has created and attempt to rebuild employee trust, or whether it will continue down the path toward becoming a company known for fear-based management rather than inspiring game development.

Based on current evidence, the trajectory suggests the latter. And that's a tragedy not just for Ubisoft employees, but for game development as an industry.

Key Takeaways

• Ubisoft terminated David Michaud-Cromp, a level design team lead, days after he publicly criticized the company's return-to-office mandate
• The company cited a Code of Conduct violation without specifying the exact breach, creating plausible deniability while the timing suggests retaliation
• This incident is part of a larger pattern: studio closures after unionization, 20% workforce reductions, and aggressive anti-dissent enforcement
• Visible retaliation against individual critics creates a chilling effect that suppresses broader employee voice and accelerates unionization efforts
• Aggressive RTO enforcement combined with punitive management likely backfires by damaging company culture, increasing burnout, and driving talent to competitors

Related Articles

• Blizzard QA Workers Win Historic Union Contract: What It Means [2025]
• Ubisoft France Strike 2025: Gaming's Labor Crisis Explained [2025]
• Ubisoft's Crisis: Layoffs, Studio Closures, and the Gaming Industry Reckoning [2025]
• Ubisoft Cancels 6 Games Including Prince of Persia Remake [2025]
• Ubisoft Cancels Prince of Persia Remake: Inside the Major Gaming Restructure [2025]
• Cities: Skylines 2 Developer Switch: Iceflake's Major Updates [2025]