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

[zohaibahd]

In a nutshell: Ubisoft just gave gamers a harsh reminder that we're merely renting access to our libraries. The publisher recently pulled the plug on the online-only racing game The Crew, making it unplayable as of April 1. No surprises there - the company had warned this was coming. But some miffed players say Ubisoft went a step further by revoking their licenses to even launch the game through Ubisoft Connect.

People who forked over cash for The Crew claim Ubisoft snatched away the ability to access a game they rightfully purchased. When trying to fire it up on Ubisoft Connect, they're greeted with a message stating "You no longer have access to this game. Why not check the Store to pursue your adventures?" The game's also been moved to its own section in the library called "inactive games." Apparently, you can still launch it - but that only plays a stripped-down demo version.

Ubisoft would likely argue that since The Crew relies on servers that no longer exist, the game is effectively useless anyway. It's a fair point, but that doesn't make it okay to take back products people paid real money for, especially without warning.

Some of these unlucky gamers were holding out hope of keeping The Crew alive through private servers run by preservation communities. With the files now unobtainable, that dream is seemingly dead - for now.

can confirm. they did it to me too after I reached out to them. never replied to my support ticket but def saw it after I sent it. pic.twitter.com/TAQmuIpcvW

– Bryan "BioAlpha" Blain (@Bioalpha) April 11, 2024

The disturbing part is just how much control platform holders wield over digital purchases. The fine print in those terms of service we all mindlessly agree to makes that crystal clear. Ubisoft's subscription boss Philippe Tremblay has even said players will get "comfortable" with not owning games.

This whole fiasco has Reddit and other gaming forums erupting over the fragile nature of digital ownership. As one Redditor put it, "You don't own any of your digital library, you just own a permission to download a copy which they can revoke any time they want or remove from their servers."

Another lamented this as "the saddest and most ruthless decision I've ever seen in gaming history." They also called for new laws to guarantee lifetime access to purchased games. "I will always fight for digital media, I love all the advantages it gives to users all around the world. But we need protection on the national or European level, that when we purchase something, we need to have lifetime access."

As gaming goes all-in on downloads, who's to say major publishers won't start pulling shenanigans like this more often? Hardly a comforting thought for gamers or preservation efforts trying to keep older titles alive. Perhaps that's why we are seeing campaigns like "Stop Killing Games" popping up.

Permalink to story:

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

 

[Disiw]

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

No servers = No game. Nothing new.

 

[magisys]

The problem here is the customer that buy something without clearly know what he's going to buy. in this case a saas was bought thinking it was a standalone software.

the real problem are those saas games, not the digital standalone release.

 

[themastergoose]

It's one thing killing servers so the always online aspects don't work (community mods could step in, etc), but quite another just outrightly removing any and all trace you ever owned it to begin with.

Well **** you Ubisoft, and EA, and ESPECIALLY you Microsoft for pulling the plug on Forza Motorsport 7 after just 3 years and removing that from sale too. Maybe they all just don't like supporting racing games for long because you cant screw consumers for every last £ with character skins and season passes...

 

[themastergoose]

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

No servers = No game. Nothing new.

Then they shouldn't sell it for £50 to £90 upfront in my opinion when it's SaaS. Remove the upfront cost and charge a small fee to play monthly instead. Just like with Netflix, when you've binged on it you cancel it.

The catch being here if they made good games/content, you'd not want to cancel.

 

[Disiw]

Then they shouldn't sell it for £50 to £90 upfront in my opinion when it's SaaS. Remove the upfront cost and charge a small fee to play monthly instead.

Maybe, but people knew this, if they read about the game before buying it.

 

[Disiw]

It's one thing killing servers so the always online aspects don't work (community mods could step in, etc), but quite another just outrightly removing any and all trace you ever owned it to begin with.

Well **** you Ubisoft, and EA, and ESPECIALLY you Microsoft for pulling the plug on Forza Motorsport 7 after just 3 years and removing that from sale too. Maybe they all just don't like supporting racing games for long because you cant screw consumers for every last £ with character skins and season passes...

Ubisoft don't give a flying f0ck about PC gaming. Most of their focus and sales are on consoles.

 

[Uncle Al]

The law simply needs to make these games OWNED by the purchaser, not "rented". They also must be made so they can be played off line, on limited networks. The advantage MUST be given to the buyer so they can own, alter, and operate these games after money is exchanged, otherwise we have a basic monopoly that needs to be busted up.

 

[themastergoose]

Ubisoft don't give a flying f0ck about PC gaming. Most of their focus and sales are on consoles.

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.

The law simply needs to make these games OWNED by the purchaser, not "rented". They also must be made so they can be played off line, on limited networks. The advantage MUST be given to the buyer so they can own, alter, and operate these games after money is exchanged, otherwise we have a basic monopoly that needs to be busted up.

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.

 

[brunocasarini]

If the game is provided as a "service", then it should be RENT, not SOLD. If you can't have a physical copy, you don't really own it. Digital assets are not real assets.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Imagine giving ubisoft money. LMFAO.

If people stopped buying this trash the companies would stop doing it. Ubisoft is one of the worst publishers out there.

 

[Burty117]

Would be funny to see what these companies would do if the laws did change so the consumer did own a copy and therefore publishers couldn't revoke anything.

Would we start to see more physical copies? Or would they simply change the wording from "Buy" to "Rent".

 

[kira setsu]

Imagine giving ubisoft money. LMFAO.

If people stopped buying this trash the companies would stop doing it. Ubisoft is one of the worst publishers out there.

thats the big issue, gamers will always buy whatever is placed in front of them, its why the companies get more brazen by the day.

at this point its a 50/50 split on why gaming is going down such a crummy path, with gamers, their ignorance, and always ready to buy or preorder whatever they see, then the devs & publishers themselves taking advantage of them every chance they get.

 

[dangh]

One of the reason GoG is my first place where I buy games.

 

[Neatfeatguy]

If it's an online only game, you get what you pay for: ability to use the product while the online servers exist.

If it is a single player game that requires online connection to play, those that pay for a game simply to only have it leased to them are stupid. You get what you pay for here, zero rights to be upset when the game is no longer playable because you're stupid.

I have yet to buy into any single player game that requires online connection to play.

I do pay for and play online only games in the past and understand that they may not be around forever, kind of like Helldivers 2. I'll play it and enjoy it until I don't want to play it anymore or the servers are taken offline, but I understand and accept that.

Anyone mad at Ubisoft for pulling servers on an online only game, grow the F up.

 

[kira setsu]

If it's an online only game, you get what you pay for: ability to use the product while the online servers exist.

If it is a single player game that requires online connection to play, those that pay for a game simply to only have it leased to them are stupid. You get what you pay for here, zero rights to be upset when the game is no longer playable because you're stupid.

I have yet to buy into any single player game that requires online connection to play.

I do pay for and play online only games in the past and understand that they may not be around forever, kind of like Helldivers 2. I'll play it and enjoy it until I don't want to play it anymore or the servers are taken offline, but I understand and accept that.

Anyone mad at Ubisoft for pulling servers on an online only game, grow the F up.

the reason people should be angry is because ubisoft is just teasting the waters, and everyone else is watching and taking notes, like everything else that has migrated from online games to singleplayer ones if this move isnt caught now then your precious singleplayer games will be next.

a future where you "buy" your digital solo game only to realise a few years later when you want to play it again and see its gone from your library, yet still available to rent/subscribe from some sorta future gamepass is entirely possible if people just ignore whats currently going on, I dont know how but we live in a world where businesses rule so theyll figure it out.

every single issue currently in gaming all started the same way in years past, and people just accepted it, now its snowballed into a place where 70 dollars gets you an incomplete game, and battle passes get bolted onto everything.

 

[themastergoose]

If it's an online only game, you get what you pay for: ability to use the product while the online servers exist.

If it is a single player game that requires online connection to play, those that pay for a game simply to only have it leased to them are stupid. You get what you pay for here, zero rights to be upset when the game is no longer playable because you're stupid.

I have yet to buy into any single player game that requires online connection to play.

I do pay for and play online only games in the past and understand that they may not be around forever, kind of like Helldivers 2. I'll play it and enjoy it until I don't want to play it anymore or the servers are taken offline, but I understand and accept that.

Anyone mad at Ubisoft for pulling servers on an online only game, grow the F up.

I think you're in a minority of 1 with that view, as you entirely miss the point.

I bought The Crew at launch, played a bit then got bored of it and moved on, but you're missing the most important basis of most peoples entire argument in this thread:

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.

 

[kira setsu]

I think you're in a minority of 1 with that view, as you entirely miss the point.

I bought The Crew at launch, played a bit then got bored of it and moved on, but you're missing the most important basis of most peoples entire argument in this thread:

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.

then theres me, I bought the crew on day1, gold version with everything, have hundreds of hours in it, it was still installed on my pc.

and now I'll never be able to play it again it seems, I also have the crew 2 but imo its a much weaker game....and motorfest is a joke(but I got it for free)

if I ever play a ubi game again you can be sure I snagged it from a keysite, I hope they lose alot of customers from this scummy move.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

If it's an online only game, you get what you pay for: ability to use the product while the online servers exist.

If it is a single player game that requires online connection to play, those that pay for a game simply to only have it leased to them are stupid. You get what you pay for here, zero rights to be upset when the game is no longer playable because you're stupid.

I have yet to buy into any single player game that requires online connection to play.

I do pay for and play online only games in the past and understand that they may not be around forever, kind of like Helldivers 2. I'll play it and enjoy it until I don't want to play it anymore or the servers are taken offline, but I understand and accept that.

Anyone mad at Ubisoft for pulling servers on an online only game, grow the F up.

Mate, telling people to "grow the F up" when you didnt read the article is egg on your face. The issue here is not that the servers have been pulled. That's been long done. The issue is that the community has been reverse engineering the servers to bring the game back online, and in response Ubisoft is removing the game from people's accounts. There is no reason to do this, outside of petty greed.

 

[Neatfeatguy]

I think you're in a minority of 1 with that view, as you entirely miss the point.

I bought The Crew at launch, played a bit then got bored of it and moved on, but you're missing the most important basis of most peoples entire argument in this thread:

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.

You "buying" a key for access to playing the game (or physical copy, whatever method it was) was no different over me paying for a copy of Asheron's Call 2. It was an online based game. The game servers went off line and that was that. I understood it and if you don't, then that's your problem.

I really, really enjoyed AC2 and I was sad when the servers went offline, but that's just the chance you take when when you play an online only game.

Ubisoft isn't testing any waters here with taking servers offline for an online only game. They are not the first company to do this and won't be the last. For you people to cry about it, that is a you problem.

 

[kira setsu]

You "buying" a key for access to playing the game (or physical copy, whatever method it was) was no different over me paying for a copy of Asheron's Call 2. It was an online based game. The game servers went off line and that was that. I understood it and if you don't, then that's your problem.

I really, really enjoyed AC2 and I was sad when the servers went offline, but that's just chance you take when when you play an online only game.

Ubisoft isn't testing any waters here with taking servers offline for an online only game. They are not the first company to do this and won't be the last. For you people to cry about it, that is a you problem.

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.

 

[MasterAce]

I was so pissed when bungie removed the legacy destiny 2, which I didnt get around to play because lack of match making.

 

[amstech]

I have yet to buy into any single player game that requires online connection to play.

Then you haven't gamed in about 10 years.

 

[gamerk2]

As a reminder: The EULAs for literally ever have stated you are purchasing a license to use the software "as is". As far as the law is concerned, physical or otherwise: You are purchasing a license key. Nothing more.

Bit late to complain about the implications.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Then you haven't gamed in about 10 years.

GOG exists tho?