6 ms·

"acting as a stark reminder of how volatile digital ownership is" Okay I'm gonna say out loud what people are thinking, just pirate videogames. These companie

by hd4 2y ago

"acting as a stark reminder of how volatile digital ownership is" Okay I'm gonna say out loud what people are thinking, just pirate videogames. These companies are comfortable with taking away ownership of a product we paid for when they feel like, they broke the social contract, just take their shit.

TiredOfLife 2y ago
This was online only game.
- nextaccountic 2y ago
  Then if they are shutting down they should be forced to release a server and let people host themselves This or else don't sell the software implying people own it
- javawizard 2y ago
  Was it? From TFA: > [...] despite a large portion of the game being doable in singleplayer [...]
  - chiefjosh 2y ago
    It's a single player game, that requires check-ins to an online server. When Ubisoft shuts down their servers the single player will be unplayable.
- workfromspace 2y ago
  I haven't played this game, but the article says: > despite a large portion of the game being doable in singleplayer, The Crew remained an online-only endeavour throughout its decade-long lifespan. So it didn't have to be online if it wasn't for corporate greed.
  - gambiting 2y ago
    Well, hate to be a devils advocate but the entirety of The Crew was designed from the very start as an MMO-like experience with your session hosted on a server. It's not like the game was built as a single player experience and then Ubisoft HQnsaid "you know what guys, make it online only because that will make us more money". Ivory Tower wanted to build a permanently online car MMO-like game from the start. Arguably they didn't have to build it that way, but if that's the creative vision then I wouldn't say it's wrong. What's wrong is shutting down the servers.
    - neurostimulant 2y ago
      > https://steamcommunity.com/app/241560/discussions/0/3803901559414708777/?ctp=1 https://steamcommunity.com/app/241560/discussions/0/38039015... > Update > I can now confirm that local save data functionality is indeed built into all our copies and is not absent from the game, we have even obtained a sample save data file. This + the fact that we literally see offline mode in action in the prologue means that there 100% is an offline mode, if anyone was doubting at this point. Which results in: > https://steamcommunity.com/app/241560/discussions/0/4306075118785997064/ https://steamcommunity.com/app/241560/discussions/0/43060751... > Save Game Dumper now available > However, you only have a limited time, after 31 march the servers will go down and your save file will be forever lost.
- alpaca128 2y ago
  Not only would most of the game not require an internet connection to function, but people actually found out that the game already contains an official offline mode but Ubisoft couldn't even be bothered to make it available.
stavros 2y ago
This is wrong, digital ownership isn't volatile at all. I have software I can do whatever I want with, including copy it. The problem is when we're actually renting but it's being marketed as ownership. We need laws that say "if your software can stop functioning if a company goes under, without a technical reason, you can't say 'buy', you can only say 'rent'".
- hd4 2y ago
  "The problem is when we're actually renting but it's being marketed as ownership." which is the primary form of videogame ownership now.
  - stavros 2y ago
    Yep.
  - nkrisc 2y ago
    The point is these companies should legally be restricted from using terms like “buy” or “purchase” wherever their game is sold. Instead they should be required to use terms like “lease” or “rent”. The common understanding of terms like “buy” or “purchase” is that you own the item. This is clearly not the case for nearly all games consumers lease today.
    - Dalewyn 2y ago
      In a way we are moving towards a more honest/ethical way of marketing and selling/leasing games and software in general: SaaS, or subscriptions. Purchasing a subscription very clearly conveys the ultimately temporary and ephemeral nature of the purchase. Note: I'm not saying this is necessarily a good or bad thing nor whether we should like or hate it, I'm merely pointing out a shift in market trends.
      - drivingmenuts 2y ago
        I'm not sure I see a difference between renting and subscribing, with regards to software. I do know, however, that I hate both models because both seek to milk the user for all they are worth.
gherkinnn 2y ago
As the meme goes, if buying isn't owning then pirating isn't stealing.
- depressedpanda 2y ago
  Piracy has never been theft, regardless of what lies the public has been fed. It's copyright infringement.
  - sidewndr46 2y ago
    The fact that the word "piracy" is somehow re-used for copyright infringement is one of the largest victories in language wars of the 20th century. It's Orwellian double speak at its best. Everyone know we are not talking about actual pirates raiding someone goods, but we use it none the less. The intense irony of this is that piracy was often sanctioned by nations during times of war in the 18th and 19th century. It gave them an option to conduct commerce raiding without the need for an explicit expansion of their navy. It could even be considered patriotic.
    - bonoboTP 2y ago
      I see some (including RMS) get hung up on the term "piracy", even though for most people the word pirate is not really associated with real-world crime and criminals, its a fun cartoonish thing, Jolly Roger hat, eyepatch, hook hand, wooden leg, parrot on the shoulder, arrr etc. They don't think of pirates on the Somalian coast holding AK47s.
cjk2 2y ago
I prefer to do the taking shit up front because you never know if you can take their shit later. (I do pay for it but only after I'm sure I can take it)
grishka 2y ago
Digital "ownership" isn't really ownership even when the companies aren't being assholes because you can't resell the thing. Hardly anyone noticed this ability being taken away, but back in the day, the secondary market for games on physical media, especially console games, was huge. It was much more affordable to buy a pre-owned game than a new one, with no downsides.
- Libcat99 2y ago
  This has also led to the preservation of many of the games I grew up with. There's still a market for NES and Atari consoles and a market for the cartridges because you can still play and use them. It's going to be a very different story for modern consoles.
  - grishka 2y ago
    All current-generation consoles do still take physical media, but yeah, there already are some smaller games that only come as digital. For those, I guess, piracy is the only way they could be preserved.
    - Libcat99 2y ago
      The physical media doesn't matter if shutting down the service makes it unplayable.
redprince 2y ago
> taking away ownership of a product we paid for If you should ever bother too look into your end user license agreements (EULA), you'd know you never owned anything to begin with. Nothing was ever sold to you. You acquired a license to use the product under the specified terms set forth in the EULA. If the terms of this license agreement don't sit right with you, I suggest you don't take the deal.
- gambiting 2y ago
  EULAs are nearly worthless where I live though, so actually if it says "buy" the product is bought not rented, no matter what the EULA says.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - redprince 2y ago
    And what exactly have you bought then? I mean beyond hopefully a physical medium, the right to use that software in perpetuity and to transfer that software to others?
    - tracker1 2y ago
      You mean like a book? Yes, that would be a natural assumption.
- VS1999 2y ago
  Every time this comes up someone in the comments pops up to smugly remind us that the EULA says we, as consumers, don't have rights. Why are you like this? Everyone knows we don't have rights. That's why we're complaining.
  - redprince 2y ago
    You clearly have rights and you clearly have a choice: You can for example say no to this kind of software and not license it. You could also accept that you will only be able to use the software fully for a limited time and be fine with paying for that. What is striking me as quite disingenuous though is the loud complaining when the manufacturer does what was made clear right from the start. As if somehow a betrayal or theft was happening here which clearly isn't the case.
SergeAx 2y ago
"If buying is not owning, then piracy is not stealing"

by hd4 2y ago

TiredOfLife 2y ago

This was online only game.

nextaccountic 2y ago
Then if they are shutting down they should be forced to release a server and let people host themselves This or else don't sell the software implying people own it
javawizard 2y ago
Was it? From TFA: > [...] despite a large portion of the game being doable in singleplayer [...]
- chiefjosh 2y ago
  It's a single player game, that requires check-ins to an online server. When Ubisoft shuts down their servers the single player will be unplayable.
workfromspace 2y ago
I haven't played this game, but the article says: > despite a large portion of the game being doable in singleplayer, The Crew remained an online-only endeavour throughout its decade-long lifespan. So it didn't have to be online if it wasn't for corporate greed.
- gambiting 2y ago
  Well, hate to be a devils advocate but the entirety of The Crew was designed from the very start as an MMO-like experience with your session hosted on a server. It's not like the game was built as a single player experience and then Ubisoft HQnsaid "you know what guys, make it online only because that will make us more money". Ivory Tower wanted to build a permanently online car MMO-like game from the start. Arguably they didn't have to build it that way, but if that's the creative vision then I wouldn't say it's wrong. What's wrong is shutting down the servers.
  - neurostimulant 2y ago
    > https://steamcommunity.com/app/241560/discussions/0/3803901559414708777/?ctp=1 https://steamcommunity.com/app/241560/discussions/0/38039015... > Update > I can now confirm that local save data functionality is indeed built into all our copies and is not absent from the game, we have even obtained a sample save data file. This + the fact that we literally see offline mode in action in the prologue means that there 100% is an offline mode, if anyone was doubting at this point. Which results in: > https://steamcommunity.com/app/241560/discussions/0/4306075118785997064/ https://steamcommunity.com/app/241560/discussions/0/43060751... > Save Game Dumper now available > However, you only have a limited time, after 31 march the servers will go down and your save file will be forever lost.
alpaca128 2y ago
Not only would most of the game not require an internet connection to function, but people actually found out that the game already contains an official offline mode but Ubisoft couldn't even be bothered to make it available.

stavros 2y ago

This is wrong, digital ownership isn't volatile at all. I have software I can do whatever I want with, including copy it. The problem is when we're actually renting but it's being marketed as ownership. We need laws that say "if your software can stop functioning if a company goes under, without a technical reason, you can't say 'buy', you can only say 'rent'".

hd4 2y ago
"The problem is when we're actually renting but it's being marketed as ownership." which is the primary form of videogame ownership now.
- stavros 2y ago
  Yep.
- nkrisc 2y ago
  The point is these companies should legally be restricted from using terms like “buy” or “purchase” wherever their game is sold. Instead they should be required to use terms like “lease” or “rent”. The common understanding of terms like “buy” or “purchase” is that you own the item. This is clearly not the case for nearly all games consumers lease today.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    In a way we are moving towards a more honest/ethical way of marketing and selling/leasing games and software in general: SaaS, or subscriptions. Purchasing a subscription very clearly conveys the ultimately temporary and ephemeral nature of the purchase. Note: I'm not saying this is necessarily a good or bad thing nor whether we should like or hate it, I'm merely pointing out a shift in market trends.
    - drivingmenuts 2y ago
      I'm not sure I see a difference between renting and subscribing, with regards to software. I do know, however, that I hate both models because both seek to milk the user for all they are worth.

gherkinnn 2y ago

As the meme goes, if buying isn't owning then pirating isn't stealing.

depressedpanda 2y ago
Piracy has never been theft, regardless of what lies the public has been fed. It's copyright infringement.
- sidewndr46 2y ago
  The fact that the word "piracy" is somehow re-used for copyright infringement is one of the largest victories in language wars of the 20th century. It's Orwellian double speak at its best. Everyone know we are not talking about actual pirates raiding someone goods, but we use it none the less. The intense irony of this is that piracy was often sanctioned by nations during times of war in the 18th and 19th century. It gave them an option to conduct commerce raiding without the need for an explicit expansion of their navy. It could even be considered patriotic.
  - bonoboTP 2y ago
    I see some (including RMS) get hung up on the term "piracy", even though for most people the word pirate is not really associated with real-world crime and criminals, its a fun cartoonish thing, Jolly Roger hat, eyepatch, hook hand, wooden leg, parrot on the shoulder, arrr etc. They don't think of pirates on the Somalian coast holding AK47s.

cjk2 2y ago

I prefer to do the taking shit up front because you never know if you can take their shit later. (I do pay for it but only after I'm sure I can take it)

grishka 2y ago

Digital "ownership" isn't really ownership even when the companies aren't being assholes because you can't resell the thing. Hardly anyone noticed this ability being taken away, but back in the day, the secondary market for games on physical media, especially console games, was huge. It was much more affordable to buy a pre-owned game than a new one, with no downsides.

Libcat99 2y ago
This has also led to the preservation of many of the games I grew up with. There's still a market for NES and Atari consoles and a market for the cartridges because you can still play and use them. It's going to be a very different story for modern consoles.
- grishka 2y ago
  All current-generation consoles do still take physical media, but yeah, there already are some smaller games that only come as digital. For those, I guess, piracy is the only way they could be preserved.
  - Libcat99 2y ago
    The physical media doesn't matter if shutting down the service makes it unplayable.

redprince 2y ago

> taking away ownership of a product we paid for If you should ever bother too look into your end user license agreements (EULA), you'd know you never owned anything to begin with. Nothing was ever sold to you. You acquired a license to use the product under the specified terms set forth in the EULA. If the terms of this license agreement don't sit right with you, I suggest you don't take the deal.

gambiting 2y ago
EULAs are nearly worthless where I live though, so actually if it says "buy" the product is bought not rented, no matter what the EULA says.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- redprince 2y ago
  And what exactly have you bought then? I mean beyond hopefully a physical medium, the right to use that software in perpetuity and to transfer that software to others?
  - tracker1 2y ago
    You mean like a book? Yes, that would be a natural assumption.
VS1999 2y ago
Every time this comes up someone in the comments pops up to smugly remind us that the EULA says we, as consumers, don't have rights. Why are you like this? Everyone knows we don't have rights. That's why we're complaining.
- redprince 2y ago
  You clearly have rights and you clearly have a choice: You can for example say no to this kind of software and not license it. You could also accept that you will only be able to use the software fully for a limited time and be fine with paying for that. What is striking me as quite disingenuous though is the loud complaining when the manufacturer does what was made clear right from the start. As if somehow a betrayal or theft was happening here which clearly isn't the case.

SergeAx 2y ago

"If buying is not owning, then piracy is not stealing"