UFC-Que Choisir Takes Ubisoft To French Court Over the Crew Shutdown (reuters.com)
- Reference: 0181203262
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/26/04/01/1954244/ufc-que-choisir-takes-ubisoft-to-french-court-over-the-crew-shutdown
- Source link: https://www.reuters.com/technology/french-consumer-group-sues-ubisoft-over-shutdown-online-game-the-crew-2026-03-31/
> When Ubisoft [2]pulled the plug on The Crew's servers without warning, players were left with a worthless game they'd already paid for. Now, consumer watchdog UFC-Que Choisir is fighting back, [3]demanding gamers' right to play regardless of publisher whims . Supported by the " [4]Stop Killing Games" movement , this landmark case challenges unfair terms before the Creteil Judicial Court (Val-de-Marne near Paris), and aims to protect players from disappearing games.
The lawsuit that UFC-Que Choisir [5]filed against Ubisoft on Tuesday alleges that the video game publisher "misled consumers about the permanence of their purchase and imposed abusive contractual clauses stripping players of ownership rights," reports Reuters.
[1] https://slashdot.org/~Elektroschock
[2] https://games.slashdot.org/story/25/04/11/189218/ubisoft-argues-players-dont-own-their-games-in-wake-of-the-crew-lawsuit
[3] https://www.reuters.com/technology/french-consumer-group-sues-ubisoft-over-shutdown-online-game-the-crew-2026-03-31/
[4] https://yro.slashdot.org/story/26/02/21/2316255/pro-gamer-consumer-movement-stop-killing-games-will-launch-ngos-in-america-and-the-eu
[5] https://www-quechoisir-org.translate.goog/action-ufc-que-choisir-jeux-video-l-ufc-que-choisir-assigne-ubisoft-en-justice-suite-a-la-fermeture-du-jeu-the-crew-n175318/?_x_tr_sl=fr&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
Now do IOT devices (Score:2)
Please.
only bought a limited access? so did the button s (Score:2)
only bought a limited access? so did the button say rent? or did it it say BUY? OWN?
Re: (Score:2)
Users still own the game. The game just doesn't connect to any server. You're making the wrong argument here. You need to focus on performance and functionality, not rent vs own.
Re: (Score:2)
but The company has said customers only bought a limited access to the game, not full ownership.
that sounds like you are renting while the pages that ask for your money say you are buying this you now OWN this.
Re: (Score:2)
> They named themselves after the Ultimate Fighting Championship? That sounds pretty tough! I don't understand the "what to choose" part after and what that has to do with anything. Is this indicating they are going around looking for fights and are not sure which fight they should pick?
If in some way consumers actually get a win here, they will win the right to choose whether they want to spend $599 on the next game or not.
Why $599? Well, it's mostly to cover the new legally-required consumer expectation that games last for 10 years or more.
That's the new price for "winning".
Re: (Score:2)
You are such a tool for coming up with an extreme number. Why are you defending mega corps and billionaires?
Re: (Score:2)
> You are such a tool for coming up with an extreme number. Why are you defending mega corps and billionaires?
Why are you defending spoiled-ass gamers who insist that a company keep a 10-year old game online, no matter what?
If that's an extreme number, then I dare you to ask a lawyer to define a reasonable one when gamers insist on 10+ years of guaranteed support. Realize we now live in the era of $800 price tags hung on five-year old gaming consoles being marketed as "the latest".
Re: (Score:2)
> Why are you defending spoiled-ass gamers who insist that a company keep a 10-year old game online, no matter what?
We're not insisting they keep a game online. If you want to abandon a game, that's fine. Publish an offline patch so players don't have to rely on your servers anymore. Or publish your online server software so we can run our own. Or even stop fucking suing the third party devs who are making their own servers to support the game that you refuse to support yourself
It's not like we're going to be eating into your profits by hosting our own servers, you're not selling it anymore anyway . Hell, it'll make you
so this time limited access needs to be upfront (Score:2)
so this time limited access needs to be upfront not hidden and not will end when we fell like.
If they want to do this they need to say you are RENTING the game for at least X time and if they kill it before X time then they must refund you.
and if they say you are renting for at least 24 hours (just to be able to kill it at any time with no refunds) then the buy button must be labeled RENT 24H for the price.
Re: (Score:2)
> so this time limited access needs to be upfront not hidden and not will end when we fell like. If they want to do this they need to say you are RENTING the game for at least X time and if they kill it before X time then they must refund you. and if they say you are renting for at least 24 hours (just to be able to kill it at any time with no refunds) then the buy button must be labeled RENT 24H for the price.
The people that ranted, bitched, and screamed about cable TV pricing being too much, literally created the massively fractured industry we have today for viewing content. An industry those same people now have to pay more than cable TV prices ever were, in order to watch the same shit. The cost to legally watch all games in a single NFL season is over $1500 a year now, and requires TEN streaming services.
Now take a guess as to what Greed would do with your suggestion. You're damn right you're gonna pay m
Re: (Score:2)
People ranted, bitched and screamed about TV pricing being too much, having to buy "Packages" in different tiers bundled with a hundred crappy channels just to get the few they actually want
Netflix started streaming online, buying content from all the producers and providers and offering them in one simple a-la-carte package for people to use
People flocked to Netflix, dropping cable TV companies as they'd been wanting to do for a long while
Cable TV companies saw their revenue tanking and Netflix raking in
User Licenses.. (Score:2)
Don't they say its just a license and not outright ownership? Wonder how this will go down.
Re: (Score:2)
They do say that, if you RTFA. They also question the legality of the actions taken by the publisher with regard to this license.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Simple: Enforce existing basic contract and property law that we've had for centuries throughout the west.
Is it a "license" and therefore the company retains total control of the product? Fine. There must be a full meeting of the minds and adequate consideration. The term of this license must be clear up front. You are 100% responsible for ensuring all maintenance and up-keep for the duration of that "license".
Is it "property"? Fine. The property must be fit for purpose, not defective, and if you actively s
The REAL enemy here. (Score:2)
The Crew, was a game developed and released over ten years ago. You want to define how the hell consumers are actually owed anything after that amount of time, by license or property? Because if you do define it, the next game developed under those constrictions will be priced at the bargain price of "only" $599. In order to cover 10+ years of consumer expectations.
And the actual reason they removed the game? Well..
> Publishers often delist driving games like The Crew and Forza Horizon when licensing agreements with car manufacturers expire.
Perhaps we learn who the actual licensing enemy is here, and stop filing frivolous lawsuit
Re: (Score:1)
You pretend like there are only two options: "lie to customers" or "go out of business". That's a false choice, and you're being disingenuous by suggesting it.
There are absolutely, 100%, without a doubt, ways game companies can be honest with their users about the life spans of their games ... and still make a profit.
Re: (Score:3)
> You pretend like there are only two options: "lie to customers" or "go out of business". That's a false choice, and you're being disingenuous by suggesting it.
> There are absolutely, 100%, without a doubt, ways game companies can be honest with their users about the life spans of their games ... and still make a profit.
And you act as if the spoiled-ass gamers insisting that a 10-year old game stay online no matter what, would have been happy and content with a heads-up.
They'd still be bitching. Just like they are now. And as I pointed out before, the game vendor isn't the real licensing enemy here. So, who exactly should be receiving the complaints here? Are gamers actually smart enough to understand who they should really be complaining to?
Re: (Score:1)
They could be required to release the server code in a reasonably runnable form. Would this be an extra cost? Yes. Would it seriously cut into the total profits? No.
Re: (Score:1)
It wouldn't be as much of an extra cost as you might think, given they've already had to develop the server code to run on their infrastructure anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
To use the good old automotive analogy, if you bought a car, and after 5 years that car refuses to turn on, start, or be moved in any way, despite there being nothing at all mechanically or electrically wrong with it, all because its manufacturer remotely disabled it, you'd be rightly pissed off.
And if said manufacturer used copyright strikes/DMCA takedowns/cease-and-desist orders to stop attempts for third parties to develop their own services to talk to the car and re-enable them, would that be right?
Game
Re: (Score:2)
> The Crew, was a game developed and released over ten years ago.
Is it the ten years you've got a problem with? Okay, how about:
[1]NHL22 and NHL23 [delistedgames.com](Released 2021 and 2022 respectively, shutdown August 31st 2025, 1419 days and 1055 days respectively)
[2]Warhammer 40,000: Warpforge [delistedgames.com](Released October 3rd 2022, shutdown April 30th 2026, 1305 days)
[3]WWE 2k24 [delistedgames.com](Released March 5th 2024, shutdown March 31st 2026, 756 days)
[4]Lawbreakers [wikipedia.org](Released August 8 2017, shutdown September 14th, 2018, 402 days)
[5]Football Club Manager 26 Live [delistedgames.com](Released September 30th 2025, shutdown February 28th 2026, 1
[1] https://delistedgames.com/nhl-22-and-nhl-23-lose-online-services-at-the-end-of-august/
[2] https://delistedgames.com/warhammer-40000-warpforge-shutting-down-on-april-30th/
[3] https://delistedgames.com/wwe-2k24-online-services-now-end-on-march-31st-2026-while-the-game-and-dlc-are-being-delisted-in-january/
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LawBreakers
[5] https://delistedgames.com/football-club-manager-26-live-servers-shut-down-at-the-end-of-february/
Re: (Score:2)
> Don't they say its just a license and not outright ownership? Wonder how this will go down.
Maybe, but then maybe they shouldn't price it as if it was ownership? I'd even argue that if publishers don't provide a way to self-host a server, then they should be required to keep their servers running for 4 years after the final sale of the full price of the game or refund the "purchase" fee.