Shortly After the Shutdown of Its Servers, Ubisoft Has Revoked Licenses for The Crew | MMORPG.com

System

Shortly After the Shutdown of Its Servers, Ubisoft Has Revoked Licenses for The Crew | MMORPG.com

Ubisoft has been revoking players' game licenses for The Crew, frustrating owners of the game.

Read the full story here

Angrakhan

Ubisoft making more friends I see. However, I do make the point when I see people talking about "owning" software. You don't own software. You never have. You own a license to use the software, and that license can be revoked. Read the EULA. This is a painful case in point.

That aside Ubisoft are being turds. Why disabled people's access to the offline functionality?

MMOgamerdad666

Angrakhan said:

Ubisoft making more friends I see. However, I do make the point when I see people talking about "owning" software. You don't own software. You never have. You own a license to use the software, and that license can be revoked. Read the EULA. This is a painful case in point.



That aside Ubisoft are being turds. Why disabled people's access to the offline functionality?

That's weird during the big box era(2000's) never had anyone come to my door telling me to stop playing and give them their game back.

Alverant

Angrakhan said:

Ubisoft making more friends I see. However, I do make the point when I see people talking about "owning" software. You don't own software. You never have. You own a license to use the software, and that license can be revoked. Read the EULA. This is a painful case in point.



That aside Ubisoft are being turds. Why disabled people's access to the offline functionality?

Then their store page shouldn't advertise games. They should never say "buy games". They should say "buy temporary licenses that we can revoke without giving you a refund". Ubisoft is engaging in deceptive business practices. People believe they are buying games, not licenses. If you don't own what you buy, then piracy isn't theft.

Elidien_ga

All it takes is one class action lawsuit. Not saying there are grounds as I am not a lawyer, but out there, somewhere there is a lawyer that will happily go after a company with Ubi's track record of screwing their customers. I will not buy Outlaws even though its a dream Star Wars game for me. I am done with Ubi.

Scot

Alverant said:

Angrakhan said:

Ubisoft making more friends I see. However, I do make the point when I see people talking about "owning" software. You don't own software. You never have. You own a license to use the software, and that license can be revoked. Read the EULA. This is a painful case in point.





That aside Ubisoft are being turds. Why disabled people's access to the offline functionality?

Then their store page shouldn't advertise games. They should never say "buy games". They should say "buy temporary licenses that we can revoke without giving you a refund". Ubisoft is engaging in deceptive business practices. People believe they are buying games, not licenses. If you don't own what you buy, then piracy isn't theft.

Everyone should know that you don't own anything digital, we need events like this to ram that home to people who think otherwise. Thats part of the downside of digital, gamers need to wake up to that. Ubisoft is just being the bad actor in this, players need to understand that all that money they have pumped into Fornite, early access games, whatever, is effectively a license which can disappear at any time.

"On that front, Ubisoft has inexplicably locked the Jabba the Hutt Gambit mission behind its season pass"

Not inexplicable at all, just more monetarization bad practices, will gamers wake up and see what a bag of c**p monetarization has brought us? Time will tell.

Pher0cious

Imagine imagining giving money to you be crap in 2024

Angrakhan

You guys can blah blah blah about what they should do and "back in my day I never had someone show up at my door" and put your little laugh emojis all you want but legal fact is legal fact. Ignore it, laugh at it, whatever. I really don't care. I'm just telling you what is. Read your EULA. If they wanted to they could subpoena your computer and make you verify in court there's no trace of their software on it. They don't because it's not worth their time. You might say "I'd like to see them try" or whatever chest thumping you want to do, but I've seen a guy arrested and go to prison for software license violations. Now he was reselling licenses that he had no authorization to resell and doing it to the tune of 6 figures, and yeah at that point it was worth their time. Microsoft in this case. He had an MSDN license if you know what that is and was reselling the licenses from his MSDN license. Now according to all you smart guys who clearly know everything there is to know about owning software he should have been fine. He owned the software didn't he? He paid for it did he not? Any of you smartass armchair lawyers care to explain to me how he ended up in prison? I can tell you. He didn't own the software. He had a license and he violated the terms of his license agreement and was convicted for felony software theft because of the sum of money involved.

Go ahead, put your little laugh emojis and quote me and tell me about how back in the day no one came to your house, etc. Bro still did time in the slammer.

Asm0deus

Angrakhan said:

You guys can blah blah blah about what they should do and "back in my day I never had someone show up at my door" and put your little laugh emojis all you want but legal fact is legal fact. Ignore it, laugh at it, whatever. I really don't care. I'm just telling you what is. Read your EULA. If they wanted to they could subpoena your computer and make you verify in court there's no trace of their software on it. They don't because it's not worth their time. You might say "I'd like to see them try" or whatever chest thumping you want to do, but I've seen a guy arrested and go to prison for software license violations. Now he was reselling licenses that he had no authorization to resell and doing it to the tune of 6 figures, and yeah at that point it was worth their time. Microsoft in this case. He had an MSDN license if you know what that is and was reselling the licenses from his MSDN license. Now according to all you smart guys who clearly know everything there is to know about owning software he should have been fine. He owned the software didn't he? He paid for it did he not? Any of you smartass armchair lawyers care to explain to me how he ended up in prison? I can tell you. He didn't own the software. He had a license and he violated the terms of his license agreement and was convicted for felony software theft because of the sum of money involved.



Go ahead, put your little laugh emojis and quote me and tell me about how back in the day no one came to your house, etc. Bro still did time in the slammer.

Sorry but this whole "you don't own the game" is stupid BS only embraced by yes men that like to bend over.

Obviously when you "buy" a single player game you don't "own the IP" but you do own the game, they the company shouldn't be allowed in the future to say welp you cant play it anymore cause xyz.


I am a big fan off Louis here and is how I feel about this new era of ...you don't own the game you just bought a temp license to play it.....

I mean it's right up there with you don't "own" the music CD or vinyl you just bought cause you don't "own the music", you just have a temp licenses to listen to it.  As such we reserve the right to tell you can't you listen to it with other people in your house cause bla bla bla my IP rights....bla bla.

It's the same difference except for some reason some gamers think its brilliant to parrot and spout support on this in gaming.

Pher0cious

Angrakhan said:

Go ahead, put your little laugh emojis and quote me

As you wish

ValdemarJ

If the game had local single player then removing the license is scummy and should be illegal because people paid for the client.

If it's an online only service game, then removing the license is bad optics, but essentially useless. Anyone accessing private servers for an online only game are going to be using a modified client anyway. When Marvel Heroes went offline they didn't need to remove the game client license because shit didn't work anyway.

In my opinion "online only" gaas/mmo games need to offer self hosted server options for when they decide to pull the plug on the service. It shouldn't be hard for players to stand up their own servers in that case.

Asm0deus

Funny thing is that if a "work around" is found so people can play this again be it a private server or some other method that allows you to play the solo bit their "morality" will be questioned by the social police yes men.

cheyane

This shit won't fly in Europe . I do hope they get taken to court over this because having the offline option for a game they sold wasn't hard to do but these mangy bastards wanted you to buy the new "Crew" game.





Those of you who own the game do something about it. Check out Stop Killing Games and fill out the forms that apply to your country or region.

The thing is you need to make as much of a fuss as possible and tank their games in every review sites. Wrong thing to do because it affects the developers of the good games. No this is to make sure Ubisoft dies or gets bought out. Their philosophy needs to die in a fire.

As far as pirating goes. Things like Denuvo without Empress is a definite barrier but Denuvo is a licence and it gets cracked within a week of the licence expiring when companies cannot justify the cost of the licence any more.

Scot

Guys I don't think you get it, those of use who are saying its "only a license" are not saying we prefer it that way, clearly this is wrong. We are not "yes men". There is a variety of degrees of ownership, you own your car more than you own that CD of music more than you own what you purchased in an online game. The problem is gaming is at the bottom of the spectrum of ownership because of digital and online.

That does not mean we have no recourse, but the avenues as mentioned above are far slower and harder than just not return a CD if you we were told to do so. And they may achieve nothing. These licenses could be made more favorable to gamers as long as we realise there is a limit to that, you can't expect a game launched ten years ago to still be here no matter what has happened to the player base.

I think taking a game to private servers after a game is shut down is questionable, but if you are only asking for costs from your players I think it has moral legitimacy and we should support that move.

Vrika

Angrakhan said:

You guys can blah blah blah about what they should do and "back in my day I never had someone show up at my door" and put your little laugh emojis all you want but legal fact is legal fact. Ignore it, laugh at it, whatever. I really don't care. I'm just telling you what is. Read your EULA. If they wanted to they could subpoena your computer and make you verify in court there's no trace of their software on it. They don't because it's not worth their time. You might say "I'd like to see them try" or whatever chest thumping you want to do, but I've seen a guy arrested and go to prison for software license violations. Now he was reselling licenses that he had no authorization to resell and doing it to the tune of 6 figures, and yeah at that point it was worth their time. Microsoft in this case. He had an MSDN license if you know what that is and was reselling the licenses from his MSDN license. Now according to all you smart guys who clearly know everything there is to know about owning software he should have been fine. He owned the software didn't he? He paid for it did he not? Any of you smartass armchair lawyers care to explain to me how he ended up in prison? I can tell you. He didn't own the software. He had a license and he violated the terms of his license agreement and was convicted for felony software theft because of the sum of money involved.

Go ahead, put your little laugh emojis and quote me and tell me about how back in the day no one came to your house, etc. Bro still did time in the slammer.

The guy in your example would have went to prison for copyright infringement regardless of whether he owned the software or just had a license to it. Our copyright system works in such a way that you can own a copy of copyrighted work, but you're not allowed to make and sell further copies unless you also own the copyright or a license for making and selling copies.

KnightFalz

Asm0deus said:

Angrakhan said:

You guys can blah blah blah about what they should do and "back in my day I never had someone show up at my door" and put your little laugh emojis all you want but legal fact is legal fact. Ignore it, laugh at it, whatever. I really don't care. I'm just telling you what is. Read your EULA. If they wanted to they could subpoena your computer and make you verify in court there's no trace of their software on it. They don't because it's not worth their time. You might say "I'd like to see them try" or whatever chest thumping you want to do, but I've seen a guy arrested and go to prison for software license violations. Now he was reselling licenses that he had no authorization to resell and doing it to the tune of 6 figures, and yeah at that point it was worth their time. Microsoft in this case. He had an MSDN license if you know what that is and was reselling the licenses from his MSDN license. Now according to all you smart guys who clearly know everything there is to know about owning software he should have been fine. He owned the software didn't he? He paid for it did he not? Any of you smartass armchair lawyers care to explain to me how he ended up in prison? I can tell you. He didn't own the software. He had a license and he violated the terms of his license agreement and was convicted for felony software theft because of the sum of money involved.





Go ahead, put your little laugh emojis and quote me and tell me about how back in the day no one came to your house, etc. Bro still did time in the slammer.

Sorry but this whole "you don't own the game" is stupid BS only embraced by yes men that like to bend over.



Obviously when you "buy" a single player game you don't "own the IP" but you do own the game, they the company shouldn't be allowed in the future to say welp you cant play it anymore cause xyz.





I am a big fan off Louis here and is how I feel about this new era of ...you don't own the game you just bought a temp license to play it.....

I mean it's right up there with you don't "own" the music CD or vinyl you just bought cause you don't "own the music", you just have a temp licenses to listen to it.  As such we reserve the right to tell you can't you listen to it with other people in your house cause bla bla bla my IP rights....bla bla.

It's the same difference except for some reason some gamers think its brilliant to parrot and spout support on this in gaming.

It's not an opinion based issue. That purchased is a license for use only in accordance to specific terms. You can find the details of such in the user agreements/terms of service attached to your media.

The Crew shows just how little "ownership" can exist.

cheyane

Skull and Bones after just two months price has dropped to 50% off. At this rate will they take this game away from your library too? Can we trust this company to keep anything up? Why should we buy anything from Ubisoft?