
We understand lawyers are employed to get their clients off the hook, but these comments from Ubisoft’s legal team are not exactly going to help the embattled French publisher’s image.
The company is currently fighting a case involving The Crew, which you may recall was taken offline last year, rendering owned copies of the racer worthless.
Because the title required connectivity to the publisher’s servers in order to function, any remaining physical copies have been reduced to expensive coasters. If you purchased it digitally then it’s worth even less, because you can’t even put your cup of coffee on it.
But two industrious players are trying to sue the firm over its decision, and thus have to prove Ubisoft misled them by flogging them an experience with an expiry date as opposed to something they could play in perpetuity.
Ubisoft’s lawyers, however, have hit back, arguing there’s no reason for players to believe they were purchasing “unfettered ownership rights in the game”.
Now we’re sure there’s some small print somewhere in the software that discloses all this, but we’d personally argue that we expect most games to work in some capacity once its servers have been taken offline – especially one like The Crew which did have a single player campaign.
In fact, we feel like developer Ivory Tower has somewhat acknowledged this in a way, as it’s promised to avoid the same issue with The Crew 2 and The Crew: Motorfest by offering updates which will make both titles fully playable offline.
The plaintiffs have since responded to Ubisoft with pictures of the product’s packaging which points out activation codes won’t expire until 2099, which it argues implies the release should have remained playable “during this time and long thereafter”.
Ubisoft now has until the end of the month to respond.
[source polygon.com]
Comments 39
Why not make a patch for The Crew as well...
Seems more expensive to lawyer up.
This is one of the few reasons I couldn't care less if these people ever file for bankruptcy. Frankly, it's due as Ubisoft has been cruising on mediocrity for far too long.
And that remark just shows how out of touch they are with their customer base.
Seriously, these guys made EA looks like damn saints.
I say we forgive them. They owned the chuds. So what if they're making the games Industry worse one rotten business practice at a time?
This is nothing that other developers don't do. I think that when you buy a game that states on the box that it requires an internet connection you can assume that at some point down the road it will become unplayable. It would be nice if they patched it for use offline, but not many developers do that, it's the exception, not the rule.
So they put out a solid game in shadows apparently. Didn’t play it mostly because this is a rotten company. Even if they put out a few good games i personally feel no need to support anything they do.
I like Ubisoft games and hope they continue, i couldnt give 2 💩's what goes on behind the scenes, politics etc etc, I like a game i buy it, Simple 😉
Edit - just out of interest, when you pay to see a movie, do you expect to have the rights to visit the cinema as many times as you like to see it again ??
"there’s no reason for players to believe they were purchasing “unfettered ownership rights in the game”"
Yeah no right to believe you could play the single player element of a game beyond a certain time frame of a game you shelled out for...
WTF!?
Honestly I hate lawyer speak and Ubisoft can suck big ones for this crap.
If they had put this front and centre, it wouldn't have sold many copies.
Practically conning your customers doesn't end well in the long run.
@Jrs1
Very different situations, you can't really compare going to cinema with playing a game in your house...
Running with your movie analogy though - if you buy that movie on disc/digital though, you do expect to be able to watch it again at any time.
Like we needed another reason to hate Ubisoft
Ubisoft are uniting gamers.
Ok so first they use veiled legal threats for negative reviews of assassins creed shadow, then they imply that buying a game is only buying for a limited time ( without that upfront and clear disclaimer). How to say “we hate our client base” without actually saying it. Pound sand ubisoft. I may be one fella but thats one less fellas money youll get- well also my kids so i guess 3-5 peoples money.
@Jrs1 i dont disagree with you in if you like a game etc…. Im similar mostly. I ignore most reviews. The edit though confuses me? What if you bought a movie on dvd? You would expect to be able to re watch it whenever. And as long as you had a dvd/ blue ray player.
While I agree the game should still work in single player mode offline well into the future, I have to ask…
Who is realistically still wanting to play The Crew these days? The numbers can’t be massive can they??
@QiaraIris i hope they do file bankruptcy. and im not a fan of EA either. Instead of them adopting an arrogant and entitled attitude towards the gamer base, they could have just gracefully explained that they cant keep servers up indefinitely. These gaming companies have grown glass feelings lately.
Stuff like this is why I haven't bought a Ubisoft game in the past decade, save for the Mario + Rabbids games. Their anti-consumer practices and quite frankly terrible games just made me uninterested.
@GeeForce Tbh if you fancied playing a modern game in 20yrs time it would be easily emulated anyway, then u would play for 5 mins and go "nah" 😀
@Jrs1 not really the same issue. If i pay to see a movie, sports event or concert I am aware it is a one off event and the money I have spent is for that occasion only.
If I buy a bluray etc of the movie, sporting event, concert then I expect to be able to watch that for as long as my physical media survives.
@Leetware1 only if the disk will still read by that time. Media is disposable nowadays, sad but true, just look at pc gaming (all digital, no guarantees) music (mostly streaming) tv (netflix et al)
@GeeForce I agreed it’s not the same, if you go to the arcade it’s a play and done if you buy a game you expect to keep playing it over and over. It’s literally how the home console market has been since day one and the whole point of the hobby. Bringing the games from the arcade home. Ubisoft can do one
"Ubisoft’s lawyers, however, have hit back, arguing there’s no reason for players to believe they were purchasing 'unfettered ownership rights in the game'."
Yeah, about that, they bought a product and expected it to work.
This isn't about ownership rights but rather about selling a product that doesn't work anymore if the company pulls the plug and not offering any compensation when that happens.
Also, if you're going by the ownership rights route one could also argue on court that not only Ubisoft didn't make that explicit, they also sold the product at the same price as similar products that you could really own, which could make this a false advertising case under certain courts.
@Leetware1 there were no veiled threats..they clearly stated anybody harassing and threatening ubisoft employees etc would be prosecuted not random people negging on the game or giving it crap reviews.
Literally every single game publisher out there has the same legal point of view as Ubisoft here. Every. Single. One.
@CielloArc isn't there something in the legal disclaimer in the game that states something about ubisoft being able to turn off the servers or stop supporting the game at anytime without notice? I'm sure every game has this kind of thing in the legal jargon.
@EfYI This seems like a far more sensible and cost effective solution. Surely someone would have mentioned that before they called a meeting with legal!
@CielloArc "The EULA is effective from the earlier of the date You purchase, download or use the Product, until terminated according to its terms. You and UBISOFT (or its licensors) may terminate this EULA, at any time, for any reason. Termination by UBISOFT will be effective upon (a) notice to You or (b) termination of Your UBISOFT Account (if any) or (c) at the time of UBISOFT’s decision to discontinue offering and/or supporting the Product. This EULA will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with any of the terms and conditions of this EULA. Upon termination for any reason, You must immediately uninstall the Product and destroy all copies of the Product in Your possession." Taken directly from the EULA. this is what I was on about. I'm pretty sure this spells it out quite clearly. I'd also like to say that I'm not having a go at you here in case it seems that way but I'm just trying to add some context that appears to be missing. I don't agree with ubisofts decision or attitude but it looks like they have a point unfortunately.
@ATaco Owned the chuds... by getting bought by Tencent. Sure.
I don’t know that it’s reasonable to believe the download code expiration represented the true longevity of the title, but I do believe having a single-player mode rendered unplayable due to the server shutdown is unacceptable.
Games that require online server access for single-player experiences should not exist in ways that end the experience if the servers shut down.
Those who release games with single player parts that cannot be played offline should be hanged in the middle of townsquare.
@Jrs1 if I purchased a movie and I couldn’t watch it when I wanted, then I would be annoyed.
@Jrs1 When you buy the movie you can watch it when ever you like for life, just like when i buy a game I expect to play it when ever I like for life
@Leetware1 this is interesting because Warner Brothers just had an issue where several years of DVD that they issued are now unplayable. I think they are offering replacements, but knowing WB I would not be surprised if this was used in a case to establish a new precedent similar to Ubisoft's argument.
The single player experience should not be affected by them turning of the servers - thats just plain bad design.
I also agree with the 2099 point - im no lawyer, but Im actually surprised Ubisoft are fighting this one, with something like that on the cover - better to just patch the game so the SP can run offline, like they have said they will do for the sequels.
Ubisoft really are being dumb getting themselves more bad publicity imo, even if said patch would cost a lot of money.
When it comes to saying all the wrong things to their customer-base Ubi have excelled and become idiot savants. I don't think it would be as bad if they weren't so damn insulting when they did talk about the people who buy their games. I'm neutral until some idiot says 'you don't own what you just paid for'. Then follow it up with 'you never owned it to begin with', the receipts still in the box I do own it.
I work in PR and if I acted like they are doing I'd lose every client within a month, my reputation in the industry would be burned. It's like they are trying to purposefully drag their name through the mud with zero regard for damage control. There are actual manuals on how to deal with clients and with the paying public, they are doing the complete opposite.
A $1.25 billion bailout should have humbled them and shook things up enough for them to do a deep internal review. Securing future sales should have been top priority, it's feel like they are trying to burn the place down to collect the insurance.
Well then, they are not getting unfettered access to my money.
@HRdepartment buy used. Zero dollars goes to ubi, you get to play it cheaply.
With redemption codes valid until 2099, sounds like it's reasonable to assume the game should work until 2099, assuming your hardware lives that long. That seems to obliterate their legal argument. If this goes to a jury and not a judge, I don't see a good outcome for Ubisoft here.
Even if they win their legal argument - and some fine print may help them win - they're telling the world we cannot trust them. So they say they'll build an offline mode into the sequels - are you stupid enough to believe them? Because if you do, and they don't, they'll just say that it's your fault.
But internet told me that I must love Ubisoft now for AC Shadows.
Surely the 2099 expiry gives them a good chance of winning this?
That's like a supermarket saying you purchased your food but don't own it. Ubisoft are cracked in the head. They sell, we buy, we own the game. They still own the IP but once they sell the game, everyone who buys it owns the game. Ubisoft in the wrong business if they don't understand how ownership after buying a product works.
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...