Ubisoft CEO responds to Stop Killing Games petition, says "Nothing is eternal"

Daniel Sims

Posts: 1,988   +56
Staff
In a nutshell: The Stop Killing Games initiative has been campaigning to convince the European Union to determine whether game publishers can legally render online titles permanently unplayable. As publishers push back and the CEO of Ubisoft addresses the issue, the central argument boils down to whether online games are media or services.

Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot recently waded into the controversy over the end-of-life deactivation of online games. He highlighted the company's efforts to address the problem while also suggesting that players should never expect perpetual access to such titles. "You provide a service, but nothing is written in stone, and at some point the service may be discontinued. Nothing is eternal," he said.

The CEO made the comments at a recent shareholder meeting, according to Game File (paywalled) via GamesRadar. While discussing how the issue affects the industry at large, Guillemot also focused on the Ubisoft game that pushed YouTuber Ross Scott of Accursed Farms to launch Stop Killing Games – The Crew.

Ubisoft deactivated the online-only game's servers last year, making it unplayable for over 12 million paying customers. Some of them subsequently sued the company.

Guillemot pointed out how Ubisoft temporarily discounted The Crew 2 to $1 before decommissioning its predecessor to migrate customers. Furthermore, the company pledged to implement offline modes for The Crew 2 and The Crew Motorfest when they reach end-of-life.

However, the CEO's wording suggests that Ubisoft views purchases as entrance fees for services that do not confer ownership over a product. That key argument is what Scott says the European Parliament will decide on if it considers the petition from Stop Destroying Games, the continent's counterpart to Stop Killing Games.

Guillemot's comments implied that The Crew 2 is a suitable replacement for The Crew, comparing the games to software that is continually updated and eventually enters obsolescence. "A lot of tools become obsolete 10 or 15 years down the line," he said. "They're no longer available. And that is why we release a new version."

This viewpoint is generally accepted regarding free-to-play or subscription-based games such as Counter-Strike 2 or Final Fantasy XIV. However, in the eyes of many consumers, the fact that playing The Crew required a one-time purchase at full retail price attracts comparisons to traditional offline media.

In response to Guillemot, Scott reiterated that Stop Killing Games and its European partner are not asking publishers to maintain their servers perpetually. Instead, they believe titles should remain playable after official support ends, ideally through either offline modes or private servers, which have kept some online games playable for decades.

A handful of European politicians have already voiced support for the petition, which now exceeds 1.4 million signatures. Most notably, European Parliament Vice President Nicolae Ștefănuță added his signature and stated his belief that games, once sold, belong to the buyer.

The deadline for the European petition ends on July 31.

Permalink to story:

 
Odd to me how it would literally take less effort to not put these kill switches and DRM in games; freaking Halo 1 on the PC is still running perfectly fine over 20 years later, multiplayer and server browser included.

-Yeah the issue is that "Stop Killing Games" directly targets a deliberate business practice intended to force consumers onto a new product.

Everyone knows it, and that's why our favorite AAAA CEO's arguments sound disingenuous... Because they are.
 
Odd to me how it would literally take less effort to not put these kill switches and DRM in games; freaking Halo 1 on the PC is still running perfectly fine over 20 years later, multiplayer and server browser included.
That is because there is no monetization in not doing that. Monetization is pretty much the ONLY important metric for many publishers (especially AA+) nowadays and the passion (and backs) of players and developers alike are a worth breaking under it.
 
As far as I’m concerned, their “service” ends with multiplayer, updates, and server supports. The fact that games have now devolved from a stand-alone and untethered product, to a subscription and access-only service is a major problem.
Shocking how we went from A to B in the span of what, 10-15 years.

Once you download it, pay for it, it should be yours forever, amiright. Instead, the “own nothing and be happy” is how they plan to (bank)roll the future. No wonder piracy is still alive and well…
 
So, for some types of games (MMOs, etc...) the whole point is you're playing online with other people and the vast majority of the game world is on the "server". I see no reason why, when that MMO shuts down for whatever reason, that a person deserves the "server" code. They're usually massive multi-server or multi-cluster environments that take a lot of care and feeding to keep up.

Now, other types of games like COD / Battlefront that clearly have a instance of a "server" and max player counts of like 16 or 32 players per "server" I see no technical reason why they don't just have "official" servers and 3rd party servers. Well, I know the reason, money, but there is no technical reason.

The problem is, just like the CAFE standards, if one makes some sort of "line" of what's mutliplayer or an MMO or whatever and what deserves a server the publishers will just skirt it and make their gams bigger for no reason just to say they're an "MMO".

For single player or games that are the old "LAN" party with 3 or 4 people (think Starcraft or Warcraft or Unreal: Tournament) there is ZERO reason all that stuff just isn't in the client and can't just be released to the wild when the "online servers" shutdown. It's all about the benjamins. The online servers should just be for official "ladders" and player matching or a central hub to make connecting easier, but server code to run that yourself should be available.
 
Boy, Guillemot just want to drive Ubisoft in to the ground? I swear, games were better before we invited the suits to the party.
The same can be said about pretty much anything. MBAs ****ed up a lot of companies in the search for "the line going up". Sure, if you bought stock at the right time, etc....and profited from it it's great, but otherwise for the other X% of people it sucks.
 
Maybe he'd better understand this issue if we passed a law stating all his customers could take their money back at any time and keep the right to play the game regardless. Enough quarters of that and he'd eventually see the problem of him feeling he can turn his games off at any time while continuing to keep the customer's money.
 
So, for some types of games (MMOs, etc...) the whole point is you're playing online with other people and the vast majority of the game world is on the "server". I see no reason why, when that MMO shuts down for whatever reason, that a person deserves the "server" code. They're usually massive multi-server or multi-cluster environments that take a lot of care and feeding to keep up.

Now, other types of games like COD / Battlefront that clearly have a instance of a "server" and max player counts of like 16 or 32 players per "server" I see no technical reason why they don't just have "official" servers and 3rd party servers. Well, I know the reason, money, but there is no technical reason.

The problem is, just like the CAFE standards, if one makes some sort of "line" of what's mutliplayer or an MMO or whatever and what deserves a server the publishers will just skirt it and make their gams bigger for no reason just to say they're an "MMO".

For single player or games that are the old "LAN" party with 3 or 4 people (think Starcraft or Warcraft or Unreal: Tournament) there is ZERO reason all that stuff just isn't in the client and can't just be released to the wild when the "online servers" shutdown. It's all about the benjamins. The online servers should just be for official "ladders" and player matching or a central hub to make connecting easier, but server code to run that yourself should be available.

- Re "The vast majority of the game is on a server" its not. The game files all run locally on your computer, you download and install MMOs like any other game.

The server simply handles the netcode and making sure players know where the other players are.

After a company designs a whole *** game, removing or bypassing the network requirement should really be trivially easy.
 
So, for some types of games (MMOs, etc...) the whole point is you're playing online with other people and the vast majority of the game world is on the "server". I see no reason why, when that MMO shuts down for whatever reason, that a person deserves the "server" code. They're usually massive multi-server or multi-cluster environments that take a lot of care and feeding to keep up.

Now, other types of games like COD / Battlefront that clearly have a instance of a "server" and max player counts of like 16 or 32 players per "server" I see no technical reason why they don't just have "official" servers and 3rd party servers. Well, I know the reason, money, but there is no technical reason.

The problem is, just like the CAFE standards, if one makes some sort of "line" of what's mutliplayer or an MMO or whatever and what deserves a server the publishers will just skirt it and make their gams bigger for no reason just to say they're an "MMO".

For single player or games that are the old "LAN" party with 3 or 4 people (think Starcraft or Warcraft or Unreal: Tournament) there is ZERO reason all that stuff just isn't in the client and can't just be released to the wild when the "online servers" shutdown. It's all about the benjamins. The online servers should just be for official "ladders" and player matching or a central hub to make connecting easier, but server code to run that yourself should be available.
GodisanAtheist already summed it up, but to add on, WoW classic servers were a thing for a very long time, entirely reverse engineered by volunteers.

It clearly isnt that difficult to run this stuff for the small communities that want it (and as runescape and blizzard found out, that community isnt that small in the end).

ANY product that relies on internet connectivity should have an option for self hosting. There is no technological reason this isnt feasible, its entirely artificial, created by the corporations that want you to buy the newest thing.
 
If buying is not owning, then torrenting is not stealing.
Funny thing: I’ve actually bought No One Lives Forever after playing a cracked copy. I felt that the developers really earned my money with that witty, campy ‘60s spy adventure.
Now the game is gone, along Monolith and not available to purchase from anywhere which is a pity as I would pay actual money for a remake, like I did for System Shock or The Day Of The Tentacle or many other old games.
I fully understand the issue here is online gaming but even those should be handled reasonably.
 
Says the worlds shittiest video game company, and the center of most of the anger. This is one of those situations they would have been best served saying nothing than anything, particularly Ubisoft of all companies.
 
Really? How about the Bible then? Can I not read it 2000 years later? Tell me about it, you clown.

If that's too abstract for you, please explain how I'm still able to play Wolfenstein in all its DOS glory on a 64 bit Windows 11 (or Linux. or Mac) machine?

"Nothing is eternal" my arse.
 
If someone keeps doing something to you that you don't like - you're allowing it to continue.

The only language companies speak, is cha-ching.
 
I'm just gonna put it out there: Ubisoft is in the business of putting out steaming overpriced turds. Their "you own nothing" business model is that you're forced to buy the next game even if it is worse than its predecessor.

Stop Killing Games is acting on the principle that gamers will move on to newer games because they are better, and it would not affect a "normal" video game distribution model. (news flash, new games are not better, just more expensive).

Both are wrong.

It is a matter of time until videogames publishers start putting a "service charge" on games to support the SKG model.
 
Back