Ubisoft argues players don't own their games in wake of The Crew lawsuit

Daniel Sims

Posts: 2,470   +74
Staff
A hot potato: Many users already understand that buying a digital game typically grants a license to access the software – not true ownership. However, it's rare for publishers to revoke access to titles that customers have paid for, even after those games are delisted. Ubisoft's The Crew stands out as a particularly egregious case, sparking a legal battle over what it truly means to "buy" a game.

Ubisoft's response to a lawsuit over a recently shut-down online game argues that paying customers never truly owned the title. The case has sparked renewed calls for legislation to protect players when games reach end-of-life status.

Two California plaintiffs filed suit against Ubisoft last year after the company shut down servers for The Crew, citing licensing restrictions. Publishers often delist driving games like The Crew and Forza Horizon when licensing agreements with car manufacturers expire.

Users typically retain access to games they purchased prior to delisting, and physical discs often continue to function. However, The Crew is an online-only title, and once Ubisoft deactivated its servers, launching the game merely starts a restricted demo version. Additionally, Ubisoft removed the game from customers' Ubisoft Connect libraries, offering refunds only to those who purchased it recently.

The California plaintiffs, who bought physical copies of the 2014 title years ago, allege that Ubisoft misled customers. They also point to other games that received offline modes when they reached end-of-life as a fairer precedent.

In response, Ubisoft argued that The Crew's packaging clearly states that purchase only grants a temporary license, and that the statute of limitations for the claim has passed. Still, the company has pledged to introduce offline modes for The Crew 2 and The Crew Motorfest.

The plaintiffs then pivoted to argue that The Crew's in-game currency qualifies as a gift certificate under California law, which prohibits expiration. They also pointed to the game's packaging, which states that activation codes remain valid until 2099, implying that the game should remain downloadable until then. Additionally, the plaintiffs contended that the statute of limitations only began in 2023, when Ubisoft announced its plans to shut down the servers.

In response to Ubisoft's decision, a petition urged the Canadian government to introduce protections for online games. The petitioners are calling for legislation that would require game companies to remove server dependencies and override End User License Agreements. The Stop Killing Games Initiative is directing similar demands at multiple governments.

As digital purchases and live-service games become more prevalent, the issue remains far from resolved. Ubisoft, while promoting its subscription service, has previously suggested that consumers should get used to not owning their games.

Valve has acknowledged the legal pressure by updating Steam's language to clarify that customers are not purchasing permanent ownership of games, in accordance with California law. In contrast, GOG mocked Valve's notice by emphasizing its policy of offering DRM-free offline installers for all titles.

Permalink to story:

 
Just to work in my usual Steam stanning, one of the best elements of Steam is even if a game is delisted off their library for sale, it will not get removed from your library.

I have a half dozen games that have been delisted due to rights disputes or just because the publisher wanted to push a crappy remaster instead but because I bought before the delisting the game stays in my library for me to enjoy.
 
When someone invests a lot of time in a game, it often starts to feel like a part of their identity / personality. So, if that game suddenly becomes unavailable for any reason, they can experience a real sense of loss. It's not simply about “owning” the game. It's about the genuine psychological impact the restriction would have. For instance, if Fortnite were to shut down, many players who have grow up with it, they would be deeply saddened and it could even potentially spark public outcry.
 
While it is lame, any game that relies on servers to run is going to go off-line eventually. The Crew 1 is a pretty bad game, there can't hardly be anyone that's actually upset they can't play it anymore.
 
Read the fine print, you have no rights to digital “property”

The only thing you can really be mad about is servers shutting down. But again those aren’t your servers to begin with.

Pirating is not right either, physical media is the answer that we are all too lazy to comprehend.

Also, I love racing games, but The Crew is not even close to being one to get up in arms about.
 
With no guarantee as to how long that license will be honored? What's to keep a game publisher from releasing a game and then killing it the next day?
Nothing but hope,

Ridiculously radical question if you ask me.

Why would a company kill a game before it has time to make back the millions is cost to develop?
 
Sounds like racing games will be the worst offenders of this. Maybe sports too

The licensing agreements kill them over time. At the end of the day the publisher needs to make a business decision. Continue to pay fees on a game that makes us ZERO money anymore or not?

Im surprised they supported this game for as long as they did, 9 years? That is insane.
 
Read the fine print, you have no rights to digital “property”

The only thing you can really be mad about is servers shutting down. But again those aren’t your servers to begin with.

Pirating is not right either, physical media is the answer that we are all too lazy to comprehend.

Also, I love racing games, but The Crew is not even close to being one to get up in arms about.
So what's gonna be the answer if next consoles gonna be digital only?
 
Yet another mess to keep the lawyers happy!

This is The Crew EULA
https://media.contentapi.ea.com/content/dam/eacom/en-us/eula/the-crew-2-eula-en.pdf

12 pages of undecipherable legalese, to which everyone agreed without reading a word. Somewhere inside, it says (but in other words, of course) :
"I agree Ubisoft can screw me in every conceivable way"
There should be a law that the EULA of a software product or service should be max. one standard A4 page long where it's clearly stated whether you pay to own the product or you pay a fee to use it, along with the obligations of the seller.
 
Back