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

[dangh]

I don't really care if a game dies or not. But I but all my games on gog so I own all the files required to play it.

 

[BuckarooBonzaii]

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.

 

[Liranan]

Ubisoft, definitely, won't last forever.

They need to get used to not having a company.

 

[onebignerd]

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.

 

[BlackyNoir]

Stop acting so entitled!!!

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!

 

[Megalomaniac]

If buying isn't owning then piracy isn't stealing.

 

[Liranan]

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.

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.

 

[Liranan]

If buying isn't owning then piracy isn't stealing.

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]

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.

 

[lonetac]

Who buys ubisoft games anymore?

 

[Watzupken]

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.