from swampwitch@lemmy.world to games@lemmy.world on 09 Apr 23:22
https://lemmy.world/post/28002799
Full title: Ubisoft says you “cannot complain” it shut down The Crew because you never actually owned it, and you weren’t “deceived” by the lack of an offline version “to access a decade-old, discontinued video game”
Ubisoft’s lawyers have responded to a class action lawsuit over the shutdown of The Crew, arguing that it was always clear that you didn’t own the game and calling for a dismissal of the case outright.
The class action was filed in November 2024, and Ubisoft’s response came in February 2025, though it’s only come to the public’s attention now courtesy of Polygon. The full response from Ubisoft attorney Steven A. Marenberg picks apart the claims of plaintiffs Matthew Cassell and Alan Liu piece by piece, but the most common refrain is that The Crew’s box made clear both that the game required an internet connection and that Ubisoft retained the right to revoke access “to one or more specific online features” with a 30-day notice at its own discretion.
threaded - newest
Deny. Defend. Depose.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/09d6fe1e-607b-40e5-a920-235e305f758a.gif">
Here’s the original in higher quality and less cropping: i.imgur.com/XzgU9AS.mp4
The watermark in the bottom right corner says KLING AI 1.6
<img alt="" src="https://files.catbox.moe/ikg3g9.mp4">
Thanks for that! :)
When Ubisoft introduced always online DRM with AC2, I was out. It’s nice with the Internet how much being anti-Ubisoft has become common enough to be unsurprising
Unless you worked in Blizzard.
It may be legal, but it certainly ain’t ethical.
Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should do it.
i have the legal right to stand on the street corner and call everyone who walks by a stupid slut.
that does not mean i will at no point get punched
Really unclear if you’re misquoting Jurassic Park, or if Jurassic Park just universally applies to EVERYTHING.
Clever girl finds a way
Hang on to your DODGSON OVER HERE!
Maybe in developing countries, but in developed world(Europe mostly) it isn’t.
i say ubisoft can eat shit have not purchased anything from them in over a decade
I got it on one of those giveaways that steam/epic/gog sometimes do, so I never even gave them money over it and I still want my money back.
haha yep, dealing with their shit is not even worth free
By their argument, nobody’s “purchased” anything from them in over a decade!
What they’ve been doing that whole time is committing massive fraud (false advertising, violating the First Sale Doctrine, etc.) instead.
I first heard they were doing propaganda( to make them self look good in a positive light) by basically promoting in a show mythic quest, I’m guessing the creator of isaip is no saint either
Ubisoft doesn’t have to support the game forever.
They can either open up hosting to players or give refunds but they can’t have their cake and eat it too.
“Nobody reads those EULAs, and the Defendant knows that. Therefore, the Defendant cannot hide behind the EULA as a shield because the Prosecution, having clicked Agree without being required to confirm that they read through the terms, could not have possibly known what they were agreeing to.”
“If you are what you agree to, your Honor, then my clients are an unknown spaghetti of legal mumbo jumbo.”
“No further remarks, your Honor.”
I would relish a lawsuit against EULAs where the defendant somehow sends the prosecutor a EULA in a software package that declares that they automatically lose the lawsuit by clicking Agree.
It would really hammer in the point that fucking NOBODY reads this shit.
I think someone calculated the time it would take to read every single one you’re expected to agree with in normal every day life, and it worked out to needing 76 work days to read everything you “agree” to in a typical year.
There was a video game store that once, for April Fools Day, included in its sale terms:
Only 12% of people that purchased that day responded, essentially confirming only 12% of people actually read the terms.
12% is honestly way higher than I thought it would be. That number might be inflated by people looking for funny stuff on April 1st though
I think one could successfully argue in a court of law that people tend to be hyper aware on April 1st, and so may have read the terms suspecting something amiss when they otherwise would not have.
We are not accounting for the percentage of people who read it but are still cool with forfeiting their soul.
The judge would tell you you’re an idiot who said nothing worthwhile and that ignorance of the things you agree to doesn’t make them void when they’re used against you.
And this is exactly why Ubisoft is dying. Good riddance.
Yep, couldn’t happen to a nicer publisher :)
Eat shit Guillemot.
I've been increasingly frustrated with clickbaity coverage and headlines. Credit to Polygon for being just as obviously opinionated as Gamesradar but titling and writing their piece way more professionally.
I mean, yeah, Ubisoft's lawyers are arguing that the arguments of a lawsuit against them are wrong, that's hardly surprising. Given that they're being sued for taking down an online game they would certainly argue that they had no obligation to keep the game online indefinitely.
It's an interesting case and there are... creative arguments on both sides, but being mad that Ubisoft would argue that the text of their EULA applies seems so weird.
For the record, and because I'll be hounded for this, I've signed all relevant petitions to request regulation about digital ownership that creates an obligation to provide offline versions or access to server code. I'm all for making it illegal to build planned obsolescence into software. That doesn't mean I'm not bothered with bad journalism that I happen to agree with.
Hounded? Seriously? Lol
Be honest, you were ready to do some hounding, saw that tackled preemptively and decided to pivot. I can see the hounding intent from here. Those ears are so droopy you're becoming a better boy as we speak.
Are you a crazy person?
Not gonna lie, that one led to some introspection and I thank you for the opportunity.
Enjoy the rest of your week!
If buying isn’t owning, surely that means pirating isn’t stealing.
They could always release the source code.
Ubisoft cannot complain when gamers “pirate” their games then.
If buying isn’t owning, piracy isn’t theft and all that.
Goddammit… get the quote right:
If buying ain’t owning, piracy ain’t stealing.
Whose exact quote do you think you're quoting? Every time i hear this phrase it's always said the way OP said it, never the way you said it. Also please try to talk to people in a less pissy way
Piracy was never stealing, in so far as legality is concerned in the USA, at least.
Stealing requires the owner of the stolen thing to be deprived access of that thing. If someone steals your car, you cannot access it anymore, since it was removed from you by the thief.
Piracy copies your car, meaning you still can access your car but someone else can drive a copy of your car. The first example is a major inconvenience to you, the second example has absolutely no negative effect on you.
It is why instances of piracy that make it to a court of law are tried as Copyright Infringement cases, and not theft or piracy cases. When your ISP spies on you and sends you a letter after you pirate something in an insecure manner, you get sent a Notice of Copyright Infringement, not a Notice of Theft.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/14a9ee93-c5cd-4399-b156-a149877d129b.jpeg">
In fact, I downloaded a Rimac Nevera just yesterday.
For Cyberpunk 2077, but still. Would, could, did.
Exactly. It also means you’re being sued by the copyright holder and not the state. You won’t go to prison for this shit, as opposed to actual theft.
Not only is that not a quote, but its not even right. Piracy was never stealing, its copyright infringement.
Thanks for the clarification, it really drastically changes the meaning when said like this versus op…
The best part is they havent made a compelling game in 10 years. So i wont buy a game of them ever again either way. Its an easy life tbh.
Literally just let people host private servers. It worked fine for decades, and still does.
The HalfLife model worked exceedingly well, until gaben fucked it all up.
But then they don’t get money, and they really like getting money.
Wait until some blizzard empoyee comes out and tells how it is expensive for publisher to not pay for hosting.
I have the fucking disc to prove I do own it, you arseholes.
Sadly, the legal interpretation of copyright says you own the plastic, but not the data it contains. It sucks but it’s not just Ubisoft.
Well… I can’t say I’ll feel for them when they inevitably complain about myself and many others cracking their games.
Take them to small claims for theft. I’ll bet they don’t show up. Then they won’t pay you, so you get a court order and sheriff to recoup your money in assets. Take anything you want and put it on eBay. Collect your money.
Can't Stop Me
Hey Ubisoft, you can’t complain when I pirate your stupid games, because there’s nothing to own apparently.
Oooooooooh, fuck you Ubisoft.
Ubisoft you can’t complain if I pirate your games, because I never actually bought them and you weren’t deceived by a lack of purchase.
This is the correct response.
Hijacking.
Are you European Union Citizen? Do you like games?
Do you want to own games again? and not just “License” them? Then please join the Stop destroying Videogames Initiative.
Initiative - citizens-initiative.europa.eu/…/000007_en
(Only sign if you are a EU citizen!)
It’s an initiative to get the European parliament to discuss the matter all together, and Iirc, it already has some members that support it. (So It’s not just any ordinary petition that will go nowhere.)
We have already collected 42% of the 1 million signatures from European citizens required. But the deadline is June 2025 and if we don’t get enough signatures by then, it won’t be looked at by the European commission. So to at least get the matter to be discussed, please sign!
(ONLY FOR European Union citizens! No one else! Please do not sign if you aren’t an EU citizen. Also No Brits! there’s another initiative for the UK.)
Short video explainer about the initiative - youtu.be/mkMe9MxxZiI
For more info visit www.stopkillinggames.com
You can also view the petitions for other countries - (Australia, Canada, UK, Brazil… and more)
signs anyways…is American
No, please don’t sign if you are American. That can harm the petition with false signatures.
This is strictly ONLY for European union citizens!
Don’t worry, you can still help by spreading the message among your EU friends or family members(You don’t have to be a gamer to care about this or vote in this!). A lot of the exposure to this initiative is lacking when it comes to non-english speaking EU citizens. You can help there.
reads a request… doesn’t care… is American 🇺🇸
Gaslighting. That’s a new strategy and a new low.
Gas lightning is one of the many disgusting tactics corporate lawyers build their careers on.
Go and learn what gaslighting is so you don’t look so stupid next time you say it.
I’ve been avoiding Ubisoft games for quite some time. And blizzard. And a handful of other studios because of these bullshit shenanigans.
I wish people would take your stance on GTA 6.
Instead, I’m sure it’ll be like “100 billion copys sold in first hour!”
This is why boycott doesn’t work. They copy each other. So, grab pitchforks and torches(EU citizens only).
Ubisoft can’t be mad at me for not burying any of their games because they don’t make any games.
Ubisoft can’t complain that I wont buy their games if I don’t really own their games.
Boycott doesn’t work, grab pitchforks and torches(EU citizens only).
Ubisoft’s stocks aren’t looking great at the moment.
Ubisoft’s stocks aren’t ubisoft’s assets. It is opinion on how much they worth, not how much they have.
I actually enjoyed the first two Crew games and probably would have checked out Motorfest by now if they didn’t remove the first game from my library. But now, why should I ever buy another Ubisoft game when I don’t know how long they’ll bless me with the ability to play the games I’ve paid for? They even included expiration dates for their game keys and they’re acting like those dates were completely meaningless. So, even if they try to add an end of life date for future purchases, how would I know they’re not lying like they did with these original keys?
This is why I have stopped buying anything Blizzard. They removed the Warcraft 3 I payed for and replaced it with a completely unplayable something I didn’t want. Ubisoft has been on my shit list for a while for unrelated reasons too, but now they are on my never again list. And I never even played The Crew. Bad business is bad business even if it doesn’t directly impact me.
You’re right, Ubisoft. I CAN’T complain about not owning the game. I never bought it. You know…because it’s an Ubisoft game!
They can’t complain when I never actually give them money but still play then
Sweet. Just giving me more reasons to not buy Ubisoft’s garbage.
Fuck Ubisoft, I don’t know why everyone on Reddit loves em
The r/gaming comments about this topic look exactly the same as here but go off if it makes you feel better or whatever.
I reserve my right to complain.
I think I didn’t buy or play anything Ubisoft since Far Cry 4? And even that was more of an accident.
So from my perspective Ubisoft is that one flaccid one night stand who is still screeching about stuff while I moved on years ago.
Edit: I just checked. I didn’t even buy Far Cry 4. Oh whoops.
It’s just a map pack for Far Cry 3 anyway…
Ubisoft cannot complain if I pirate their games, because they never actually sold them. And I’m not deceiving them with my intention of never, ever, give them a dime.
Yeah I’d really like to know how this ‘you don’t ever own the game’ fits in with their other line ‘piracy is theft’.
how can you have stolen something if you haven’t actually gotten it?
You are right you can’t steal something that is not ownable, but paying for the game is what allows you to play so playing without stealing is still breaking their rules. Instead of buy to own they made it pay to play. But that sucks so fuck them anyway
“You wouldn’t download a car”
Fuck you, I would if I could.
one can dream
Playing devil’s advocate here: both lines are consistent with them owning the games. We just rent them for a while, and own nothing. But pirating is taking what they own without paying - i.e. stealing.
How did I take it? They still have it. Theft is defined as depriving the owner of property (in most places).
spoiler
bla, bla, copyright infringement
Have they ever said that?
Every AAA game company’s have been for 30 years and still currently are arguing this in courts all the time.
The actual public facing employees don’t have to, but sometimes still do, though usually in an unofficial capacity these days.
AA / indie devs are more of a mixed bag. A few will openly say ‘fuck it, pirate it if you can’t afford it, idgaf’, but the majority will denounce piracy if its relevant or if prompted.
Are you sure about that? Because it isn’t theft, it’s copyright infringement.
copyright infringent is commonly also referred to as IP theft, theft of intellectual property.
unauthorized use, sale, or distribution of ip is ip theft.
when it comes to software, basically , unless your software is distributed under some kind MIT or GPL or other copyleft liscense… all of the software legally is ip, and using it in an unauthorized manner is copyright infringement… which is also referred to as ip theft.
so yes, ip theft is a form of theft, and gaming companies and lawyers and other lawyers have been successfully suing other people and other companies into oblivion over this basically since the industry began.
have you just never head of the term ‘ip theft’?
I’ve always heard it referred to as infringement, in a legal context. I’m sure game publishers (and music, film, etc.) would like to equate it in the public mind with common theft of physical goods, but it’s all just propaganda.
We’re just playing games with words at this point. The law is pretty clear, that distributing a copyrighted work such as a copy of a video game is illegal. I don’t know why people like to repeat this line, that “if buying a game isn’t owning then piracy isn’t theft.” Maybe it is a moral/ethical argument? It’s not going to help you in court.
The entire original comment chain that lead to what I replied to … was all about playing word games with slogans, progoganda, public relations.
The law may be ‘clear’, but it is clearly bullshit.
It is absurdly deferential toward the rights of megacorps and hostile to the rights of consumers.
Laws are supposed to reflect and codify morals and ethics, arise from them… not determine them.
But, as we slip more and more into a cyberpunk dystopia of hypercapitalist megacorps being able to basically just buy legislators, judges and laws, it will become more evident that the government is just entirely a facade directed by them.
This whole article is about a lawsuit in America, you know, the land of the fee, home of the early and very expensive grave?
The place with the ongoing fascist coup that’s dismantling all the government agencies that regulate corporations, after the richest man in the world just bought an election, and more recently openly tried to buy a state judge, and though he didn’t succeed, will likely face no penalty for doing that very obviously illegal thing?
Also, as far as at least acquring a pirated game?
Its not that hard.
Now hosting them? Sharing them?
Yep, you’re right, that’s a bit more difficult… but hey, be clever enough to not get caught, and thats the same as being rich enough to write your own laws.
I mean, I can be as much of a pedant as you and post an unsourced definition of ‘ip theft’ … or maybe you could just admit you’d never heard of the term ‘ip theft’, or are unaware of its use.
Its a pretty commonly used term, especially amongst government regulatory and business organizations, as well as academics who study policy, in the US.
The term itself, its phrasing, is intentionally constructed to frame copyright infringement as a form of theft, stealing something that doesn’t belong to you.
The psychological framing of the term is meant to frame losses from someone committing copyright infringement against you as equivalent to losses from being robbed.
The entire point of the usage of this term is to mold public perception.
Here’s some examples where very prominent US institutions/organizations use some construction or variation of ‘ip theft’ as an umbrella term to refer to all kinds of copyright, trademark and/or patent infringement:
FBI
fbi.gov/…/countering-the-growing-intellectual-pro…
KPMG (huge business consulting group)
kpmg.com/us/…/theft-intellectual-property.html
DHS (Homeland Security)
www.dhs.gov/intellectual-property-rights
IPRC (Intellectual Property Rights Center)
www.iprcenter.gov
And finally, literally IPTheft.org, which basically functions as an all-in-one training/resource hub that connects business people to all kinds of resources to report when they have suffered… IP theft.
www.iptheft.org
The claim was that Ubisoft called piracy “theft”. Have they done that, or not?
though their games aren’t worth playing in the first place
On that I disagree, and that’s part of the problem. I do love some of their games, but I’m not going to reward their behavior anymore
Don't like this? Sign the EU petition Stop Killing Games.
Yea I was thinking about this !
I wish I could sign. Sadly, not all european citizens are EU citizens.
If buying isn’t owning then sharing isn’t stealing…
By principle I avoid “online required” games.
Avoiding doesn’t work, grab pitchforks and torches(EU citizens only).
Give it another 5 years and Ubisoft will be dead, what was the last Ubisoft game without controversy/bad gameplay? I gotta go back 10 years or so
When was the Mad Max game released?
Mad Max is WB.
Anno 1800?
Anno 1800 was an Epic exclusive (and Ubisoft’s Uplay) for a year on release. It was available for pre order on Steam. I believe people that bought it on Steam prior to the one year exclusivity deal still got it. It was a whole thing though. Definitely would call it a controversy.
Prince of Persia: The Lost Crown was well received.
Their “AAAA” output is pure slop, but the smaller games can be OK.
Their Mario + Rabbids games are also great.
I always assumed they were shit since they’re the only Nintendo branded games that go on sale for more than 10% off without a bundle.
I think it’s only Nintendo published games that basically never go on sale.
Rabbids is unusual because it’s got Mario in but it’s not by Nintendo.
Their whole policy on never having a sale makes me not want a Switch 2 at all.
They’re actually really nice, well-made X-COM lites. Great if you don’t want to immediately throw your kids to the Chryssalids.
Rabbids still kinda suck as a concept, but the games are good enough that I can look past it
Nah, they are published by Ubisoft, so they go on regular ubisoft style sales. They are pretty good games though. I haven’t played the second one yet, but first one was really well made and polished game.
It’s such a shame that game didn’t get lore attention. It’s one of the best metroidvanias I’ve ever played and has amazing combat.
Edit: Talking about Prince of Persia Lost Crowns, the Mario rabbids game was also fun but not as good.
gamerant.com/prince-of-persia-the-lost-crown-sale…
Yeah, well received but poorly marketed. I guess they are focusing on the wrong games.
To think this is the same company that has to use mythic quest show to promote its propaganda as good PR, guessing it’s partiall Rob’s machelennys fault for being so thirsty to stay in Hollywood spotlight he had to approach something like ubisoft.
Having watched all of Mythic Quest, I had no idea what you meant and looked it up - I didn’t realize there was any connection. How does the show promote Ubisoft?
They made it apparently. But yea, I would never have guessed that if it wasn’t mentioned and I looked it up.
www.ubisoft.com/en-us/…/mythic-quest
My friend loves quoting a line from that show where HyperScape was uttered in the same breath as games like Call of Duty as a “mega franchise” to try to will its success into existence. That episode is only a few years old, but HyperScape is already shut down forever.
That’s one of the many reasons why I never bought it.
That’s why I boycott video games from Ubisoft. I loved and am nostalgic of their previous outstanding games from when it was great - think of Beyond Good and Evil, the original 3 Prince of Persia games and the assassin’s creed games until odyssey(I’m hesitant to include Valhalla, but I’m at witt’s end here as Einar Selvik sang and composed the ost of the game for goodness’ sake). I even paid a (🤮) connect+ subscription that they threatened at some point that some accounts may be lost as per a number of days of innactivity.
But enough is enough, Ubisoft be better prepared to not own a company and be manned by Tencent. As much as I hate even the latter, Ubisoft is a scummy company and needs to be properly grouped in the scummy companies even by allegiance.
I hope the European Citizen’s innitiative for video games passes, in the end. The source code/maintenance of discontinued/stopped projects ought to be maintained by the players and its community.
I didn’t play the new Prince of Persia because they wanted you to be logged in to play. It looked good, but there are just too many options for me to put up with shit like Ubisoft.
Ubi used to have some neat stuff but post far cry 3 it is just the most generic, worst gameplay slop possible. And avarage person just loves repetetive slop.
Oh look. Yet another reason to continue my Ubisoft boycott.
Boycott doesn’t work, grab pitchforks and torches(EU citizens only).
Well Ubisoft’s stock has tanked hard over the years as they’ve been doing shady things.
I’ve been very tempted to try their new Assassins Creed, but hey, I’ve managed to refrain from doing so.
I tried to sign that petition but for some reason I couldn’t. Don’t remember why.
Stock isn’t revenue.
It’s what the shareholders care about though.
Unless they want dividends
Oh boy. If you look at Ubisoft’s stock prices, it’s way down.
Like high 80s in 2018. And now it’s 8, roughly 1/10th if it’s value.
They aren’t going to survive another few years at this rate without some bangers. How stupid their leadership has been, with NFTs, with their sexual harassment lawsuits, with bonehead anti-consumer practices is just accelerating this downfall.
See, boycotts do in fact work. They may not work instantly, but they do work if it’s your actual customer base doing the boycott. The Bud Light boycott also worked. The Target boycott currently has their stock in a tailspin, regardless of what they are claiming are the company’s actual issues.
When does Ubisoft realize that “you never owned it” and “you can’t complain” are arguments for not buying their next game?
Why buy what you can’t own? ☠️
They know. But consumers / voters are morons that will buy anyway, so they have no incentive to give a fuck.
Will they? A lot of “live service” games are failing of late.
They can’t complain because they never got my money.
I think they are realizing. It’s why they are looking to sell assets to China I assume. Source
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/e4342012-96b3-44f1-b74d-5282a6dacdee.jpeg">
damn. their stock is almost worthless. Keep it going!
Let’s see if the physical disc once said anything about needing an online connection for single play. Oh look, it did not, the subscription required was only for 2-8 players network play.
Let’s compare with Destiny 2’s back cover, a game that is a MMO and thus “cannot be owned” by the players. Hey, a “Online Play (Required)*” sticker that is not present on The Crew! The fine print has a bit that states that “Activision makes no guarantee of regarding availability of online play or features, and may modify or discontinue online services at its discretion without notice.”
FF14 also had a “Online Play (Required)*” sticker on its back cover. It clearly states on the rectangular bit above the T Rating: “Users are granted only a limited, revocable license and do not own any intellectual property in the game or game data”
You deceived consumers, Ubisoft. “Online Play Required” is not there, so the game should remain playable offline.
Technically right but the game required network access to play anyways so I’m not sure that people were deceived by this as it happened.
Did you like, not read any of the comment you’re replying to? Click any of the picture links?
I did and have read about it and disagree. I dont think anyone was tricked and thought they’d have the crew forever. This all seems very self entitled in my opinion. Point out any technicalities that you want to, people should have expected the game to be sunset eventually, and that it would be gone after that, just like every other online only game.
Which was a deception in the first place, because it clearly distinguishes between ‘1 player’ where it doesn’t say anything about needing a network connection, and 2-8 player where it says network and playstation plus required. It also says network features can be removed at any time, but nowhere does it say 1 player is a network feature. It specifically does not say that.
Why weren’t people upset when they first bought the game and realized they needed to be online to play it then? Why did it only become a talking point after the fact? You could argue it was shitty to make it a network only game and I might agree, but to say people were deceived and didnt realize it couldn’t be played offline until the servers were shutdown is absurd.
They probably were upset, but not upset enough to do anything about it because they still wanted to play it. I personally would have refunded it right away, and lots of people probably also did that.
Sounds pretty fair to me.
Ubisoft is being fucked on consumer protection grounds, not on false advertisement. It doesn’t matter what they said on box, they broke the law.EDIT: fuck, this is USSA lawsuit. I thought it was French(and EU in general) one.
☝️ This guy lawyers
EU cutizens can sign European Citizens’ Initiative that aims to prevent publishers using killswitches to permanently disable games. If it gets 1M signatures, it will be discussed in European Comission.
That’s 1 million signatures, not 100k.
Derp. You are right.
We should all start a boycot and stop buying anything ubisoft, then release a statement when they go down saying: “cannot complain” and weren’t “deceived” by the lack of “access to our decade-old money”.
But that will never happen.
Would be funny tho.
i know this one thread is no indication, but it seems like lots of people are already boycotting them. Plus their stock is nearly worthless.
What I love about being a broke bitch retro gamer is that I own my games. I have a Tetris cartridge that is older than I am and still works. The batteries on some of my GB and GBA carts have died, but that’s something I can fix. No one can send a stealth update to my Sega Genesis that forces me to create on an account to play or even bricks it somehow. There’s no room for human shit behavior, just a war against the realities of mechanical decay. (And it’s easy to rip ROMs in case of the inevitable.)
Older generations of gaming are well preserved. I don’t think the past ten years or the future will be. “Games as a service” is too big a draw - the goal is to turn everything into a subscription model because why make money once when you can make it forever?
Lol, everyone here sucking Ubisoft toes at every negative mention of Avowed and ACS for the past few months and now y’all get outraged?
Lmao, what a performative level of virtue signaling🤣
believe it or not, it’s possible for 2 things to be true at the same time. ACS is cool even though Ubisoft is evil. what you call virtue signaling is just people having interests
If you never actually own a Ubisoft game that logically pirating them isn’t theft right? Right?
Yes sir 100% correct.
I am 100% serious, I don’t see the contradiction in this.
It’s a license to play the game, so when you pirate it is like sneaking into the movie theater. There’s no additional cost to the producer, but theoretically a loss of revenue from the license (movie ticket) you didn’t buy.
All that ignores the fact that they sure do pretend they are SELLING the game when it’s convenient.
I think a better comparison would be a “Drive-In Theater”, because with pirating you’re just seeing the film, not using their seats/venue (servers) so it’s like you’re sitting in the neighbors yard watching it from their porch. Still costing them what would be considered a “viewing purchase” for the data but you’re really not putting a strain on the theater itself by “attending or sneaking in”.
I mean you’re still using the Drive-In’s gravel and taking up space, but I see what you mean.
…you’re using the drive-in’s gravel and space from the neighbor’s yard?
Ah I missed that. Thanks.
I agree with this point, and it’s also why I think the class action suit makes sense. Some of the people who bought The Crew got a physical copy, which is now just a useless disc. It’s still just a license like you said, and I agree that it feels like they’re selling the game.
It’s like if the movie theater sold a DVD for a movie, but the disc will only work while you’re in the theatre. Pirating might still be a crime legally but I don’t think anyone should feel bad about doing it here, Ubisoft absolutely does not deserve your money over slimy business practices like this.
Agree top to bottom.
the fact is, that most people who pirate, wouldn’t pay for it if they couldn’t pirate. It’s not a loss of revenue in most cases. I sure as shit wouldn’t pay for media if i couldn’t pirate. I’m poor as fuck.
No one should own an Ubisoft game. Its a company thats at the top of the list with Nintendo as far as the level of hatred and vitriol they have for their own paying customers goes.
Logic checks out
Problem is Ubisoft games are so shit now days it’s not even worth the effort to pirate them.
You’re correct, and this goes for ALL steam games
Half Life 2 works offline just fine. You can even run the exe directly without Steam open. You just cannot compare the two. But yes, if Steam get shut down you obviously cannot download them again. Same goes for games on GOG. You could archive them, but you can also archive games from Steam, it’s all the same.
I wasn’t saying you can’t play them, just that you don’t own them. This is still true with DRM free games. GOG’s agreement is different to Steam’s in that you own your purchase
You don’t think you own every house with an unlocked front door, do you?
You don’t really own a house at all. Gotta pay eternal rent to the government to keep it
Damn.
Damn
Or, ownership itself is a service. Rights mean nothing if nobody enforces them, and that includes property rights.
It’s a nice sentiment but seriously - the whole “if buying isn’t owning then pirating isn’t stealing” thing is both overused and has always annoyed me. How are the two related? You can still be stealing regardless of if you have an option to buy or not. You could still steal an item that isn’t for sale.
What we really should be focusing on is whether pirating in and of itself is stealing, and whether it should be a crime. This overused phrase is distracting from the issue at hand, imo.
A user obtains the game through legitimate means by “buying” the game. However, they do not own the game, and are in fact, just renting something. This is despite decades and decades of game buying, especially pre-Internet, equating to owning the game and being able to play the game forever, even 100 years from now.
By pirating the game, a user has clawed back the implied social construct that existed for decades past: Acquiring a game through piracy means that you own the game. You have it in a static form that cannot be taken away from you. There’s still the case of server shutdowns, like this legal case is arguing. But, unlike the “buyer”, the game cannot suddenly disappear from a game’s store or be forcefully uninstalled from your PC. You own it. You have the files. They cannot take that away from you.
The phrase essentially means: You have removed my means of owning software, therefore piracy is the only choice I have to own this game. It’s not stealing because it’s the only way to hold on to it forever. You know, because that’s what fucking “buying” was supposed to mean.
I think Ubisoft is clearly in the wrong, but you’re not making a good case. You’re conflating very different meanings of the word “own”.
In terms of legal ownership, only the copyright holder owns the intellectual property, including the right to distribute and license it. When a consumer “buys” a piece of media, they’re really just buying a perpetual license for their personal use of it. With physical media, the license is typically tied to whatever physical object (disc, book, ROM, etc.) is used to deliver the content, and you can transfer your license by transferring the physical media, but the license is still the important part that separates legal use from piracy.
When you pirate something, you own the means to access it without the legal right to do so. So, in the case at hand, players still “own” the game in the same sense they would if they had pirated it. Ubisoft hasn’t revoked anyone’s physical access to the bits that comprise the game; what they’ve done is made that kind of access useless because the game relies on a service that Ubisoft used to operate.
The real issue here is that Ubisoft didn’t make it clear what they were selling, and they may even have deliberately misrepresented it. Consumers were either not aware that playing the game required Ubisoft to operate servers for it, or they were misled regarding how long Ubisoft would operate the servers.
Ultimately I think what consumers are looking for is less like ownership and more like a warranty, i.e. a promise that what they buy will continue to work for some period of time after they’ve bought it, and an obligation from the manufacturer to provide whatever services are necessary to keep that promise. Game publishers generally don’t offer any kind of warranty, and consumers don’t demand warranties, but consumers also tend to expect punishers to act as if their products come with a warranty. Publishers, of course, don’t want to draw attention to their lack of warranty, and will sometimes actively exploit that false perception that their products come with a perpetual warranty.
I think what’s really needed is a very clear indication, at the point of purchase, of whether a game requires ongoing support from the publisher to be playable, along with a legally binding statement of how long they’ll provide support. And there should be a default warranty if none is clearly specified, like say 10 years from the point of purchase.
I’m not trying to frame this in the context of the lawsuit, even though that’s the point of the original article. The Crew’s nonfunctionality is just a consequence of our lack of ownership.
Perhaps this article would explain things better than I could.
No. That’s not true. Otherwise people wouldn’t be reciting this phrase over and over again.
Consumers want to fucking own shit again! Renting everything is the entire fucking problem.
My point is they never have and never will.
Things like this make it really easy for me to not buy anything from Ubisoft.
Good reminder to never buy an Ubisoft game.
Their games have sucked for a long time anyways
I never actually “paid” them, so they “cannot complain” when I take my money back
Fuck Ubisoft.
If you want a good open world racing game, well Motor Town: Behind The Wheel isn’t strictly a racing game… nor technically even focused on being a racing game, it is an open world driving job simulator and there are lots of sports cars and you can do lots of jobs where you are racing against a clock.
There is also multiplayer and a custom race system (as well as actual race tracks interspersed in the world).
The reason I really recommend it though is the driving feels better then just about any other game I have ever played, especially tire grip modelling. I don’t know how to describe it other than it makes me uninterested in driving cars in most other games lol.
…steampowered.com/…/Motor_Town_Behind_The_Wheel/
Anything you buy on Steam is also not owned by you, you only buy the rights to play their game for as long as they allow you to. Just like with Ubisoft.
That is exactly why I also buy things on Good Old Games and also play open source games like Beyond All Reason, Xonotic, Cataclysm Dark Days Ahead, Luanti and other games like Vintage Story that I can purchase from itch or directly from the developer and install directly on my computer as well!
Go Ross Go!
Obligatory Stop Killing Games Link
They’re right but it would be great if companies had to allow self hosting for products they make money from
That’s my argument, release the server code and the fans can host them.
Take your servers down, move on to your new games, but give us the tools to enjoy what we bought. It costs them nothing.
Although ubisoft is a shit company, don’t think it’s the only one. Every game you bought on Steam, Origin and Epic aren’t your property either. You just bought the right to play their game for as long as they allow you to.
If you truly want to own your products, buy on GoG (you will get the offline installer as a download) or pirate. Because when you pirate, you have more rights and benifits than a paying customer.
Companies don’t even care anymore, it’s just a money grab with the newest bug simulator. As soon as the first purchase bubble ended, the project is abandoned and people are stuck with a piece of junk they do not even own.
In the exceptional case a dev truly delivers, like indie studios or Larian studio, the game dev world goes mental as it shows how corrupt and fucked up they are.
Support the few proper devs, pirate the rest. I pirate everything these days and when the game is good I’ll buy it.
If steam ever goes away pirating will increase by at least 1000%…
I have over 500 games on steam. If the platform dies, that would be a major loss for me.
Honestly, platforms like steam and Netflix made me stop pirating. But with the increasing amount of streaming services, with increasing prices and more and more limitations and loss of rights, loads money grab junk content, I dusted off me old pirate hat. I am a paying usenet user, I automated all my movie and TV show downloads, I pirate games first and only buy them when they are worth it. I use Grayjay to view YouTube, because it has more freedom than a premium user.
I’m happy to pay for stuff which is good, I refuse to pay for junk, limitations and loss of my rights.
If steam goes down my only fun in life will be making a virus that makes multi cellular life impossible
You don’t own the games on GoG either. You just get to keep a installer in case you lose your license.
Which is like a physical copy of the game. But if the game is only online and the servers go down, you own an installer of a non-functioning game.
🏴☠️
It becomes more and more ethical as everything becomes more and more enshittified.
Whaaat? You can’t just 🏴☠️ without a 🦜. Were you raised by wolves?? Smdh
Definitely deceived into thinking you are purchasing a game though.
servers ain’t free. I know ubisofts are a bunch of pricks but if you run servers indefinitely without generating income you’ll eventually run out of money.
Sure, but in that case they need to make the server code open source so game owners can run their own servers.
Or they need to include a lan / offline mode
Not every game is an MMO requiring vast server farms. A game like the crew 1 that is past it’s prime is not expensive to keep a few servers running for. It’s a negligible cost.
They could also put in the time to give players the tools to host their own servers, or simply allow offline play. This used to be standard for all PC games. They chose to do neither of these things in an obvious effort to force players towards the sequel or their other games. They should not be permitted to do anti-consumer things like this.
Even MMOs have been run by amateurs. If you make the servers available, someone will figure out how to run it.
yes scaling past a couple hundred users becomes an engineering nightmare
Depends on the game for what point scaling further gets difficult. I think Factorio can do near infinite with the clusterio mod and from a server host perspective it’s very easy to setup. You just need enough servers, the mod allows cross server interaction.
Good point, thats why we should be able to run servers ourselves after the game dies
that’s a good point too. however it’s very possible they’re using proprietary code that’s used in other IP. Especially the core game engine, which you’d have to open source too.
The server code could also be released as a binary blob under a proprietary license. No different from distributing any other piece of software.
It could be but it wouldn’t take long before it’s replicated in a way thats not propriety or just stolen by devs in countries where that means nothing.
They are a giant shitty conglomerate they will find 10,000 reasons
Uhoh, the widdle baby corporation can’t handle hosting their game!
They should be forced to give people the tools they need to host.
I agree with this, however, I also don’t think they should be allowed to call it purchasing. If you don’t own something, then you didn’t purchase it. The button for games like these should be “long-term rental” or something to that effect.
I’m okay with servers being shut down eventually, my issue is we don’t know when. If they want to call it a license and that it will be revoked later, well fucking plan it out and tell people. Did the game get cheaper as the clock ran down? Did the people buying 10 years of access pay more than people that only got to play it once? I’m pissed for the people like me that sometimes take a few years to get to playing their games only to find the servers are gone and they thought they were buying something (or at least licensing something) they would get to use.
Of course they would probably find that if they told people how long they could use it, a lot of people wouldn’t pay them for it (i.e. their business would fail without intentionally deceiving their customers).
If you have to buy it, you own it. Make it free to play but have in game purchases. Everyone knows free games can shut down any time. I play lot of mobile apps until I get tired of playing it, then delete.
I avoid buying games that requires online connection. It means the game is unplayable without it.
It’s sickening what companies can get away with just because it’s legal. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.
Get balatro you’ll never get bored :)
I’ve beaten most of the Gold Stakes and all of the challenges, its not a forever game. But it is fun.
Gambling isn’t the answer.
And lying isn’t the answer either.
Seem a few comments recently that seem to think cards = gambling. Balatro doesn’t even use a vaguely standard deck of cards though.
Not that it would matter if it did. But would freecell be considered gambling?
Balatro isn’t gambling so win:win
I’m tired of all the pixel art indie card games.
There are better games to play if gambling is your thing.
I’ve enjoyed the hell out of Buckshot Roulette. It’s about playing Russian Roulette. With a pump action shotgun. There’s power-ups!
….what? If gambling was my thing I’d be gambling.
Looks like I’ll be pirating Black Flag for my next replay.
Technically they’re right, which is why pirating Ubisoft games is ethical.
Edit: Pirating Nintendo games is ethical too, of course.
There you go, offline mode ftw
If buying isn’t owning, piracy isn’t stealing.
I like the cut of your jib.
The problem is it’s getting harder and harder to pirate games, especially games that are entirely online.
When you “buy” software, you’re buying a license that grants you permission to use it subject to the terms & conditions. The stealing as the law would see it is from using software without purchasing a license or using it in violation of the license.
It even extends to digital content people “buy” on Steam, or Google Play, or Amazon including books, music, and videos. You didn’t buy that content, even if you think you did. You bought a license to it which is why occasionally Amazon or whoever will just scrub the content from your account without your consent. That’s also why in some countries you pay VAT on e-books even though you don’t pay VAT on real books - because you actually bought a software license which is liable to VAT.
So the best advice is don’t buy digital media from online services. For games and software it is unavoidable but recognize you don’t legally own squat although most console games on disc or cartridge can still be sold second hand. But even that is being eroded. Nintendo apparently are planning to sell “physical” games in stores but you open it up and there is a redemption code inside. Sony and Microsoft have both tried to get away from physical media too.
The use of the words ‘buy’, “own” or ‘purchase’ in connection with DRM rental should be an international felony, and grounds for immediate break-up of businesses that use them.
This is why I just pirate games from big developers. They’re fuckers so fuck them anyway.
All I want Ubisoft to do is make more Rayman games. Yet they doing things like this.
Tell you what customers absolutely can do: decide to stop doing business with you.
Some call it piracy when you download games, movies, music, software or books. I call it an online public library. In 2003 I used to get video games from the public library, install them on my PC and play them. You had to have the disk in your CD drive to play the game so when the game was due back at the library you could return or renew it. If game makers don’t provide hard copies then downloading is no different than using the library.
“You will own nothing and like it”
I don’t like it, though.
If they don’t sell the game but a long term rental license, then they should not say “we’ve sold 1234557890 copies of <game>”.
The thing is with MMOs or online only games do you have a valid expectation of the game surviving forever?
It was deliberate choice by them to make even the single player campaign online homie. It ain’t an mmo, and it never should have been built like this.
Don’t even play like that wasnt fucked up, ok? If your actual argument is “i think companies should get to do what they want” them say that, with your whole chest, not this Weak socratic-method-bootlick-bull…
Take that stand and defend it. Or you could also stfu
As one would expect from an online racing game. Anyone buying it would know in advance that single player offline modes do not exist when they bought the game.
It kind of was and it was intended to work as it did by the company that made it.
My argument us that this is a game designed to be played online only. When you bought the game the packaging/materials do not talk about offline play so you shouldn’t expect it to work in a way it expressly isn’t designed to do. Adults should be aware of what things do when they buy them.
Adults don’t dance around semantics in debate when they’re called out. I told you to stand up and this is your response? Mebbe you’re not even hidin! Maybe it’s the only way you can talk?
I guess you disagree, but I find your speech pattern embarrassing and tiring.
Be better eh? For me
Your perspective seems to be you should get whatever you want regardless of the actual product you were sold and the terms of that sale. That’s not rational. You bought an online only game. If you wanted a single player offline mode to exist then you should have bought a game that had one.
.
.
Call out use of argument from authority fallacy, call to his own authority instead… Quite ironic.
Well you know what, I call upon the deep magic of rule 2 to remove your message (for the part I didn’t quote, for those who wonder).
roll dice, get a critical failure “well fu…”
Anyway, please stay civil, no matter how heated a debate can become.
Eh, the argument was never civil. I don’t like the whole schtick of “showing immense disrespect buuut not actually name-calling” i see so many lowbrow edgelords employ. That sulky teen shit makes me maldy as all get out. I get there’s gotta be lines somewhere an i crossed em, but i gots to call a spade by its name.
Anyway have a great morning
Ubisoft deserves to go bankrupt, get dissolved, and have their IP’s sold to people aren’t malicious.
No, make it a entirely employee-owned company, so they can vote the execs out, sanitize the culture, and keep the thousands of worker out of unemployment
No, let them die. Better to start fresh than start cursed.
The workers, the gamers, and the industry are glad you’re not in charge of anything, punishing them for things they have no control over, and wasting good talents and infrastructure.
The workers and gamers would own the fucking companies if I was ‘in charge’. I have no intention of letting poor management ruin any of the games. I would kill Ubisoft to signal the end of an old rotten era and the beginning of a new, better era. Death is not a thing to be shunned and rejected as much as accepted as a vital step of the natural cycle. Like an over grown predator in the wilds, its death would sustain and entire ecosystem unto itself spurning the creation of newer smaller life.
Why are you defending Ubisoft like they actually give a shit about their workers? They clearly don’t more than any other tech company otherwise they’d be more like Larian less like EA or Activision. There’s more reasons to kill them off and break them up than let them live.
How old are you?
Older than you if you’re asking that question.
You want to use the “throw everybody out and see what happens”, and you claim how much better things would be under your governance.
You’re talking like a Elon Musk wanna-be, even using shitty metaphors that mask all the complexity of the problems, and the cruelty that these kinds of decisions imply.
You want to throw 20k employees out without any consideration for the economic and personal consequences, not to mention all the other companies around who will see their business sometimes heavily impacted.
All this to make a stupid metaphor. You’re 14 at best.
I want to kill a company yes. The problem isn’t nearly as complex as running a gov and I’m not doing this out of malice for the employees but the fact their owners are so aggressively shitty. I think it’s worth affecting the lives of 20k people, most of whom are in France which has great unemployment benefits that would be paid for by the shit owners, to improve the worldwide game industry.
You sound like a teenager barely old enough to graduate high school, that you think you know how the world works because you got some good grades, that you like attacking other people’s characters because you don’t understand logical fallacies as well as older adults, and think that life is generally good and worth defending. Perhaps if you cared art more than the people making it, more than yourself, were as jaded as I am, and better understood how a temporary sacrifice can create a long term gain, you may understand, but your ego and your righteous, unfounded, and aggressive sense of empathy tells me you don’t.
You needlessly want to punish tens of thousands of people for the acts of a few hundred. It’s cruel, pointless and very damaging, and your tirades from a high-school essay only support the shallowness and immaturity of your thinking. I won’t waste any more time on you.
It’s not needless it’s necessary for the health of the global industry do you not listen? It’s cruel but not pointless at all. Their death would benefit billions. Not millions, billions. 20k workers, with French fucking unemployment benefits, is a small and laudable price to pay.
That said, keep it up. You sound like you have a bright future ahead of you sucking corporate dick and defending the actions of shitty executives and it’ll pay well, it’ll just cost you your soul, if that even matters to you. Bye.
www.stopkillinggames.com
I find it so strange that people hate Ubisoft for this, but would rush to defend Valve for starting this trend.
It’s because valve has always been transparent about it. They’ve also put in place a lot of protections for gamers, which is why I trust their store. Their stuff is also a license, but I have yet to see something pulled out of my inventory. Actually there was a game once, and it was a Ubisoft game now that I think of it. I believe that’s when they put in more protections.
Ubisoft wants to make everything cloud dependent and then want us to be happy that we can’t play our games anymore. They lost all of my trust. If it’s not a purchase, then it’s a rental in my eyes, and I’d never pay more than $20 for a rental.
Gonna stop you right there. It’s only recently, after being forced to. That Steam highlights that you are buying a licence.
Yeah, but it’s always been a license. I’ve never been unaware of that, it’s only now that publishers are starting to abuse that fact that they’re making it obvious. Again, I’ve never been burned by valve, so I trust them. Maybe that’ll change some day, but for now, that’s why they’re doing better.
I think there is an implication that if you buy a game which is online by nature (e.g. an MMO) that the servers can and will shut down eventually. My cupboard is filled with defunct MMOs. And people do not “own” any commercial software per se, they run it under licence.
So I don’t see that Ubisoft has any legal obligation here. But as a good will gesture they really should put the server code in escrow, or open source chunks of it so that games can continue to enjoy life after the company itself has no economic incentive to continue running it.
This is why I will always have some nostalgia for physical media. I still got CDs I bought in the 90s (which I’ve copied onto my hard drives a long, long time ago) and while they need a like coaxing to work at times, they are forever mine and no one can take them from me.
I was very hesitant to go on steam specifically for their ‘you don’t own shit even if you paid and followed the rules’ garbage.
Steam is crazy in how it’s still usable and not completely enshittified after existing for so many years. I don’t know how they do it
I bought Star Wars squadrons and it worked for a bit. Now it doesn’t even boot and I don’t know why. Initially it was my shitty anti-virus that was causing the problem, but even after disabling it it doesn’t load.
It’s called staying away from venture capital. It really is as simple as that. Because Valve has a lucrative business model they have no need or desire to raise capital from outside investors, therefore there is nobody to squeeze them for value at the expense of their customers.
If you watch Cory Doctorow’s talk where he coined the word “enshittification” he explains how the process works, and it starts with outside investment. Enshittification is just a catchy term for value extraction, from the perspective of the customer.
Damn, now I understand the hype!
<img alt="A Blessing From The Lord" src="https://i.imgflip.com/55xr8f.jpg">
And people will still defend this company
Does anyone defend them? I think what happens is that people get mad at them but then still buy the games anyway hecause they’re absolute fucking idiots. I believe this is what happens.
Yeah, that’s true
People are still buying the games. Call it what you want but if you give them money it’s your fault they keep doing this.
Yea that’s exactly what I’m saying. I blame the consumers. It’s not like they don’t have options.
Same goes for the people who whine about how broken COD is yet still buy it every single year. People often wonder why the game industry is the way it is, but then you realize the average person has a gold fish brain and will keep wasting their money on crap just to be disappointed over and over. Companies absolutely love that kind of customer and would rather rely on them than actually try.
.
The way of the future…VCRs went away. DVDRs went away, replaced with DVRs and membership streaming, where you can “buy” a movie on Amazon Prime, but if they lose the rights to the movie, so do you - oh well. Your Tesla will brick, if Elon gets mad at you, and your video games will stop working if “the man” unplugs the server. Oh, and dont get caught pulling out your old dusty VCR to record the Super Bowl to watch later…thats a copyright violation. The oligarchs want to make sure the plebes eventually own nothing. If the masters can take it all away, the peasants will do what they’re told, be quiet about it, and smile when in sight of the masters.
I gotta thank Ubisoft for saving me money by consistently saying dumbass shit so I don’t buy their crappy games. The one Elon tweet was still pretty funny though I won’t lie.