5 ms·

Ubisoft is killing off a game millions have bought (The Crew)

36 points by beretguy 3y ago

not_your_vase 3y ago
It really adds a new meaning to the saying "You get what you pay for". If you don't vote with your wallet, no one else will do it for you. Of course, one could also get a discless PS5 slim/xbox. All games will cease to work in 2033, but that time will never come, so why not.
- beretguy 3y ago
  > It really adds a new meaning to the saying "You get what you pay for". It’s more like “you DON’T get what you pay for”.
  - scotty79 3y ago
    You don't get what you think you've paid for. In actuality all that you paid for is "protection" money to copyright mafia enforcers.
  - not_your_vase 3y ago
    Well, you pay for crap (tough maybe unknowingly), and you also get crap. I don't see the problem.
markx2 3y ago
Do not forget that when you look at your Steam profile; https://steamcommunity.com/id/[username]/games/?tab=all https://steamcommunity.com/id/[username]/games/?tab=all that you own none. Zero You own a license which can be revoked and you - currently - have no recourse. https://gog.com https://gog.com is one alternative, I am sure others here know more.
- beretguy 3y ago
  > You own a license which can be revoked and you - currently - have no recourse. Correct. In USA it’s all thanks to ProCS v. Zeidenberg: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD,_Inc._v._Zeidenberg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD,_Inc._v._Zeidenberg As far as I understand based on reading that wiki if company writes in that license that they can take away your ability to use software then you don’t own software that you buy. People need to boycott online only, server dependent games. However, in other countries this may be illegal and needs to be challenged.
  - armchairhacker 3y ago
    > As far as I understand based on reading that wiki if company writes in that license that they can take away your ability to use software then you don’t own software that you buy. I didn’t get that at all? The ruling just states that a company can put a license in their software that you have to open first, and you accept once you start using the software. It doesn’t say that licenses that arbitrarily revoke the software are enforceable.
    - beretguy 3y ago
      > However, this did not lead to a victory for Zeidenberg, because the circuit court held that copyright law does not preempt contract law. Since ProCD had made the investments in its business and its specific SelectPhone product, it could require customers to agree to its terms on how to use the product, including a prohibition on copying the information therein regardless of copyright protections. Specifically this part: “it could require customers to agree to its terms on how to use the product”. Since Ubisoft invested money into developing a game they can legally say in their license “at some point you won’t be able to use this software”, which basically translates to “you don’t own software”.
- EA-3167 3y ago
  > You own a license which can be revoked and you - currently - have no recourse. Well famously there is one recourse, it's just that things like Steam are more convenient. If that changes though, well... ...Arr.
beretguy 3y ago
… and this is the court ruling to blame for such a thing to be legal in USA: ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD,_Inc._v._Zeidenberg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD,_Inc._v._Zeidenberg
Jemm 3y ago
Prior to NAFTA we could rent software. NAFTA made that illegal. Now we have this system but how is it really different?
- beretguy 3y ago
  When you rent you know EXACTLY when your rent ends. Games-as-a-Service don’t provide such data upfront. In fact, they don’t mention that you won’t be able to play game at some point in the future AT ALL. GaaS are being sold like all the other games or goods that you can own. People spend money thinking they are buying something they “OWN” but a few years later that “something” is gone.
- CamperBob2 3y ago
  I'm unfamiliar with this regulation against renting software. Can you elaborate?
jabsters 3y ago
Accursed Farms on YouTube is trying to gather the community to take actions, specifically outside the US: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAD5iMe0Xj4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAD5iMe0Xj4
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
yungporko 3y ago
really reaching for a story here. ubisoft are shutting down an online game that has been running for 10 years which flopped, wasn't very good, and which zero people actually care about. with all the disgusting things ubisoft actually do, we don't need to be making things up to get angry about.
- gentleman11 3y ago
  There was a recent advertising push for this, wasn’t there? I saw a ton of ads for this recently
  - dangus 3y ago
    There’s a newer game in the franchise that recently came out.
- beretguy 3y ago
  You are probably trolling and I should not waste my time replying to you, but I have nothing better to do right now so I’ll let myself fall for it. 1. > which flopped, wasn't very good, and which zero people actually care about Speak for yourself. 2. > wasn’t very good That game has the entire map of USA. It’s a driving game with one of the biggest maps in existence. I think it takes about an hour of real world time to drive from SF to NY. I feel myself silly having to explain this to you. 3. > has been running for 10 years How about people of the future who would want to play this game? How about all the hard work developers put into developing this game? All their work is gone and nobody will experience their creation? Using the same logic: should we burn all paintings ever made after 10 years because enough people looked at them?
  - dangus 3y ago
    I don’t think you should assume that person is trolling. It’s reasonable to expect online games to eventually cease operations. This game in particular had a mediocre metacritic score and had under 100 concurrent players on average if you check Steam statistics. If you want to extend the logic to art then you’d have to compare multiplayer games to performance art. A multiplayer game without a player base basically isn’t a game just like a piece of performance art is ephemeral.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
theoreticalmal 3y ago
The problem isn’t that these companies are denying access to a game that millions paid money for, the problem is they marketed the game as a purchase that the buyer will be able to use forever, and are now ostensibly changing the rules. There needs to be really clear marketing about whether a purchase relies on an internet connection and a working auth server to run.
- beretguy 3y ago
  Correct. If they want to destroy their own game it sucks but it’s ok IFF they explicitly let users know that they won’t be able to play the game forever. They should provide a shut down date upfront.
dangus 3y ago
10 year old online game, if you paid $60 for it in 2014 you’ve got plenty of value for money for your entertainment. I feel like it’s very silly to expect every single game to have a single player mode. Yes, multiplayer games cost money, and yes, most of them shut down at some point. The trade off is that you can get a lot more hours out of them than a typical single player experience. My feeling is that lot of people who don’t really understand gaming and are coming from the open source community come out on threads like this to express shock and disgust at practices that are basically industry standard, completely reasonable practices that most players expect. It would be like if a Blu-ray enthusiast came to a movie theater and pulled the fire alarm because all the patrons didn’t get to keep the movie forever.
- beretguy 3y ago
  > 10 year old online game, if you paid $60 for it in 2014 you’ve got plenty of value for money for your entertainment How about people who aren’t born yet who would love to play this game? Should we also burn all books that are older than 10 years because enough people read them? > I feel like it’s very silly to expect every single game to have a single player mode. Yes, multiplayer games cost money, and yes, most of them shut down at some point. We are not talking about single/multi player games. No, multiplayer games don’t always cost money. What we are talking about is people buying a software thinking they will be able to use it forever, but 10 years later seller destroying what people have bought. There are 2 correct solutions to this problem: 1. Let people know the shut down date at the time of purchase. 2. Allow people to play game without of having to rely on a server that people don’t control. For example, Ubisoft could open source their The Crew server (or at least release binary) so that people could run that server themselves to be able to play the game.
  - dangus 3y ago
    Ultimately Ubisoft is the author of the work, the holder of the copyright, and can do what they want. Yes, an artist can withdraw their painting from public viewing so that people in the future don’t get to experience it. They can charge you an entry fee to their exhibition and tell you to leave at the end of the day. As far as the shutdown date, there’s no way to predict that at time of launch. Companies can only promise what is financially viable. A mediocre selling game of this type going for 10 years of working online is considered pretty decent in the gaming world. Many game studios don’t even last 10 years. It would be nice to get a dedicated server but not every multiplayer game type is suited for it and Ubisoft has to pay someone to develop that free product that doesn’t make them a dime. A game like Fortnite would be difficult to offer as a dedicated server product. You need 100 players just to play a match, and the game’s multiplayer infrastructure is built with a huge player base in mind. It is not likely something that can be practically offered as a simple executable that can be run on a consumer system without major changes. (What I meant by saying that multipayer games cost money is that despite having a purchase price for the license it’s generally understood that they’re not guaranteed to be “open forever” types of experiences. People who buy call of duty know that that year’s version of the game will not have a player base forever and will eventually be shut off. Like I’ve pointed out in other comments, there’s a literal disclaimer on the box that says that much).

36 points by beretguy 3y ago

It really adds a new meaning to the saying "You get what you pay for". If you don't vote with your wallet, no one else will do it for you. Of course, one could also get a discless PS5 slim/xbox. All games will cease to work in 2033, but that time will never come, so why not.

beretguy 3y ago
> It really adds a new meaning to the saying "You get what you pay for". It’s more like “you DON’T get what you pay for”.
- scotty79 3y ago
  You don't get what you think you've paid for. In actuality all that you paid for is "protection" money to copyright mafia enforcers.
- not_your_vase 3y ago
  Well, you pay for crap (tough maybe unknowingly), and you also get crap. I don't see the problem.

markx2 3y ago

Do not forget that when you look at your Steam profile; https://steamcommunity.com/id/[username]/games/?tab=all https://steamcommunity.com/id/[username]/games/?tab=all that you own none. Zero You own a license which can be revoked and you - currently - have no recourse. https://gog.com https://gog.com is one alternative, I am sure others here know more.

beretguy 3y ago
> You own a license which can be revoked and you - currently - have no recourse. Correct. In USA it’s all thanks to ProCS v. Zeidenberg: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD,_Inc._v._Zeidenberg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD,_Inc._v._Zeidenberg As far as I understand based on reading that wiki if company writes in that license that they can take away your ability to use software then you don’t own software that you buy. People need to boycott online only, server dependent games. However, in other countries this may be illegal and needs to be challenged.
- armchairhacker 3y ago
  > As far as I understand based on reading that wiki if company writes in that license that they can take away your ability to use software then you don’t own software that you buy. I didn’t get that at all? The ruling just states that a company can put a license in their software that you have to open first, and you accept once you start using the software. It doesn’t say that licenses that arbitrarily revoke the software are enforceable.
  - beretguy 3y ago
    > However, this did not lead to a victory for Zeidenberg, because the circuit court held that copyright law does not preempt contract law. Since ProCD had made the investments in its business and its specific SelectPhone product, it could require customers to agree to its terms on how to use the product, including a prohibition on copying the information therein regardless of copyright protections. Specifically this part: “it could require customers to agree to its terms on how to use the product”. Since Ubisoft invested money into developing a game they can legally say in their license “at some point you won’t be able to use this software”, which basically translates to “you don’t own software”.
EA-3167 3y ago
> You own a license which can be revoked and you - currently - have no recourse. Well famously there is one recourse, it's just that things like Steam are more convenient. If that changes though, well... ...Arr.

beretguy 3y ago

… and this is the court ruling to blame for such a thing to be legal in USA: ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD,_Inc._v._Zeidenberg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD,_Inc._v._Zeidenberg

Jemm 3y ago

Prior to NAFTA we could rent software. NAFTA made that illegal. Now we have this system but how is it really different?

beretguy 3y ago
When you rent you know EXACTLY when your rent ends. Games-as-a-Service don’t provide such data upfront. In fact, they don’t mention that you won’t be able to play game at some point in the future AT ALL. GaaS are being sold like all the other games or goods that you can own. People spend money thinking they are buying something they “OWN” but a few years later that “something” is gone.
CamperBob2 3y ago
I'm unfamiliar with this regulation against renting software. Can you elaborate?

jabsters 3y ago

Accursed Farms on YouTube is trying to gather the community to take actions, specifically outside the US: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAD5iMe0Xj4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAD5iMe0Xj4

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

yungporko 3y ago

really reaching for a story here. ubisoft are shutting down an online game that has been running for 10 years which flopped, wasn't very good, and which zero people actually care about. with all the disgusting things ubisoft actually do, we don't need to be making things up to get angry about.

gentleman11 3y ago
There was a recent advertising push for this, wasn’t there? I saw a ton of ads for this recently
- dangus 3y ago
  There’s a newer game in the franchise that recently came out.
beretguy 3y ago
You are probably trolling and I should not waste my time replying to you, but I have nothing better to do right now so I’ll let myself fall for it. 1. > which flopped, wasn't very good, and which zero people actually care about Speak for yourself. 2. > wasn’t very good That game has the entire map of USA. It’s a driving game with one of the biggest maps in existence. I think it takes about an hour of real world time to drive from SF to NY. I feel myself silly having to explain this to you. 3. > has been running for 10 years How about people of the future who would want to play this game? How about all the hard work developers put into developing this game? All their work is gone and nobody will experience their creation? Using the same logic: should we burn all paintings ever made after 10 years because enough people looked at them?
- dangus 3y ago
  I don’t think you should assume that person is trolling. It’s reasonable to expect online games to eventually cease operations. This game in particular had a mediocre metacritic score and had under 100 concurrent players on average if you check Steam statistics. If you want to extend the logic to art then you’d have to compare multiplayer games to performance art. A multiplayer game without a player base basically isn’t a game just like a piece of performance art is ephemeral.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

theoreticalmal 3y ago

The problem isn’t that these companies are denying access to a game that millions paid money for, the problem is they marketed the game as a purchase that the buyer will be able to use forever, and are now ostensibly changing the rules. There needs to be really clear marketing about whether a purchase relies on an internet connection and a working auth server to run.

beretguy 3y ago
Correct. If they want to destroy their own game it sucks but it’s ok IFF they explicitly let users know that they won’t be able to play the game forever. They should provide a shut down date upfront.

dangus 3y ago

10 year old online game, if you paid $60 for it in 2014 you’ve got plenty of value for money for your entertainment. I feel like it’s very silly to expect every single game to have a single player mode. Yes, multiplayer games cost money, and yes, most of them shut down at some point. The trade off is that you can get a lot more hours out of them than a typical single player experience. My feeling is that lot of people who don’t really understand gaming and are coming from the open source community come out on threads like this to express shock and disgust at practices that are basically industry standard, completely reasonable practices that most players expect. It would be like if a Blu-ray enthusiast came to a movie theater and pulled the fire alarm because all the patrons didn’t get to keep the movie forever.

beretguy 3y ago
> 10 year old online game, if you paid $60 for it in 2014 you’ve got plenty of value for money for your entertainment How about people who aren’t born yet who would love to play this game? Should we also burn all books that are older than 10 years because enough people read them? > I feel like it’s very silly to expect every single game to have a single player mode. Yes, multiplayer games cost money, and yes, most of them shut down at some point. We are not talking about single/multi player games. No, multiplayer games don’t always cost money. What we are talking about is people buying a software thinking they will be able to use it forever, but 10 years later seller destroying what people have bought. There are 2 correct solutions to this problem: 1. Let people know the shut down date at the time of purchase. 2. Allow people to play game without of having to rely on a server that people don’t control. For example, Ubisoft could open source their The Crew server (or at least release binary) so that people could run that server themselves to be able to play the game.
- dangus 3y ago
  Ultimately Ubisoft is the author of the work, the holder of the copyright, and can do what they want. Yes, an artist can withdraw their painting from public viewing so that people in the future don’t get to experience it. They can charge you an entry fee to their exhibition and tell you to leave at the end of the day. As far as the shutdown date, there’s no way to predict that at time of launch. Companies can only promise what is financially viable. A mediocre selling game of this type going for 10 years of working online is considered pretty decent in the gaming world. Many game studios don’t even last 10 years. It would be nice to get a dedicated server but not every multiplayer game type is suited for it and Ubisoft has to pay someone to develop that free product that doesn’t make them a dime. A game like Fortnite would be difficult to offer as a dedicated server product. You need 100 players just to play a match, and the game’s multiplayer infrastructure is built with a huge player base in mind. It is not likely something that can be practically offered as a simple executable that can be run on a consumer system without major changes. (What I meant by saying that multipayer games cost money is that despite having a purchase price for the license it’s generally understood that they’re not guaranteed to be “open forever” types of experiences. People who buy call of duty know that that year’s version of the game will not have a player base forever and will eventually be shut off. Like I’ve pointed out in other comments, there’s a literal disclaimer on the box that says that much).