6 ms·

"We've got a really great suggestion for how to make such an assurance: Find a less abominable DRM policy." I don't see how Ubisoft isn't getting sued for this

by icco 17y ago

"We've got a really great suggestion for how to make such an assurance: Find a less abominable DRM policy." I don't see how Ubisoft isn't getting sued for this. Here, you can own this object, it and everything on it are yours. But, if we decide so, then you can't use it at certain times, even though you paid in full to be able to use it at any time. Sure this is being a little harsh because Ubisoft didn't do this on purpose, but seriously, this is ridiculous.

maqr 17y ago
> Here, you can own this object, it and everything on it are yours. They explicitly do not say that.
- cabalamat 17y ago
  If you have bought the game, you have an implied right to play the game (if the small print says otherwise, it should be null and void, and Ubisoft charged with fraud, for that would be making money by deception). If you bought the game and can't play it, due to Ubisoft's deliberate decision to tie playing the game to their server being up, then you should be entitled to your money back.
  - tree_of_item 17y ago
    "If you have bought the game, you have an implied right to play the game (if the small print says otherwise, it should be null and void, and Ubisoft charged with fraud, for that would be making money by deception)" That would be nice, but it isn't the way things work.
    - Zak 17y ago
      Actually, sometimes it is. Volkswagen got sued in the US for selling cars equipped with transponder keys that were far more difficult and expensive to replace than standard car keys without making adequate disclosures to the customer. I suspect a similar lawsuit option exists for Ubisoft customers.
      - eli 17y ago
        Sure, anyone can file a lawsuit. But I doubt they'd win. (And it's worth noting that VW didn't lose that case, they settled rather than fight it)
        jrockway 17y ago
        Why settle if you know you are going to win?
        eli 17y ago
        Well because it can actually be cheaper than a protracted legal fight, of course. Especially if the issue in the case is just about how much to charge for replacement keys.
        Zak 17y ago
        Sometimes it's cheaper than paying the lawyers. The settlement terms in the VW case mostly consisted of informing customers who could make keys for them, and giving vouchers to certain customers for reduced-price duplicates. Depending on whether Ubisoft really sees this DRM strategy as critical to its survival, it might settle such a suit, or try to head one off before it got to court by changing its DRM policy.
    - illumin8 17y ago
      Actually, that is the way things work. I know if I had purchased this game, instead of boycotting it because of the DRM (which I did), right now I would be back at the store demanding a full refund back to my credit card. If the merchant refuses, that's what a merchant agreement is for... Time to call my bank and get a chargeback. Fuck 'em. They can get the money back from Ubisoft for selling me defective product. I don't care what type of "click wrap" license they try to foist on me. That shit doesn't hold up in court as legally binding. In the end, my bank will get my money back. Caveat Venditor...
    - cabalamat 17y ago
      > That would be nice, but it isn't the way things work. Yet. Wait 'til the Pirate Party's been in power a few years...
  - bmelton 17y ago
    By that logic, Blizzard would have been sued into oblivion for all the downtime that World of Warcraft has experienced, and continues to experience on certain realm servers.
- icco 17y ago
  This is true they don't explicitly say that. Just like food doesn't explicitly say this is edible.
- froo 17y ago
  Which is why the current 9th CCA of Vernor vs Autodesk is a fairly important case in regards to this.
dustingetz 17y ago
aren't clickwrap licenses a bitch.
- mambodog 17y ago
  would clickwrap licenses stand up in court? in all cases? in this case?
  - pmjordan 17y ago
    They specifically do not stand up in court in Germany. I don't have information on other countries.
  - dustingetz 17y ago
    in the US, in the general case, i expect it's cheaper to settle.
smokinn 17y ago
Well if Apple can get away with bricking an entire physical device I don't see why Ubisoft can't get away with a game being unplayable for a while.
- bshep 17y ago
  I don't get the reference? When did this happen? There was the PS3 incident a week or so ago and the Zune incident a couple of years ago. But I don't recall Apple having any issue like this.
  - smokinn 17y ago
    http://www.google.com/search?q=apple+bricked+iphones http://www.google.com/search?q=apple+bricked+iphones It's been quite a while now that no matter how much you pay for a device it's still owned by the company that produces it. You're only allowed to do with it what they deem acceptable. Apple is simply the poster child for this kind of behaviour. As long as we keep accepting that companies have a say about what we do with the property we bought from them after the moment of purchase these kinds of stories will continue.
    - bshep 17y ago
      I understand your point, but, it is almost impossible to brick an iPhone unless you mess with the baseband. An in this case it is the person who modifed the firmware who is at fault not apple. In the case of AC2 people with legitimate UNMODIFIED games are being left without their product. I'm not supporting apple for locking the hardware but I don't think your comparison is fair. It would be a lot easier to compare with the Zune or the PS3 in which cases the platforms were also unmodified and suffered down-time due to a manufacturers mistake.
- Groxx 17y ago
  They "got away" with bricking devices which were modified, which explicitly voids all warranties. I'd be willing to bet the hacks also violated TOS agreements. While it's an ass-move to pull, and I seriously disagree with them doing it, it's fully within their rights. If you change your hardware / software, and don't expect things to possibly fail when you apply an update that doesn't expect modified hardware / software, you are an absolute moron.
jfmiller28 17y ago
"I don't see how Ubisoft isn't getting sued for this." There is a very logical explanation: The courts are not open on Sunday.

by icco 17y ago

maqr 17y ago

> Here, you can own this object, it and everything on it are yours. They explicitly do not say that.

cabalamat 17y ago
If you have bought the game, you have an implied right to play the game (if the small print says otherwise, it should be null and void, and Ubisoft charged with fraud, for that would be making money by deception). If you bought the game and can't play it, due to Ubisoft's deliberate decision to tie playing the game to their server being up, then you should be entitled to your money back.
- tree_of_item 17y ago
  "If you have bought the game, you have an implied right to play the game (if the small print says otherwise, it should be null and void, and Ubisoft charged with fraud, for that would be making money by deception)" That would be nice, but it isn't the way things work.
  - Zak 17y ago
    Actually, sometimes it is. Volkswagen got sued in the US for selling cars equipped with transponder keys that were far more difficult and expensive to replace than standard car keys without making adequate disclosures to the customer. I suspect a similar lawsuit option exists for Ubisoft customers.
    - eli 17y ago
      Sure, anyone can file a lawsuit. But I doubt they'd win. (And it's worth noting that VW didn't lose that case, they settled rather than fight it)
      - jrockway 17y ago
        Why settle if you know you are going to win?
        eli 17y ago
        Well because it can actually be cheaper than a protracted legal fight, of course. Especially if the issue in the case is just about how much to charge for replacement keys.
        Zak 17y ago
        Sometimes it's cheaper than paying the lawyers. The settlement terms in the VW case mostly consisted of informing customers who could make keys for them, and giving vouchers to certain customers for reduced-price duplicates. Depending on whether Ubisoft really sees this DRM strategy as critical to its survival, it might settle such a suit, or try to head one off before it got to court by changing its DRM policy.
  - illumin8 17y ago
    Actually, that is the way things work. I know if I had purchased this game, instead of boycotting it because of the DRM (which I did), right now I would be back at the store demanding a full refund back to my credit card. If the merchant refuses, that's what a merchant agreement is for... Time to call my bank and get a chargeback. Fuck 'em. They can get the money back from Ubisoft for selling me defective product. I don't care what type of "click wrap" license they try to foist on me. That shit doesn't hold up in court as legally binding. In the end, my bank will get my money back. Caveat Venditor...
  - cabalamat 17y ago
    > That would be nice, but it isn't the way things work. Yet. Wait 'til the Pirate Party's been in power a few years...
- bmelton 17y ago
  By that logic, Blizzard would have been sued into oblivion for all the downtime that World of Warcraft has experienced, and continues to experience on certain realm servers.
icco 17y ago
This is true they don't explicitly say that. Just like food doesn't explicitly say this is edible.
froo 17y ago
Which is why the current 9th CCA of Vernor vs Autodesk is a fairly important case in regards to this.

dustingetz 17y ago

aren't clickwrap licenses a bitch.

mambodog 17y ago
would clickwrap licenses stand up in court? in all cases? in this case?
- pmjordan 17y ago
  They specifically do not stand up in court in Germany. I don't have information on other countries.
- dustingetz 17y ago
  in the US, in the general case, i expect it's cheaper to settle.

smokinn 17y ago

Well if Apple can get away with bricking an entire physical device I don't see why Ubisoft can't get away with a game being unplayable for a while.

bshep 17y ago
I don't get the reference? When did this happen? There was the PS3 incident a week or so ago and the Zune incident a couple of years ago. But I don't recall Apple having any issue like this.
- smokinn 17y ago
  http://www.google.com/search?q=apple+bricked+iphones http://www.google.com/search?q=apple+bricked+iphones It's been quite a while now that no matter how much you pay for a device it's still owned by the company that produces it. You're only allowed to do with it what they deem acceptable. Apple is simply the poster child for this kind of behaviour. As long as we keep accepting that companies have a say about what we do with the property we bought from them after the moment of purchase these kinds of stories will continue.
  - bshep 17y ago
    I understand your point, but, it is almost impossible to brick an iPhone unless you mess with the baseband. An in this case it is the person who modifed the firmware who is at fault not apple. In the case of AC2 people with legitimate UNMODIFIED games are being left without their product. I'm not supporting apple for locking the hardware but I don't think your comparison is fair. It would be a lot easier to compare with the Zune or the PS3 in which cases the platforms were also unmodified and suffered down-time due to a manufacturers mistake.
Groxx 17y ago
They "got away" with bricking devices which were modified, which explicitly voids all warranties. I'd be willing to bet the hacks also violated TOS agreements. While it's an ass-move to pull, and I seriously disagree with them doing it, it's fully within their rights. If you change your hardware / software, and don't expect things to possibly fail when you apply an update that doesn't expect modified hardware / software, you are an absolute moron.

jfmiller28 17y ago

"I don't see how Ubisoft isn't getting sued for this." There is a very logical explanation: The courts are not open on Sunday.