I have no idea how this works, so this is probably a stupid question, but couldn't Ubi prevent a hostile takeover simply by buying back a majority part of their shares?

As in, the typical movie ending where the good guys end up having 51% of the shares and can save the company because of that?

"simply"

They can, but not "simply".

I hate Ubiplay, Ubisoft and the fact that killed the Heroes of Might and Magic Series so I couldnt care less to be honest.

Well, I did say I wasn't sure how this works, so no need to be condescending right?  (I apologize if sounding condesending was not your intent, but that's how it came off to me.)

I was looking for actual information there though, so how about you explain to me me why exactly it will be difficult to do instead? Because if my company was facing a hostile takeover I'd be moving heaven and hell to prevent it.

They aren't doing it annually because they can't, not because they don't want to.

Ahh sorry.

I'll try to go a little bit more indepth (though I by now means have extensive knowledge of this).

I don't think Ubisoft can actually mount a takeover defence by buying their own shares. The reason this works in the movies is because it's not the company itself owning that 51%, but the private person (or at least a 3rd party shareholder). What Ubisoft are trying to do now is to get enough shareholders (>50%)  to "agree" on not selling their stake and not agreeing to a potential takeover bid.

I don't want to see this happen either, but let's not pretend Ubisoft is one of the good guys. DRM, buggy launches, annualized series, accusations of media manipulation. I love Ubisoft Montpellier but the company in general is contributing to many problems in the video game industry.

I'm all for the take over.

Ubisoft already killed what little I enjoyed left from them so might as well change it up. I can't see them getting any worst as it is anyways.

I think hostile takeovers should be illegal. Like a company can only own a set percentage of stock in another company, which includes individuals working in the buying company. It's ridiculous that a company can force another to be sold to it.

They can't force it unless they get majority approval. And if there would be a limit, why on earth would it include stocks owned by individuals working in the buying company?