Ubisoft Argues Players Don't Own Their Games in Wake of The Crew Lawsuit (techspot.com)
- Reference: 0177002927
- News link: https://games.slashdot.org/story/25/04/11/189218/ubisoft-argues-players-dont-own-their-games-in-wake-of-the-crew-lawsuit
- Source link: https://www.techspot.com/news/107502-ubisoft-argues-players-dont-own-their-games-wake.html
Unlike most delisted games where previously purchased copies remain accessible, Ubisoft completely removed The Crew from customers' libraries. The plaintiffs, who bought physical copies years ago, contend that Ubisoft misled consumers and point to competitors who provided offline modes for end-of-life titles.
Ubisoft counters that packaging clearly stated purchases only granted temporary licenses. The case has expanded to include claims about in-game currency qualifying as gift certificates under California law and activation codes promised to work until 2099.
[1] https://www.techspot.com/news/107502-ubisoft-argues-players-dont-own-their-games-wake.html
Stop (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop. Buying. SaaS. Games.
Re: (Score:2)
> Stop. Buying. SaaS. Games.
That's not what the purchasers believed(*) they bought - after all it was a physical copy they took home (not just some login credentials).
Plus, according to the story, there's mentions of the (physical) packaging mentioning codes could be redeemed until 2099 - so there's clear misleading there about the availability if they've reneged on that over 50 years prior to that expiry timeframe.
(* of course, the corporate consumer-raping type over at Ubisoft will hide behind some legalese nobody but lawyers could
Re: (Score:1)
I took a different approach: I had a PS3 and a PS4. The PS4 died when it was hit by lightning. Now I have a PS3. It still works. It plays games from the PS1, 2, and 3. There's a lot of games out there that you can buy used for next to nothing and that don't expire.
Re: (Score:2)
What the hell were you doing with your PS4 that resulted in it being "hit by lightning"? Did the rain gods not want your PS4 sacrifice?
Re: Stop (Score:1)
Lightning hit the power pole 20 ft from my house, sent a surge of electricity through the house.
Re: (Score:3)
> Stop. Buying. SaaS. Games.
No. Sorry to be blunt, but SaaS games have their benefits too, and one of my favourite current titles is SaaS and if they deactivate it tomorrow, ... well I'll be sad but I've gotten over 300 hours of entertainment out of it in the past year so it will have been worth every cent.
The issue here is that people are saying they didn't know it was a SaaS game.
for some reason I stopped buying new games (Score:5, Interesting)
Things like "this game depends on a server which has been deactivated" are why I stopped buying games a bit after 2000. Copy protection was bad enough, but if I had the original media I could reinstall. This, though...
Buying games was a waste of money. After a few bad experiences, I'll never again buy a game that can't be installed and played in an off-line system.
Re:for some reason I stopped buying new games (Score:5, Informative)
Thank goodness for GOG!
Re: (Score:1)
1000X this - about the only way i'll buy a PC game these days.
Re: for some reason I stopped buying new games (Score:3)
Let's be honest, you stopped buying games because you either weren't much of a gamer to begin with or lost interest. I could be wrong through, maybe you were really into games and the licensing was such a turn off, you voluntarily decided to find a different hobby.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not much of a gamer...but I still play Alpha Centauri and occasionally Civilization CTP. If I were a gamer I'd seriously check out GOG rather than just looking at it once in awhile, so your point is correct, as far as it goes, but it's incomplete. If I could find the games I want, I'd buy them and play them.
Re: (Score:1)
No, he clearly said he stopped buying because of server deactivations. It's called voting with your wallet
Re: (Score:3)
I used to think like that, and then I realised what gaming is: Entertainment. There's literally hundreds of quality games released every year, I have neither the interest, nor the spare time to go and play old ones. Entertainment is fleeting. A couple of months ago when the PSN was down I couldn't play Helldivers. Know what happened? I played something else. If the game stops running going forward I will move on satisfied in knowing I was entertained for 10s or 100s of hours for the cost of dinner for two.
file an CC charge back. (Score:2, Interesting)
file an CC charge back.
Re:file an CC charge back. (Score:4, Insightful)
You seem to think that CC charge backs are something that are blindly granted. They aren't. There's no basis for filing a charge back and it won't work, all it'll do it put a flag against your account with the card issuer reducing your change of actually getting a chargeback when you do need it.
Re: file an CC charge back. (Score:3)
Too late. Charge backs are time limited.
This is legally incorrect (Score:1)
There was a lawsuit that unfortunately is getting stomped because the exact ToS they used in this one game says it requires online play to function at all. The general legal consensus is that if it didn't say that, the user bought a license for unlimited play of the game, as it exists on the disc. That's how it's always been. Compatibility is their own problem, as it states what hardware and OSes it generally works on. But you have the right to play 1 version of it on 1 computer, usually "at a time." That d
F U Ubisoft. (Score:4, Informative)
I can't wait for Ubisoft to go bankrupt and all their people to get a fucking boot in the ass.
They're literally the cancer of gaming right up there with EA and Take2, now we can only hope those to also fall on their face.
Re: (Score:2)
They pretty much are. Tencent (the big Chinese multinational company) just bought a large stake in the company. They're probably going to go on a firing spree and hand over the valuable IPs to other development teams. I don't know if Tencent's involvement makes it any less cancerous, but they're not going to tolerate whatever idiocy led Ubisoft to the precarious position that necessitated them to dump a billion dollars into the company.
Re: (Score:2)
> I can't wait for Ubisoft to go bankrupt and all their people to get a fucking boot in the ass.
> They're literally the cancer of gaming right up there with EA and Take2, now we can only hope those to also fall on their face.
Indeed, Ubisoft told consumers to get used to not owning games, and now Ubisoft themselves also start to not owning their games (but rather Tencent does). And it's not unlikely there soon will be no longer an Ubisoft to own anything, when they so deservedly have gone bankrupt.
Please show me that termination clause (Score:2)
in the license or explicitly state when and how I violated the license? Otherwise my license is still valid and I am owed a refund, becuase you have intentionally denied me the service,
Re: Please show me that termination clause (Score:2)
It was on the outside of the physical box
> "The Xbox and PlayStation packaging contain a clear and conspicuous noticeâ"in all capital lettersâ"that 'UBISOFT MAY CANCEL ACCESS TO ONE OR MORE SPECIFIC ONLINE FEATURES UPON A 30-DAY PRIOR NOTICE'," the filing states. "The PlayStation packaging's list of game features includes 'ONLINE PLAY (REQUIRED,' and again warns on the front of the package: 'ONLINE CONNECTION REQUIRED.' The Xbox package contains a similar warning that The Crew 'REQUIRES INTERNET.'
Re: (Score:3)
Well... I still have Internet and am always online, so those warnings are meaningless.
The 'we can break parts of this game at any time' is the part that needs to be legislated into non-existence. Any time a company wants to turn off a required server for something they sold, they should be required to issue a free patch that migrates that functionality to the client, or release a free server that end users can run and a patch to allow clients to connect to it.
If they're done with it, and there's no more e
Re: (Score:2)
While it sounds good in principle you will hit a lot of problems with IP law when doing so. The legislation bit I mean. There's effort and restrictions involved in creating something licensed for perpetual use. Any such laws will have a ton of loopholes as a result.
Re: Please show me that termination clause (Score:2)
No one takes "SPECIFIC ONLINE FEATURES" to mean the content for the whole game to work.
Re: (Score:2)
> No one takes "SPECIFIC ONLINE FEATURES" to mean the content for the whole game to work.
True, but you're also required to agree to the EULA when you first start the game or return it. Shrink-wrap contracts with return policies are a thing, and the EULA specifically says Ubisoft has the right to fuck your enjoyment at any time for any reason they see fit.
Re: (Score:3)
Show you? It's literally in the first sentence of the the first clause:
1. GRANT OF LICENSE.
1.1 UBISOFT (or its licensors) grants You a non-exclusive, nontransferable, non-sublicensed, non-commercial and personal license to
install and/or use the Product (in whole or in part) and any Product (the
“License”), for such time until either You or UBISOFT terminates this EULA.
Section 2 is also quite a good read:
2. OWNERSHIP.
All title, ownership rights and intellectual property rights in... snip....
Excep
Re: (Score:2)
I dont think that clause would hold up in the parts of the world that have decent consumer rights
Phuque 'em. (Score:1)
I quit trusting, buying or playing any Ubisoft games years ago. Saw how they were devolving, found better games, better studios, better sources. I should actually thank Ubisoft, though I won't, for pointedly reminding me that games makers and sellers aren't trustworthy, and anything they claim should be taken crunchy with salt. I'm a better being for it.
crapify your own ownership, toolio (Score:1)
I've been arguing that Ubisoft doesn't own their own games for decades. I've been proven right every time, too. By the standard they offer for ownership, they don't in fact own anything at all either! Which means they do all the saley stuff but they don't actually have the right to any money so you don't need to give them any, really.
You might actually own some stuff if you stopped trying to be crappy people all the time!
Quit Buying! (Score:1)
Seriously, if they want to be able to rug pull... fine! Quit buying their garbage. They'll wise up in a hurry.
And they wonder (Score:1)
And they wonder why so many people sail the high seas... DRM crap that keeps stuff from working. Deliberately breaking things. Stupid stuff that they just won't fix(*). This kind of thing. Fragmented streaming services. Region locks. Stuff released in a sorry state like Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 was.
(*) XBox for PC has been broken for a lot of people for literally years with some cryptic error message. Microsoft obviously doesn't give a shit.
That does not match EU law (Score:2)
Under EU law, unless it was made very clear to you that you are buying a _service_, you bought a product. And you own that product.
Game License vs. Game Owning (Score:1)
Honestly, that's where we live now. The console games you buy are game licenses, meaning you don't own them. You can't rent them, you can't resell them. If you owned a video game, it's covered by the US Code. Those, you can sell, rent, do whatever you want - you own them.
Video game companies who sell games as game licenses have to be able to prove why the game being sold needs to be a license - if a court finds them to be identical, as opposed to a real difference...the court is supposed to say it's game ow
You SOLD It To Me. (Score:2)
So now I own it. Period. End of discussion. I am walking away now.
Re: You SOLD It To Me. (Score:2)
Not how a regular sale works. Unless they have a DocuSign a contract or you are have a reseller license, the shit we pay money for has a certain set of default expectations. A warranty for purpose.
Re: You SOLD It To Me. (Score:4, Insightful)
I have always argued that end-of-life software should have its' source code released BY LAW. That way, at least it's incumbent on the owner to modify it so it can work without the servers. The servers might not be open source and therefore downloadable by the community. If for example it requires Oracle DB licensing to function, that license would have to be borne by the players. But, open sourcing the game and the game-related software on the server side, clearly should be forced. The software developer has expressed no further interest in commercialization of the software so what is the harm?
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you 100%, but
> so what is the harm?
1) We could all learn about how crappy their code was?
2) There may be some liability implications? (IANAL) For example, if there was an egregious/negligent security gap that could be used to hack user systems.
Re: (Score:1)
When a product is end-of-life, end-of-sale, end-of-support, etc... you can say the company has no more liability. Now, imagine incentivizing companies to write better code, knowing one day it will be OS.
Re: You SOLD It To Me. (Score:2)
I think if this became a thing it'd become more obvious how much innovation there isn't in games. All the major genres are just the same games with slightly different storylines and slightly different gameplay mechanics. All gamers can do us hope for bumps performance metrics here and there.
Re: (Score:2)
The harm could be if it competes with its current titles.
Re: (Score:2)
If the software is updated maintained, or upgraded, then no harm. Software wont be OS.
Re: You SOLD It To Me. (Score:4, Insightful)
The most obvious blocker is pretty straightforward.
The developers of a game themselves may have licensed all kinds of things to build the game that they can't just give away, even if they wanted to.
From the game engine to the art assets to the music to the voice acting to the trademarks on the name itself. The developer doesn't necessarily own any of it. They may even contracted out parts of their own game code subject to terms that preclude open sourcing it.
I do think there is some balance that can and should be found for abandoned/end-of-life games to allow for preservation and continuation, but I can see where open sourcing it is not simple - even when the original developer and publisher has completely gone out of business, and no one even knows who owns the rights.
Re: (Score:2)
From the game engine to the art assets to the music to the voice acting to the trademarks on the name itself. The developer doesn't necessarily own
Their Copyright rights to control the work are exhausted in that 1 copy as soon as they authorized the creation of that copy. And the end user received it. That doesn't mean you are allowed to make and distribute more copies of the art assets.
But the author of the software can be required to distribute the code to anyone who owns a copy of the software who r
Re: (Score:1)
I'm playing devil's advocate, but there are games from 40 years ago like Pacman available today.
Re: (Score:2)
And there's 10.000 or more rotting away in CD-ROMs or cheaped out 90's floppy disks that will cease to exist if not copied, to not mention all the web only stuffs that are basically erased from existence completely.
Re: (Score:2)
You are able to "time shift" or "medium shift" your copy of the work by cloning it to a new physical CD there's already precedent for that being Fair Use.
Re: (Score:2)
> The software developer has expressed no further interest in commercialization of the software so what is the harm?
The harm is to the company, which wants you to buy their new thing and forget about the old thing, that you already paid for, that they're now making less/no money on.
Re: (Score:1)
Competing with your old wares is not a justification from ruining those old sold wares from operating. Look, GM doesnt have to support old-model vehicles. It doesnt have to give you parts. But it cant turn off a service that suddenly makes the cars completely stop working under the argument that it cant force you to buy newer cars. Thats just not right. Competition with end-of-life products is not justification for planned obsolescence. Let's just agree that would be a very bad idea.
Re: You SOLD It To Me. (Score:2)
Pretty sure planned obsolescence is why everything is "smart" these days.
Re: (Score:1)
Its a nice idea but it is 'to hard' when you start to think on it.
Like if Microsoft for example EOL's Windows 10, are they required to open Windows 10, even though Windows 11 is an active product and shares a lot of code?
For a game, suppose they release "Crew 2" its a completely different engine, etc. It shares only some assets and perhaps assets generated from master models and imagery, this time rendered out at higher detail than those included in the previous title. Do they still have to open Crew? What
Re: (Score:1)
My litmus test is if you can upgrade (for free) from one to the next. You can upgrade windows 10 to 11, so no source code is needed. It's still a viable product with a continued support path. That is irrespective if they change the fundamentals under the hood. The test should be: Am I going to be barred from operating the software I paid for in perpetuity?
Re: (Score:2)
Like if Microsoft for example EOL's Windows 10, are they required to open Windows 10, even though Windows 11 is an active product and shares a lot of code?
Only if they shutdown the Windows 10 license activation servers or other systems necessary for Windows 10 users to keep running their Windows 10 software. In that case they should be required to publish sufficient code necessary for Windows 10 owners to build their own server system to keep the product fully functional with all materials and content th
Re: You SOLD It To Me. (Score:2)
That's great, but you don't have the right to install that software to your machine without a license. You need the license to overcome the copyright holder's exclusive rights.
So, yeah, hang onto that disk all you want, sell it on EBay, turn it into art, whatever. But the code on the disk is protected.
In the same way if you purchase a device which is based on a patent, you can't just copy that device.
Re: (Score:1)
No one is talking about copying it. Just not being barred from operating it. If you buy a device (lets say a car) that authenticates with the mothership when it starts, and the mothership goes away, you should still be provided the means to work around the planned obsolesce. If the requirement is that it gets reversed engineered, it should at the very least be legal, though I would argue releasing it is the better alternative. However, it should be absolutely legal to operate it however you have to to keep
Re: (Score:2)
Then it's a case of misleading advertising or fraud, given most digital/physical stores don't use the term "buy license" or "rent", but "buy", to pretend you're acquiring something that will be of your possession.
And everyone that pressed the button was defrauded.
Re: (Score:1)
Not to be that guy, but you buy the game, sure. You dont buy the server software. That is how it works today. I advocate that all software, game or otherwise, that is withdrawn from support or sale (or any fiscal interest from the developer) should be mandatorily open source, along with all the server-side software required to run it. That is not a big ask.
Re: (Score:2)
As far i know you don't even buy the game truly, it's weird shady contract that exist since forever in the games, that before the internet was already a thing but couldn't be enforced in a practical way.
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't unique to games. This is true of all software you pay money for. You are buying a license. Sometimes that license is forever. Sometimes that license is time based. Sometimes that license is in a physical form (which may or may not also happen to include a copy of software itself, but you still don't own it). Sometimes it is in a digital only form. You *are*, in fact, buying something. It's just not the software. I have understood this, without it needing to be explained, since before I could even
Re: You SOLD It To Me. (Score:2)
There was no end date in the Eula, so yes I did purchase a perpetual license.
Re: (Score:2)
> So now I own it. Period. End of discussion. I am walking away now.
You bought a piece of plastic in a plastic case, and a license to run the software encoded on that plastic.
If you bought it digitally, then you bought a license.
That's what you bought. You still own all of that, even though the software doesn't actually work anymore.
That's why the law changes the terminology to say you weren't actually buying anything other than a license. You still have the license, it's just worthless because the software d
Re: (Score:2)
> So now I own it. Period. End of discussion. I am walking away now.
(Narrator) "And with that declaration, our mighty consumer inadvertently activated the Walk-the-Plank clause within the EULA, forcing the company to immediately dispatch The Crew to ensure his walk was quite short.."
Re: (Score:1)
No you paid for something. That's not the same as being sold something. Read the fine print.
Re: (Score:2)
Although I agree it is they way it should be, it is clearly not the way it works unless you buy it of Gog. It always bothered me how companies would advertise DVDs by saying own a copy. But clearly you didn't if I own something I can do anything I want with it, like take it overseas and play it, show it to who I want. None of those things applied. You where using it at there discretion, and probably somewhere in there terms and conditions it says they can change their terms and conditions.