Ubisoft CEO responds to Stop Killing Games petition, says "Nothing is eternal"
- Thread starter Daniel Sims
- Start date
BuckarooBonzaii
Posts: 979 +652
I don't think this will ever end and will the EU make it final? Hard to say as maybe copyrights may now be dragged in.
Last edited:
Ubisoft, definitely, won't last forever.
They need to get used to not having a company.
They need to get used to not having a company.
onebignerd
Posts: 128 +73
Stop acting so entitled!!!
Ubisoft EULA clearly states in section 1 Grant of License; "1.1 UBISOFT (or its licensors) grants You a non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicensed, non-commercial and personal license to install and/or use the Product (in whole or in part) and any Product (the “License”), for such time until either You or UBISOFT terminates this EULA....THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED TO YOU, NOT SOLD.".
Your use of the online account signifies your agreement with the EULA, Terms of Use and Ubisoft's Privacy Policy. All clearly stated in section 1 of the Terms of Use. With one sentence explicitly stating the terms of your online account use; "As a User, your use of any or all of our Services indicates your acceptance of these Terms and your agreement to comply with them fully. If You do not agree with these Terms, please do not continue to use our Services"
This is common to all software nowadays, it is licensed to you, you have zero ownership. Protected by copyright and other legal protections, you never did own the software. Nor does the software company have any legal obligation to maintain software in perpetuity. That people have signed the petition against Ubisoft's license and use agreements effectively terminates their license to play the game and use their online account.
Ubisoft EULA clearly states in section 1 Grant of License; "1.1 UBISOFT (or its licensors) grants You a non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicensed, non-commercial and personal license to install and/or use the Product (in whole or in part) and any Product (the “License”), for such time until either You or UBISOFT terminates this EULA....THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED TO YOU, NOT SOLD.".
Your use of the online account signifies your agreement with the EULA, Terms of Use and Ubisoft's Privacy Policy. All clearly stated in section 1 of the Terms of Use. With one sentence explicitly stating the terms of your online account use; "As a User, your use of any or all of our Services indicates your acceptance of these Terms and your agreement to comply with them fully. If You do not agree with these Terms, please do not continue to use our Services"
This is common to all software nowadays, it is licensed to you, you have zero ownership. Protected by copyright and other legal protections, you never did own the software. Nor does the software company have any legal obligation to maintain software in perpetuity. That people have signed the petition against Ubisoft's license and use agreements effectively terminates their license to play the game and use their online account.
BlackyNoir
Posts: 40 +114
Exactly right! We should be fed up with those corporations thinking they are entitled to our money until the end of times. When they sell a product, that product (all of the product) is ours, exactly like when we buy a raspberry or a chair or a aspirin.
Almost worse is those individuals (or PR muscle pretending to be normal individual) who are defending billion dollars corporation and their purposeful attack on very basic right of ownership. Like, to take a very stupid example, thinking a unilateral contract like a EULA is the same as the law, or worse as the societal norm. It's just a one sided contract, that any judge can eviscerate every time they wish.
You tell them, you tell Ubisoft and Guillemot to stop thinking they are entitled to our money!! Good on you!
No EULA has been tried and tested in courts, if it did it would most likely collapse under the weight of the hubris and arrogance of the corporation, which is why they settle out of court.
Agreed but then software 'piracy' isn't stealing, that's a term they created to manipulate us into believing that their own criminal or unethical practices are somehow better than people not paying for some product.
llamapanda
Posts: 88 +125
The issue isn't that people won't buy new games if they're still playing an old one; it's been proven that gamers buy games they never get round to playing, by the hundreds in some cases. It's that they don't have time to actually play the games. That hurts the 'number of players online' stats and the amount of engagement and social media noise around the product. In turn this affects the amount you can charge advertisers for slots in your latest yearly franchised slop offering and the deal you can get for in-game music licences. There's nothing stopping games that are 'no longer financially viable' from having their code open-sourced (even partially) to allow the community to do their thing. Adjust the EULA to mandate the removal of licenced content or advertising to net you some legal security and let the fans rip. The majority care enough about their chosen timesink that they won't bite the hand that feeds anyway, and it'll be a shot in the arm for the reputation of the publisher/devs too.
Another day, another Ubisoft controversy. To be objective, I understand that I never really own any digital content. However in this case, the game was designed to be online and while they can technically try and make the game offline so as to prolong the lifespan, they chose to just pull the plug on the servers. Hence, the action that Ubisoft chose to take just don't look good optically if you paid for the game.
I completely disengaged from gaming market. Used to play and buy, years didn't. Go on with your subscriptions without me. I also don't play betas disguised as full games. Neither stand at hypocritical midcombat conversations about LGPTQ,+. Leave propaganda out of a product I buy or I don't buy.
acrossthestars
Posts: 274 +262
"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."
Only an out-of-touch CEO, of a multi-million dollar company, could pretend to be this dense. I say pretend, because I know this guy doesn't believe what he's saying. You don’t become the head honcho, of one of the most formerly-respected publishers in the gaming industry, without at least vaguely understanding your own product. Games are iterative, but they are not fungible. The sequel IS NOT the original. The Crew is not Microsoft Office or Adobe Photoshop; to even make that comparison is a bad faith take, of the highest order.
I wonder which of his board partners convinced him to trot out this bullsh*t, knowing that this is purely a face-saving move, to keep the share price high, and that they don’t have to be in the firing line. If these are his own words and not orders from on high, he has no business being CEO.
Only an out-of-touch CEO, of a multi-million dollar company, could pretend to be this dense. I say pretend, because I know this guy doesn't believe what he's saying. You don’t become the head honcho, of one of the most formerly-respected publishers in the gaming industry, without at least vaguely understanding your own product. Games are iterative, but they are not fungible. The sequel IS NOT the original. The Crew is not Microsoft Office or Adobe Photoshop; to even make that comparison is a bad faith take, of the highest order.
I wonder which of his board partners convinced him to trot out this bullsh*t, knowing that this is purely a face-saving move, to keep the share price high, and that they don’t have to be in the firing line. If these are his own words and not orders from on high, he has no business being CEO.
wizardB
Posts: 357 +187
A good answer to this twit is simple: everyone quit buying UBI games until they fix this, if they don't let them go bankrupt. It would serve this smug **** right.
onebignerd
Posts: 128 +73
Because you buy a book, that does not give you ownership of it's content. That is still owned by the author, protected under the same copyright laws that protect software. You only own the physical paper media of a book or magazine, you do not own the intellectual content printed on the pages. Buying software does not give you ownership of the programing code and data of the software, you only own the privilege, the right to use the software.
Does buying a marriage license gives you any kind of ownership of your wife? NO!!
Does buying a plot in a cemetery or mausoleum give you ownership of that land or space? NO!!
Does a lease or rental give you any ownership of the machine, building or vehicle you're paying for? NO!!
wizardB
Posts: 357 +187
Reading your posts, it seems you have a personal interest in this, even if your conclusion is completely wrong. Basically, the company is crippling access to a game you bought the right to use in perpetuity and then tries to pretend they have this right. I'll bet if this went to court, they would be found in breach of contract.
skuff
Posts: 9 +9
No, this is like the author coming into your home after few years of owning a book and putting a lock on it so you cant read it, then tells you to buy his new book.
TBF, you didnt buy the game to use in perpetuity if you read the EULA. They dont pretend to have this right, they do have the right to stop you. Its being played out that way. Like it or not. If they didnt have the right, they wouldnt be able to do it. Perhaps that will change.
The issue is you are forced into that decision. But if you are buying it with the intention to use it in a way that they dont let you, thats on you.
This is not in defense of their absolutely abusive practice, but your statement doesnt make sense.
This is why you dont buy Ubisoft games.
Thats a good way to put it.
Similar threads
