I mentioned Vevo in context of that many of its videos have hundreds of millions of views. About that it can also be argued that no surprise if UMG, Sony and Warner Music Group as the three biggest record companies are behind it with even Google having some shares (which owns YouTube these days), and furthermore that it is somewhat surprising what anti-cartel officials are doing if anything at all.
But a point in the context here is that I mean to mention that they are somewhat more involved with music and differently or more than just being as if depicted Wall street sharks.

The other point is simply about realities of video game market/s, in which mobile games and micro-transactions have more revenue than console and PC games each - with AAA games being quite expensive to make and not really as if always profitable venture. And while myself not someone to purchase e.g. an album of LMFAO, assuming eventual video game involvement of them or Lady Gaga or Lana Del Rey or Lorde or Jennifer Lopez or Gwen Stefani or Metallica or PSY or Dizzee Rascal or Marylin Manson or any of many more who seem quite popular with many and are or have been involved somehow with UMG (or with EMI which was apparently absorbed into UMG) - if such makes many interested to learn about GPUs etc., it doesn't exactly sound bad about that itself. A capitalist idealist would probably even argue that it will make Valve have to consider lowering their cut as to stay relevant for being a place persons go to for video game purchases if publishers may decide to just use Uplay.

And that copyright issue doesn't sound nice, but matter of fact is that musicians and also publishers sign contracts of own free will, and they themselves arguably in many a case prefer to be with some company who looks after copyright so they have time to smile while their pics taken, if they themselves actually have some intellectual property rights and aren't just as if hired singers presented as if artists. What actually makes sense about copyright and what not, such of course being a topic in itself tho.

That said, I myself am not a fan of some whole conglomerate to rule which music about everyone on the planet gets to listen to, and who doesn't sign a deal with them those have no way of some wider exposure if actually more than a few would care about more or something else than just some lalala (regardless of whether it is directly Vivendi calling the shots or UMG board, etc.). But in terms of customers having some free will of their own about what they spend disposable income and time on, and Vivendi arguably being among those who mean to deliver products which art critics may not find nice but many kids seem to enjoy, then the topic seems to be more about tastes and especially for people to realize that e.g. Google holds a stake in Vevo and due to such probably pushes videos of it with it not really being as if a real curator service - in other words, if many are interested to develop a taste in music then they ought to be looking at least a bit deeper and/or broader than what is just served up to their nose. That a corporation uses its channel/s to promote its products, such is itself not really something that surprising at all that, and as I meant to point out is that it isn't really as if everyone were forced to only the video on YouTube's main page while the actual audience of tens to hundreds of millions e.g. YouTube has can arguably make way more persons interested in video games when Vivendi uses that to promote some video games as well (however limited and commercial that offer may be at that point on their channel, but still would probably make many get a GPU anyhow with which they then can explore if they are at least somewhat inclined to).

I do not dislike or like them, as I have absolutely no experience playing any of their games. Yet, I find it completely retarded that they left the chance, to create a Dota 2 game, slip.

Of course we can't know what exactly happened in order for them to take such a decision, I just think it was an awful move by them.