Ubisoft is removing The Crew from libraries following shutdown, reigniting digital ownership debate

[Neatfeatguy]

we're not crying about it, we're trying to dodge a shitty future outcome. or are you just ok with your money being stolen?

more and more single player games get an un-needed online tether attached these days, that'll be all a company would need to snatch away whatever you bought for whatever reason they see fit.

were heading into or are already in an online focused future, may as well speak up and fight now before it gets wrecked.

Still, you seem to think that you are owed the right for them to forever keep the servers for an online only game up just for your benefit. It's not my fault you don't understand and it certainly isn't Ubisoft's fault.

Online only games will not be around for ever. If you can't understand that from history of online only games that no longer have servers, then that is on you. Perhaps after this, what we shall call a "lesson", you guys will come to remember what can happen to "online only" games.

These are your options when you come across a game you don't like, for whatever reason, but in this case we'll call it "online connection required" reason:
1) pay for access to the game and play it while it's online, but have the understanding that you do not own anything. You only pay for the rights to access it and once the severs go offline then you no longer can use it.
2) Do not pay the developer money for these types of games and vote with your wallet

If you choose to pay for the game and then cry about it later that you can no longer play it, you only have yourself to blame for paying for an online only game that won't be around forever and for your continuing support for these tactics from developers.

 

[Neatfeatguy]

Then you haven't gamed in about 10 years.

It's okay if reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, I won't judge.

I buy games when I want, but I don't support any single player game that requires an online connection to play. If any single player game will not run without being connected to the internet, I won't support it. For example: When Diablo 3 came on out on PC it peeked my interest, but as soon as I learned you cannot play the single player campaign without always having an internet connection I choose not to buy it.

I have a lot of games, but any game I have I purchase off GoG these days. I can download the files to my side, keep them and install the game on any system (without requiring internet to install and play).

 

[fadingfool]

Disgusting behaviour from Ubisoft - only thing to do is boycott them from now on and make clear on all the surveys they request responses to (there is one on the "new" interface is running at the moment) that this action is why you will no longer be purchasing ubisoft games (admittedly not been many games worth purchasing from ubisoft in recent years) . Hit them where it hurts.

 

[toooooot]

Dream world for game makers:
Every game is a live service existing in a moment and disappearing completely with a press of a button. Games are free, but every "customer" pays subscription service. Oh and there are additional items for real money in "product." And purchasable DLCs, and many more, all beautifully crafted and ready to be bought.
They want to spam content like Netflix and the product to either be or not be. Therefore, people would either play or not play games at all. What is this ancient idea of making quality games, this is stupid. They wish people paid always, and played what is there, not what is worth playing.
They try very hard this live service, and subscription. But while subscription makes sense given how much new games cost, live service requires as much skill as really good games to succeed.
For us, live service is bad. It is a guarantee that the game will one day (very possibly very soon) will disappear completely. This reason alone makes a game worth less. It ensures that it will disappear to be replaced by prettier, much more expensive product that you will have to buy if you wanted to play the old one.

 

[llamapanda]

At the point of sale it says BUY. Not rent, subscribe or lease - BUY. Not hard to see why people would expect to keep a copy even if it went offline and can be resurrected by community mods. At the end of the day, they pay for something that Ubi not only shut down but also now deletes it's very existence from their account like you never owned it.

Sets a bad precedent if we let this continue.

This is something the EU is pretty heavy on. All it takes is for someone to find a copy of an original EULA or Steam/UPlay advertising that says 'Buy your copy now' which can be interpreted as each player actually owning a copy they could use forever, as if they'd bought an audio CD. The suits could force Ubisoft to reinstate servers and licence keys for as long as it takes them to untangle all the legal spaghetti over what people have actually paid for. What fun it would then be after that case concludes, making a Freedom of Information request and the whole world getting to see exactly how much it actually costs to run the servers and maintain licences...

 

[mrtraver]

Ubisoft: We can take our toys and go home any time we want even if you gave us money for them.

Me: Got it. You keep your toys; I will give my money to someone else instead.

 

[amghwk]

People who depend and prefer online-only games are asking for it. They should have seen it coming. Any game that depends on a central server to function, is bound to go kaput one day.

There's nothing like playing a game installed in your own system and doesn't need to connect online to play single player game.

Games should have maintained the TCP/IP or even IPX based networked route. (Original Diablo 2 is an excellent example of a single player game but can use TCP or IPX connections to play with friends. I'm not a fan of Battle.net though.) Everyone have a copy of the game installed in their own system, and if they really want to play online, use the above method to join.

Usually TCP/IP and IPX based games are played by close friends and don't need to worry too much about cheaters, hackers and harassers.

 

[Skully]

I've never played the game, so obviously this one doesn't affect me. But if this starts to be more prevalent (deleting games from your library) I anticipate they'll be quite an uptick in people sailing the high seas.

 

[Disiw]

I dare say that's the case with most software publishers to be honest, as they view PC gaming as the least profitable route to release. Still don't make it right tho IMO.


Finally someone speaking common sense. As I mentioned earlier, if we just put up with this c*** they'll start killing off games sooner realising they have ultimate control and can get away with it.

Console revenue is the same as PC but PC gaming is on the rise, console is actually dropping right now. Weak current gen consoles are to blame. About 25/25% of the gaming market.

Mobile is like 50% of gaming revenue.

There's even talk about Microsoft is going to branch out Xbox to 3rd party vendors. Meaning that companies can make their own Xboxes, just like all those handheld Windows PCs right now. It does not really matter, because its just a PC at this point and most of the games are made for PCs and Windows / Game Pass is the focus for Xbox going forward.

Microsoft sees little future in Xbox as we know it. Sales are low and they struggle big time competing with Sony.

At the same time, MS are gobbling up game studios to make PC gaming even more relevant. They might even open Xbox up completely and go away from the closed ecosystem Sony and Nintendo has.

 

[llamapanda]

Usually TCP/IP and IPX based games are played by close friends and don't need to worry too much about cheaters, hackers and harassers.

Even better, you can have an absolute riot when everyone agrees on the allowable cheats and hacks, or just calls out new rules to keep things exciting.

 

[mbk34]

Should there be a more generic interface that developers can use to write these server based games? This would mean games wouldn't need a dedicated server but could instead share a server with other games when they get old and less used. Similarly, it could also split a single game across multiple servers if the games proves wildly popular. The advantage would be that developers don't have to maintain and pay for separate servers to keep old games running. I guess players could have their game data removed from the server if they haven't played the game for a number of years.

 

[StrikerRocket]

If this trend goes on, I will just stop paying for computer games at all. Period.
Why not make the game playable offline by using a patch when it reaches end of life? That would be an elegant solution IMHO.

 

[ZedRM]

Game was a live service game. Online only. Was stated on the product page.

No servers = No game. Nothing new.

Just because it not new does not mean it's acceptable. There should be a final patch that makes the game playable offline.

If this trend goes on, I will just stop paying for computer games at all. Period.

Have you not heard of GOG? DRM free gaming. Go check it out and say goodbye to detestable shady crap like this.
https://www.gog.com/

 

[Disiw]

Just because it not new does not mean it's acceptable. There should be a final patch that makes the game playable offline.

Ehh, have you any experience with how games are made? You don't just change that in a 30 min patch lmao. The game was live service from day one and built around always online and multiplayer. Game is 10 years old with crappy ratings, I highly doubt many people will miss it.

 

[Disiw]

Just because it not new does not mean it's acceptable. There should be a final patch that makes the game playable offline.


Have you not heard of GOG? DRM free gaming. Go check it out and say goodbye to detestable shady crap like this.
https://www.gog.com/

Yeah just remember to do manual save backups because their cloud saves are terrible and tons of users lost their save, after a break from the games. They delete old data after just a year or two. Happend to me and many I know.

With Steam you can actually trust that your save is present even efter 10+ years.

 

[ZedRM]

Ehh, have you any experience with how games are made? You don't just change that in a 30 min patch lmao.

Yes. And you're right, it's not a 30minute slam-bam patch. For a team of 3 people, it is a few weeks worth of work to patch out the server code and add in the code needed to offset the missing functionality.

 

[Disiw]

Yes. And you're right, it's not a 30minute slam-bam patch. For a team of 3 people, it is a few weeks worth of work to patch out the server code and add in the code needed to offset the missing functionality.

You don't really know unless you have the source code.

 

[mbk34]

Yes. And you're right, it's not a 30minute slam-bam patch. For a team of 3 people, it is a few weeks worth of work to patch out the server code and add in the code needed to offset the missing functionality.

Writing the code to control NPC type characters where they just walk up and down a road spouting set phrases is obviously easy but writing code to emulate a player controlled character in the game is a hell of lot more difficult. Doing it in such a way that people would want to continue playing against them is more difficult still. Doing it on an unpopular, 10 year old game just isn't going to happen.

 

[StrikerRocket]

Just because it not new does not mean it's acceptable. There should be a final patch that makes the game playable offline.


Have you not heard of GOG? DRM free gaming. Go check it out and say goodbye to detestable shady crap like this.
https://www.gog.com/

Oh yeah, I've been using GOG and for quite a long time now, and in fact, I have already given up on using EA or Ubisoft Connect. I still use them just for the games I already own but I'm not buying anything from them any more.

 

[llamapanda]

Game is 10 years old with crappy ratings, I highly doubt many people will miss it.

Yet here we are, commenting on the second article-based thread the game's demise has spawned on this site alone, while elsewhere a community has sprung into action to try and save it to the extent of invoking legal action.

A patch doesn't need to replicate all the lost function of the online original if it can retain enough of the gameplay to provide some value. The Crew's spiritual predecessor TDU 2 went offline years ago but the game can still be played (minus the online and social elements) and is still a viable experience.

 

[Disiw]

Writing the code to control NPC type characters where they just walk up and down a road spouting set phrases is obviously easy but writing code to emulate a player controlled character in the game is a hell of lot more difficult. Doing it in such a way that people would want to continue playing against them is more difficult still. Doing it on an unpopular, 10 year old game just isn't going to happen.

Exactly time is money and this is a waste of money

People can buy The Crew 2 if they miss it, its better than The Crew anyway, its like 10 dollars and been below 5 dollars many times on sales

Who miss it tho? Class action lawsuit? Sadly waste of time since The Crew stated it is online only since release on product page

Ubisoft generally sucks, just don't buy games from them, simple

Ubisoft Connect is one of the worst launchers ever created if not the worst, they are slowly crawling back to Steam tho

 

[ZedRM]

You don't really know unless you have the source code.

Um, it's guess we can safely make. For Skilled and talented programmers, this would take time, it would not be difficult.

 

[ceasorlydell31]

I just wish companies did what Disney Infinity did where ya it sucks PC is missing the content from 3.0 on console but at least both versions are still playable after the game servers shutdown and if you even had the missing content on Console and the game you can still play what you paid for.