Ubisoft Revokes Access To Purchased Game, Sparking Digital Ownership Debate 136
Ubisoft has come under fire from players who claim the company has revoked access to a game they had previously purchased. Users attempting to launch "The Crew" on Ubisoft Connect are met with a message stating, "You no longer have access to this game. Why not check the Store to pursue your adventures?" The game has also been moved to a separate "inactive games" section in players' libraries.
While the game can still be launched, it reportedly only plays a limited demo version. Ubisoft has yet to comment on the matter, but some speculate that the decision may be related to the game's reliance on servers that are no longer operational. The incident has sparked concerns among gamers about the control platform holders have over digital purchases. Ubisoft's subscription boss, Philippe Tremblay, recently stated that players will need to get "comfortable" with not owning games.
While the game can still be launched, it reportedly only plays a limited demo version. Ubisoft has yet to comment on the matter, but some speculate that the decision may be related to the game's reliance on servers that are no longer operational. The incident has sparked concerns among gamers about the control platform holders have over digital purchases. Ubisoft's subscription boss, Philippe Tremblay, recently stated that players will need to get "comfortable" with not owning games.
And they wonder why people pirate (Score:5, Insightful)
The most ethical way to protect yourself from this for games, digital movies, digital books, etc is to purchase it their way, but also obtain it by raising sails as insurance against them stealing your product back.
Re:And they wonder why people pirate (Score:4, Insightful)
Could you pirate The Crew and play it in any meaningful way? Sounds like it would require some sort of server emulator to run it without Ubisoft's approval.
Re: (Score:3)
A server emulator for the game is reported being worked on by people within that game's community.
So a fairly high chance they'll have something before long.
Re: (Score:2)
And there is a fairly good chance the whole thing gets shut down with a cease and desist order as soon as Ubisoft catches wind of it or looks like it might be popular.
Re: And they wonder why people pirate (Score:2)
And there's a fairly good chance their lawyers would be laughed at. On what grounds would such a C&D be upheld?
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on exactly what is required to get that emulation working. Not to mention do these community people have the resources to fight any kind of pushback at all, valid or not, from Ubisoft?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the DMCA would hold, as a custom play server wouldn't (shouldn't) use any copyrighted materials. And interoperability is protected anyway. Not sure on what grounds a C&D could be enforceable. I think Nintendo is easily the most aggressive in this area, and even with the shutdown of play servers for the original 3DS/WiiU, an exploit has been published to play on alt servers and hasn't been taken down yet.
https://pretendo.network/ [pretendo.network]
Re: (Score:2)
I never said DMCA. Plus, that is the absolute weakest legal things Ubisoft could do.
And...
Not sure on what grounds a C&D could be enforceable.
->
Not to mention do these community people have the resources to fight any kind of pushback at all, valid or not, from Ubisoft?
Re: (Score:2)
Nintendo shut down the Wii U servers recently, but there is a project to create alternative servers so you can play all the games, including online parts. It's not complete yet but you can play a lot of stuff with it.
Re: (Score:2)
People that already had it installed can probably use a cracked exe and use that. Assuming the ubisoft client doesn't try to uninstall it automatically.
Re:And they wonder why people pirate (Score:4, Informative)
If a game is a "live service" (which this was) then when the servers die, the game dies. It doesn't really matter one way or the other if it's removed from someone library at that point, unless the owner of the service gives the server tools to the players to run their own community servers.
Re: (Score:2)
That is all fine and dandy (and pretty awesome overall), but my pessimistic view says that if Blizzard thought enough people were using it, they probably could and would get that software project shut down.
Re:And they wonder why people pirate (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And they wonder why people pirate (Score:4, Insightful)
That is, indeed, the most ethical. It's the way I chose. But I never deluded myself into believing that it would alter the behavior of the companies. Only two things (that I've thought of) stand a chance of doing that.
1) If you stop selling something that you are the monopolizer of sales in, you lose all associated copyrights. (And possibly all associated patents.) I.e. legal action to make things that you buy act is if they are yours.
2) Massive community on-line attacks whenever a company disables something that it's sold.
I don't think either of those have much chance of happening, and the second would be quite dangerous.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm glad you made this distinction. I can see how someone purchasing a cart vs digital download might think they're safe from these shenanigans, but even a physical copy of a game isn't going to work if it requires being online.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I have boycotted "Ubisucks" for years because of their draconian copy protection / live service.
If a live service game is no long being sold then the DRM should NOT apply so server emulators can be legal IMHO.
Re: And they wonder why people pirate (Score:3)
Nice to hear you don't mind having the things you own stolen from you.
Now if you could kindly post your address, I'll stop by for a few.
Obviously you won't mind, right? You'll probably just "move on" to using other stuff. No worries!
Re: (Score:2)
"Protect" means to defend against some undesired outcome, in this case the publisher making a previously purchased game unplayable. If you don't buy the game and don't play the game, they can't take it away from you. You could argue that this doesn't count, it's only "protection" in the sense that never visiting As
Re: (Score:2)
> The most ethical way to protect yourself from this for games, digital movies, digital books, etc is to purchase it their way, but also obtain it by raising sails as insurance against them stealing your product back.
How would that work for GAAS? (Games As A Service)
Or as SAGS as Richard Stallman would put it? (Service As a Gaming Substitute).
I mean yo ho ho you pirated the launcher... now you just need to break into the datacentre and obtain a server.
The correct way to protect yourself is: DONT buy any
Massive fraud (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If the game is a "live service" and requires a constant internet connection to their servers, you aren't buying the game. You're buying access to their servers. And when the servers stop existing, well, so does the game for all intents and purposes. Should they touch your library anyway? No. They should have just tossed a warning that there are no servers to connect to and recommend uninstalling. But does it matter in this instance? Also no. When people are inevitably bored of Hell Divers 2, those servers w
Re: (Score:2)
Well, barring the ever-present mandatory arbitration clause everyone could just sue. Bought game. Game access removed. Provider owes you game cost plus damages if they've breached any obligations in their jurisdiction.
SaaS when there's no service except gatekeeping usage is utter nonsense. It would be difficult to pragmatically make that illegal - companies would just offload some processing to their cloud "because reasons" similar to how they gatekeep otherwise one-player games. But hey, there's enoug
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't. You had no property. If you thought you did you just didn't read the terms of service. No seriously go look it up, you don't "own" the right for the game to function.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, does it really need a server, like an MMO, or is that just some BS extra the software checks once in awhile becauae reasons?
Re:Hopefully common sense will prevail (Score:5, Interesting)
Worse, unless the company is going out of business, which Ubisoft afaik is not, is it really a drag to spend a hundred a month keeping a server for ancient stuff running just for goodwill?
Some of these games needed many servers just for all the zones of one shard, a decade later that can be tucked into one computer.
Re: (Score:2)
Any service a company has to run is something that takes resources in management, upkeep, security patching, monitoring, etc etc. Even if the base cost for the hardware isn't much, there still has to be resources devoted to keeping it running. Whether that's still a significant amount for a company like Ubisoft is still up for debate, but it's not just something they can throw on a small AWS instance and forget about it. If they actually wanted to functional, and it's something like Forza Horizon where it's
Re: Hopefully common sense will prevail (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't matter.
If you "bought" the game, which is the language that these "stores" (as they call them) use, then you have the right to use the client for something else, or just stare at the game assets in the install directory.
If you can't do that then what you actually did was rent it.
Renting and buying have whole sets of differing relevant law. You have more and different obligations to a customer of a service. Notably, you owe them service. Consequently they want it to look like a sale when you pay them, but then they want it to look like a rental when you discontinue.
Since it can only be one of these things, what they are doing is obviously fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
While on principle I agree that it shouldn't automatically be removed just because it can't be played, I can uninstall it myself, at the same time it doesn't matter as long as it never happens for games that are actually still playable.
Buying software has never meant, and never will mean, the same as buying physical objects. With software you are buying access. You do not become the owner of that software. If you want to become the owner of the software, you'll have to buy the company making it or make it y
Re: Hopefully common sense will prevail (Score:2)
Since this is software you can think about buying vs renting a license if you like
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't change anything.
Re: (Score:3)
At the least "buying" the software meant you can use it for as long as you could find a machine to run it on.
The big push of corporate america these days is to deepen the poverty cycle by turning everything into a rental.
Silly me, I thought "nobody owns anything" was part of the Communist plot.
Re: (Score:3)
> Buying software has never meant, and never will mean, the same as buying physical objects. With software you are buying access
Not as correct as you think.
Nothing prevents me from using Windows XP or 3.11 or Wordstar today, because I have permanent access having the install media. As you say, I have access.
However, now they have tried to twist it so you no longer have permanent access as everyone expects to get, but time limited access, for the same costs, which nobody expects to get. We could call th
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Since it can only be one of these things, "
Apparently not.
Re: (Score:2)
If you rent or lease something, they're supposed to tell you how long the usage period is.
The software industry is too comfortable with the notion that, "It works until it doesn't". It's been that way for decades and we're well overdue for making this practice illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Since it can only be one of these things, what they are doing is obviously fraud.
LOL. So? What are you going to do about it? Rockstar pulled this shit with GTA V. Not a single peep from anyone with authority. With online games, they can change the rules minute by minute and there is not a single fucking thing you can do about it because it is a "grey" area and it is just video games, which are toys. The publishers will continue to steal from us as long as we participate AND, things will only get worse until the behavior crosses a crystal clear line. This is not it. The headline lies. No
Re: Hopefully common sense will prevail (Score:5, Insightful)
When I purchase a chess set made of stone, I expect to be allowed to play it "in perpetuity". When I purchased an NES with SMB1 and Duck Hunt, I expect to be able to play it "in perpetuity". When I purchase GTA6, I expect to play story mode "in perpetuity".
All games, I expect to be able to play forever and ever and ever.
Stone? (Score:2)
When I purchase a chess set made of stone, I expect...
What do you expect when you buy chess sets made out of other materials?
Re: (Score:2)
Well you cant play chess with a wooden set "in perpetuity" can you?
Re: (Score:2)
Given how the light gun on the NES doesn't work with LCD TVs, your expectations are widely at odds with reality. But expectations aside let's talk about reality for a moment. When was the last time you played your copy of Duck Hunt?
I know you're talking about the principle of the thing, but the reality is purposeful deactivations of online games are usually the result of no one playing them. Games are entertainment, there's plenty out there. When someone asks me what I'm doing tonight I say "playing games"
Re: (Score:2)
BTW: Some people have the audacity to actually create new things to work around these problems or fix them outright with modern technology. If you purchase something and take the time to preserve / maintain it, you have a reasonable expectat
Re: (Score:2)
When I purchase GTA6, I expect to play story mode "in perpetuity".
LOL, good luck with that. The only way that I can play GTA V right now, is to pirate it... even though I purchased it through Steam. Your expectations will need to be adjusted if you expect to remain happy.
Re: (Score:2)
Same. I also love how the company has zero interest in fixing this. I'll never buy another Rockstar product in my lifetime. Fuck those guys.
Re: (Score:2)
If I was the arbitrator, I would would say if the game is no longer playable they should be obliged to release the server code so the player can still play if they wish.
The game provider should state for how long they are supporting the game, and after that if they no longer wish to sell the game, release the code and remove code requiring the game to connect to their severs.
Re: (Score:2)
People still play pong today. In fact people still play board games their grandparents purchased in their youth.
A reasonable consumer would expect a game they purchased to continue being playable indefinitely providing the game itself has not been lost or damaged.
If a game is being provided as a service then it should be made clear up front that you're subscribing to a service, as well as making it clear when the service will be discontinued.
Re:Hopefully common sense will prevail (Score:5, Funny)
"how long would a reasonable consumer who purchased the game expect it to be playable"
Life of the author plus 70 years.
Re: (Score:2)
WHAT?!!! I still have a copy of Warcraft II battlenet edition running on my system and that came out in 1998. Diablo II from 2000 and other early Blizzard titles. I fully expect them to keep working and honestly, they don't ever need an upgrade or patch ever again. They work perfectly fine the way they are.
I even have a copy of Simcity 2000 that came out in 1993. Still runs.
As far as I'm concerned, games shouldn't stop working period. Games don't expire. So long as I can provide the proper environment for t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you still have the installation media, you may be able to use Steam's proton solution to get many of those games running. There's a way to use steam to run non-steam games using their version of wine (proton). I've had some decent luck with a couple titles this way. Do a search or two and you may luck out!
P.S. No idea if Steam on Windows has the compatibility functionality but it definitely does on Linux
I actually had a good Ubisoft experience (Score:2)
I was one of the few people who had a Stadia. Ubisoft transferred my copy/license of Assassin's Creed: Valhalla from there to the PC without even asking. That would be one of the very few cases where the online licensing service was a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Stadia fan, and brokeass. At the time, I had a dodgy system with a failing GeForce. Stadia kept me sane during the plague when my PC wasn’t stable, and the PC kept me sane when the internet wasn’t good enough for stadia. Near the end, however, I switched to T-Mobile’s 5g internet service, and Stadia became rock solid. (5G should NOT be better than DSL! Fuck!)
I was desperately hoping that Google would resort to a strategy of benign neglect for Stadia, since I had like three or four games
I think UbiSoft needs to get "comfortable" (Score:5, Insightful)
with the idea that people will tell them to stick their crap where the sun doesn't shine.
Re:I think UbiSoft needs to get "comfortable" (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I've gotten comfortable not owning Ubisoft games. Companies that are not so user-hostile still get my money.
If it runs on someone else servers. (Score:3)
Some Old Steam Games Too (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The difference of course being, did Steam automatically remove it because it was unplayable? I'm guessing no. Because I only know of one case of that happening and it was scam/fraud related.
Require a patch to extend life (Score:2)
Don't own games I buy? Then I'm not buying. (Score:2)
Tremblay, if players need to get used to "not owning games", well, then Ubisoft needs to get used to my not purchasing ubisoft games, at all.
Of course, I've seen this coming for a while, so I haven't bought a ubisoft game in quite a long time.
This would stop if users didn't give them money (Score:2)
Look at how fast Unity changed their tune and better alternatives gained strength. The problem is, it's a lot harder to unify the large group of individual ubisoft customers than it is the developers.
I don't play very many games, but it's not some big burden on my life to just not play things from Ubisoft even when they have some things I'd like to buy from someone who isn't garbage.
What are we paying for then? (Score:3)
Ubisoft might have to get comfortable with customers not paying them for games, then. Either by pirating them, or buying other games from companies that treat them better, or by finding some other entertainment instead. It's not like game consoles are the only thing their target market (which is young men) have to spend money on.
In addition, I expect we will see future regulation in some jurisdictions with strong consumer-favourable laws like Brazil and parts of the EU which would prevent companies from doing this.
We need a binding legal definition (Score:4, Informative)
Purchase means ownership and total control over how you use something, no time limits and no resale limits
Any other paid access method must honestly be called rental
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could just understand there are different forms of purchasing for different forms of items. Purchasing software has never been, and never will be, the same thing as purchasing, say, a hammer.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Trying to change away from the terms if "buy" and "purchase" just because the medium is different is a fool's errand and never going to work. The concept of purchasing still works. I purchase a ticket to get into a movie. I am not ever going to describe it as renting a seat in the theater for a specific time frame - even though that is essentially what is happening.
Re:We need a binding legal definition (Score:4, Insightful)
Look at it this way - you own the game, but most of it required a server that you did not buy.
It should be illegal to have a single player game require an Internet connection, and it should be a requirement of discontinuing server support to release a free private server and a final game update allowing connection to arbitrary servers. In fact, the required code should exist in escrow from the very first sale.
Re: (Score:2)
Purchase means ownership and total control over how you use something, no time limits and no resale limits
Any other paid access method must honestly be called rental
No it doesn't. Purchase means to acquire something by means of an exchange, usually money. That purchase can be for a limited use license. There's nothing in any definition of purchase (dictionary definition, or legal definition) that implies ownership beyond the terms set in the purchase agreement.
Ubisoft just have to get used to less sales (Score:2)
So, vote with your wallets folks.
shocker (Score:4, Interesting)
I have been on a soapbox specifically about Ubisoft and them stealing a game from me 20 something years ago cause they shut down an activation server only a year or 2 after the game's sequel was released
so fuckem, I have not played a Ubisoft game since, they do not exist to me
Ubisoft will have to get comfortable... (Score:2)
...with not having any money.
Seriously though, why would anybody ever even consider "buying" things like games, movies, music, etc. under such conditions?
Sell it or Rent it, make up your mind. (Score:2)
This is an issue that really should have been ironed out legally back when the Crunchyroll/Funimation merger happened, or even before that, with UltraViolet streaming codes. Those digital copies of movies/anime were purchased as part of the purchase of the physical disc of the title, and should be considered one and the same. If the company doesn't want to keep the servers on to make them available for on-demand streaming, give us a DRM-free copy of the file you were streaming so we can just load it onto ou
Ross Scott (Score:2)
is at least trying to bring this to a legal head.
https://www.stopkillinggames.c... [stopkillinggames.com]
Ubisoft, charge a monthly fee and be done with it (Score:2)
If you want consumers to be comfortable with not owning anything, then you need to be honest and just charge a monthly fee and be done with it. If the game is decent poor saps will sign up and give you money each month.
will need to get comfortable with... (Score:2)
Anyone remember (Score:2)
Hellgate: London?
This is not a new concept (and yes, I know about the "re-release")
Get over the concept of keeping my money (Score:2)
Ubisoft ceo needs to move past the idea of having my money and or keeping it as lawsuits develop.
Here we go again (Score:2)
More and more tech companies are sinking their teeth into the same approach: customers don't actually buy anything from them. The customers only rent the products. It doesn't matter if it's hardware or software; the overarching approach today is exactly the same. Even if one has physical media (which, by design, has become increasingly rare) from which to load and run software, if an online handshake must be performed to enable any of that software's functionality, the publisher can turn that handshake off
Not "owning" games (Score:2)
Ubisoft's subscription boss, Philippe Tremblay, recently stated that players will need to get "comfortable" with not owning games.
I am 100% comfortable with not owning games, rather than not "owning" games.
I am "comfortable" never purchasing from Ubisoft (Score:2)
Pretty much that, F those guys.
I swear (Score:2)
Getting comfortable (Score:2)
Is a game still a game? (Score:2)
On a side note: gaming companies that create 'games' that drive you to buy upgrades or credits or extras because the game frustrates you (much like candy crush): is it still a game then? I game to relax and have fun, not get stressed. If a game stresses me, it's a compulsion, not a game.
Previous comment is unrelated (Score:2)
> Philippe Tremblay, recently stated that players will need to get "comfortable" with not owning games.
So posted tried to add flame with something totally unrelated. That was about moving to a subscription model. It has little to do with killing online games.
This will always be the case for online games (Score:2)
The Crew is an online-only game. These games have servers that need to be kept. When users no longer buy the game, this, and game support, becomes a liability for the publisher. There's really nothing new here, just a little nerd rage.
The only way to solve this is to let others run a server for the game, but there's not much incentive for companies to do this, as it's a hassle and gains them nothing.
I'm already comfortable with not owning games... (Score:2)
... specifically Ubisoft ones.
Let them eat brioche! (Score:2)
Users can't play a game they paid for? Let them open their wallets and "buy" another one! And get "comfortable" with not owning games!
,said Philippe Tremblay, Ubisoft's subscription boss. He should know that angering the masses is never a good idea. Maybe he doesn't know it because he's Canadian rather than French.
Just wait til Steam dies, then major crying ! (Score:2)
Context (Score:4)
The reason why this game is raising such a stir is because it presents a unique opportunity for consumers to actually push back against this practice. Ubisoft is based out of France, which has fairly strong consumer protection laws and requires a response if enough people petition the government about an issue. Ross (who you might have heard of from the Youtube series "Freeman's Mind" or "Ross's Game Dungeon") pointed this out and made a big video about it advocating for action that kind of took off.
The general point of contention is the "no alternatives" aspect and it's what I believe people are trying to get changed. My understanding is that they're saying that if a game like this needs to close down services, it should either still provide some (potentially reduced functionality) way to continue to explore and play the game, provided dedicated server utilities, release the relevant tools and information for fans to recreate official services, or provide a full refund. I think those are reasonable asks for companies to make, so long as they have the option to choose which of these routes they wish to pursue.
Block Ubisoft on Steam (Score:2)
Here's how you block Ubisoft and other evil publishers and developers in Steam:
1. Go to the Steam Store
2. Search Ubisoft and click on a game of theirs.
3. In the top right area, it'll list the developer and publisher, click on the one you don't like.
4. On the devloper/publisher page, look for a gear icon near the top right. Click it and select Ignore this creator.
Re: (Score:2)
Right.. The chargeback period has long passed would be a claim for the courts.
Except in 2024 all these companies lock customers into binding arbitration, And Arbitrators will Not contemplate fairness to the consumer or principles of justice If it's not what the contract says, then the arbitrators are always going to end up finding in the game publisher's favor, so it is kind of a lost cause .
Re: (Score:2)
> all these companies lock customers into binding arbitration
Don't assume this in the case of fraud or theft without speaking to a lawyer.
Usually the whole agreement is void if crimes are committed.
And you need to find a judge who agrees, not convnce the legal academy.
Re: (Score:2)
Except in 2024 all these companies lock customers into binding arbitration
Not enforceable in my country.
Get a better law.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm neither fine nor not fine with anything, I'm just pointing out the "charge back time" is gone for the vast majority of people having this game. Not what you might want to discuss about being right or wrong, but what actually is. So you need to get into some kind of lawsuit, err arbitration possibly.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree. I hate most live service games, but I love MMOs. I hate games with any kind of microtransactions. I hate Denuvo.
I play FF14 and when the game servers eventually shut down, I'll be sad, but not going to demand my monthly monies back. Servers are expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're paying a monthly subscription then there's ongoing revenue, while the cost of hosting the servers will decrease over time. Eventually it will reach the point that the cost of hosting the server exceeds the monthly revenue from subscribers.
But if there's no money to be made hosting the servers, then they should release the servers and allow users to host them instead for the few who want to continue playing or are interested in preserving retro games etc.
Re: (Score:2)
And there is ongoing development of new content which is what the rest of the money is going toward after servers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
MMOs that choose to go F2P after starting as subscription based are always doomed, I'd rather they die off. Quality immediately goes down the shitter. But I'm also picky about my MMOs to begin with - the best ever to exist was Asheron's Call and nothing has come close to replicating it.
Re: (Score:2)
While we don't own software, we definitely do BUY a license to use software in perpetuity. Ubisoft are in effect revoking that license by uninstalling the game. They should have to refund the licensee.
Close. But in legal terms "in perpetuity" just means there is "no fixed end date" and not automatically "forever". The end date here is automatically tied to the life of the game servers in which the game is hardcoded to require and connect to. Is it shitty? Sure. So, don't buy those types of games and convinc
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure how the quote worked in the preview and then fucked up in the actual posting, but whatever. You'll get it.
Re: (Score:2)