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.
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.
This is why I just pirate games from big developers. They’re fuckers so fuck them anyway.
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.
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!
I’m tired of all the pixel art indie card games.
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
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.
It may be legal, but it certainly ain’t ethical.
Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should do it.
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!
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
Looks like I’ll be pirating Black Flag for my next replay.
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.
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.
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.
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
And this is exactly why Ubisoft is dying. Good riddance.
Yep, couldn’t happen to a nicer publisher :)
Eat shit Guillemot.
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
They could always release the source code.
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.
“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:
By placing an order via this Web site on the first day of the fourth month of the year 2010 Anno Domini, you agree to grant Us a non transferable option to claim, for now and for ever more, your immortal soul. Should We wish to exercise this option, you agree to surrender your immortal soul, and any claim you may have on it, within 5 (five) working days of receiving written notification from gamesation.co.uk or one of its duly authorized minions.
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.
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.
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.
