I'm so sorry I didn't mean to offend you. I should have said EA don't CARE what Ubisoft do. Riccitello really doesn't. You do understand how business works? EA have shareholders that Riccitello reports to, as long as he delivers profits to them then all is well. Yves however is going to his shareholders trying to explain why he has not delivered profits. This is why Yves uses excuses like the PC is not profitable. Ubisoft pulling out of PC publishing will not matter to EA and EA will not evaluate anything based on it. What EA care about is EA making a profit and at the moment the PC does that for them. End of story.

Actually, I'm pretty sure EA owns like, a 20% stake in Ubisoft, unless they sold it in the last few years.

23% to be accurate. I'm not sure if they still own that stake. It was acquired during EA's must buy everything phase and only purchased it to try and buy out Ubisoft but didn't get a controlling stake due to a fight led by Yves himself. EA have a stake in Ubisoft but not enough to have any say in the direction of the company.

Yes, profits are important.
You see your biggest competitor catch on fire and die. Are you going to do jack all, or are you going to look into things to make sure you still turn a profit and don't catch on fire?
Let's say you are a producer of movies. Your arch-nemesis and you have been competing to produce as many Romantic-Vampire-Porn movies as possible. But then your arch-nemesis goes out of business. Are you at least going to maybe do a few studies to make suree little girls (and boys who were too young to get their romantic goodies from Ryan Reynolds and/or Buffy The Vampire Slayer) still have a thing for movies about attractive young actresses dating attractive young actors who are supposed to be older than their grandparents?
That is the big problem here, and what I tried to bring attention to. People need to stop being short-sighted and start considering the long term.

But enough to care what happens to them, if they still in fact own it.

Your point is wrong. When a KFC closes down does McDonalds think they should also close down? No, not if they are making money. EA are making money and Ubisoft aren't. Should EA STOP making money? No.

Yes thats the if. If they still own it then yes EA would care but crucially they can't actually do anything about it other than attempt to reach the magic 29% which would force a buy out (which is impossible due to Yves) or they can sell the shares.

Actually, if the KFC across the street closes down, you can bet your butt that McDonalds is going to make sure they know why. If they were run out of business because people prefer soggy french fries to soggy potato crisps, fine. But if they were run out of business because the locals are starting to insist on eating healthy, you can bet they are going to start considering their options.

Now it's you missing my point. The McDonalds is making money. Should they close and stop making money because a competitor has closed? No.

Sure they are now, but will they continue to do so? That's they question they probably want answered.

DING DING DING! We have a winner :p
And that is why we really don't want Ubi to go belly-up. Because even if EA and Activision are still turning profits, they will also be even more likely to cover their bases.

Dragon Age/Mass Effect 2 DLC says yes.

You are mixing symptom with cause (not sure if that translate well in English) you are also forgetting one of the biggest basic rule of economy : Offer and Demand . You need both to have a successful business.
If VHS disappeared (mostly) it's not because one the big studio suddenly decide to stop releasing VHS and all the others followed... no it's because the market for it started to dry out and it wasn't profitable enough to release stuff on VHS.
On the other side if Vinyl records are still being made today, even thought all the big music studio abandoned the media years ago , that's because there is still a big enough niche market to keep it profitable.
If tomorrow there is a high enough demand for Betamax video tapes, there will be some studio who will re-start releasing stuff on Betamax.

And why would Ubi go out of business? Logic would dictate" Because the demand for their supply has dried up".
And since they supply the same thing EA and Activision and lots of small companies supply...

But they don't. The whole copyright industry is designed to ensure that they _don't_ supply the same things that other companies supply, because copyright law makes that a crime.
If Foosoft are selling games that require one of their employees to come around to your house and hold a gun to your dog's head while you're playing to ensure that you don't pirate it, while Barsoft are selling games which come DRM-free, then they're in almost entirely different markets... if Foosoft collapse it will have only a beneficial impact on Barsoft.

Yes. I forgot that generic shooter number 1 and generic shooter letter A are vastly different games :p
As for the DRM debate: It is very questionable as to whether or not the "average" gamer actually cares. We do, but we really aren't "average".