Ubisoft Veteran Suspended After Criticizing Return-to-Office Policy

This caught my attention because Ubisoft has long been a bellwether in game-studio culture: when its internal tensions flare, the wider industry pays attention. A disciplinary suspension for publicly criticizing a return-to-office policy is a raw, timely example of the growing clash between management mandates and developer expectations.

Ubisoft Veteran Says He Was Suspended for Criticizing Return-to-Office Policy

• Key takeaway 1: Ubisoft placed David Michaud-Cromp, a 13-year level designer at Ubisoft Montreal, on a three-day unpaid disciplinary suspension beginning Jan. 28, 2026, after a public LinkedIn post criticizing the company’s five-day return-to-office mandate.
• Key takeaway 2: Ubisoft framed the action as a breach of the employee’s “duty of loyalty.” Legal observers say the company would likely need to show concrete reputational harm to justify such discipline.
• Key takeaway 3: The suspension amplifies unrest already brewing after recent restructurings, canceled projects, studio closures and potential layoffs – prompting unions to call for strikes and workers to voice anger over working conditions.
• Key takeaway 4: This incident spotlights a larger industry fight over hybrid work, staff morale, and how publishers manage criticism from long-tenured creators.

{{INFO_TABLE_START}}
Publisher|Ubisoft
Release Date|January 28, 2026
Category|Labor & Employment / Industry News
Platform|Ubisoft Montreal
{{INFO_TABLE_END}}

The immediate facts

David Michaud-Cromp, a level designer with 13 years at Ubisoft Montreal, posted criticism of Ubisoft’s five-day return-to-office policy on LinkedIn, arguing the stated collaboration rationale was disingenuous and linking to analysis that return mandates are often driven by real-estate and oversight motives. Ubisoft responded by issuing a three-day unpaid disciplinary suspension and citing a breach of the “duty of loyalty.” The suspension began Jan. 28, 2026.

Why this matters beyond one post

On the surface this looks like a manager disciplining an employee for public criticism. In context, though, it’s a pressure point in a larger labor story. Ubisoft has recently announced major restructuring – including canceled projects (notably the Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time remake), studio closures and expected layoffs – that have already damaged morale. Workers had negotiated remote-work arrangements in some locations; a five-day in-office mandate feels regressive to many.

Disciplining a long-tenured developer for speaking publicly risks several backfires: it can galvanize unions and colleagues, amplify negative coverage, and make retention and recruitment harder precisely when the company needs talent stability. That Ubisoft invoked “duty of loyalty” signals the company is choosing a legal/disciplinary framing rather than dialoguing publicly about policy rationale.

How credible is Ubisoft’s legal stance?

Invoking a duty-of-loyalty breach is not unprecedented, but it’s not automatic grounds for discipline in many jurisdictions. Legal observers noted Ubisoft would typically need to show actual reputational harm or that the employee’s statements violated specific contractual or legal limits. In practice, proving that public criticism caused quantifiable damage is difficult — which is why such moves often feel as much about deterrence and messaging as about a clean legal theory.

What this means for developers, unions and players

• For developers: The incident sharpens the stakes of speaking publicly. Some will self-censor; others will organize. Expect heightened union activity and potential legal challenges in places with robust labor protections.
• For unions: This is a clear focal point to rally around. Five Ubisoft unions already called for strikes in February, arguing the policy is part of making conditions “unbearable” rather than taking responsibility for layoffs.
• For players and the market: Reputation matters. Repeated public conflicts over treatment of staff can affect studio output, delays, and ultimately the quality and continuity of games.

My take

As someone who follows studio culture closely, this feels avoidable and tone-deaf from Ubisoft. When a company is cutting projects and closing studios, tightening workplace rules without transparent rationale escalates distrust. Using discipline to manage public criticism rarely quiets concerns — it just amplifies them. If Ubisoft wants better collaboration in person, it needs a transparent, evidence-based case and negotiated changes, not a top-down edict plus punitive measures.

TL;DR

Ubisoft suspended a 13-year veteran for publicly criticizing a five-day return-to-office policy, citing a duty-of-loyalty breach. The move intensifies existing labor tensions after restructurings and cancellations, and risks galvanizing union action and employee departures. This is less likely about immediate legal clarity and more about control, messaging, and morale — and companies that mishandle that mix often pay a creative and reputational price.