That's a very difficult question to answer with any degree of certainty. There's a great book, however, called the The Innovator's Dilemma, that was written by a Harvard professor about 10 or 12 years ago. It has nothing to do with games. It's about innovation and technology.
The summary of The Innovator's Dilemma is that the very things you do to succeed today are the things that prevent you from succeeding tomorrow. It's your own success that blinds you to those shifts and disruptions that are occurring. The best way to counteract the innovator's dilemma is to have and support start-ups that are not encumbered by the rules of success of yesterday; that can explore and experiment and fail; that can become the new big thing. To the extent that all of the resources and all of the attention goes into supporting the current paradigm, we will be completely lost when the paradigm shifts.
Sorry for the cheesiness of “paradigm shift”, but I mean, it's true.
We have to balance supporting and extending and benefiting from the success that exists today by not being blind to the disruptions and all the things that are coming. The best way to do that is to not predict it but to let the market predict it by providing early-stage capital, by providing entrepreneurial opportunities, by supporting start-ups.
For all the success that Ubisoft has had, they're not necessarily going to be the ones who will discover the quasi new thing. It will be somebody else who just comes out of nowhere, who's not encumbered by the same budgets and constraints. They will find the next big thing.
That's true of everything, not just games. As a nation we have to be able to support that kind of exploration process. That's done more so at the start-up level, with early-stage funding and entrepreneurship. Tax breaks are not relevant to do that kind of exploration—