996
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 (www.gamesradar.com)
submitted 1 week ago by swampwitch@lemmy.world to c/games@lemmy.world
234 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] squidspinachfootball@lemm.ee 0 points 1 week ago

It's a nice sentiment but seriously - the whole "if buying isn't owning then pirating isn't stealing" thing is both overused and has always annoyed me. How are the two related? You can still be stealing regardless of if you have an option to buy or not. You could still steal an item that isn't for sale.

What we really should be focusing on is whether pirating in and of itself is stealing, and whether it should be a crime. This overused phrase is distracting from the issue at hand, imo.

[-] p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

How are the two related?

A user obtains the game through legitimate means by "buying" the game. However, they do not own the game, and are in fact, just renting something. This is despite decades and decades of game buying, especially pre-Internet, equating to owning the game and being able to play the game forever, even 100 years from now.

By pirating the game, a user has clawed back the implied social construct that existed for decades past: Acquiring a game through piracy means that you own the game. You have it in a static form that cannot be taken away from you. There's still the case of server shutdowns, like this legal case is arguing. But, unlike the "buyer", the game cannot suddenly disappear from a game's store or be forcefully uninstalled from your PC. You own it. You have the files. They cannot take that away from you.

The phrase essentially means: You have removed my means of owning software, therefore piracy is the only choice I have to own this game. It's not stealing because it's the only way to hold on to it forever. You know, because that's what fucking "buying" was supposed to mean.

this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2025
996 points (98.5% liked)

Games

37938 readers
887 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here and here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
shitpostpolice@lemmy.world
Dremor@lemmy.world