Law Ubisoft sued for shutting down The Crew - The issue is, once again, about the difference between buying and licensing games

  • ⚙️ Performance issue identified and being addressed.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Polygon (Archive) - November 11, 2024
by, Nicole Carpenter

1731351490943.png

Two Californian gamers are suing Ubisoft in a proposed class action lawsuit over the developer and publisher’s recent shutdown of racing game The Crew. Ubisoft released The Crew in December 2014 and shut down its servers after a decade due to “server infrastructure and licensing constraints.” After the servers shut down, the game became totally unplayable due to its lack of a single-player, offline mode. When the shutdown was announced on Dec. 14, 2023, Ubisoft did offer refunds to people who “recently” purchased The Crew, but given the age of the game, a lot of players were unable to participate in the offer.

“Imagine you buy a pinball machine, and years later, you enter your den to go play it, only to discover that all the paddles are missing, the pinball and bumpers are gone, and the monitor that proudly displayed your unassailable high score is removed,” lawyers wrote in the lawsuit, which was filed Nov. 4 in a California court and reviewed by Polygon. “Turns out the pinball manufacturer decided to come into your home, gut the insides of the pinball machine, and remove your ability to play the game that you bought and thought you owned.”

The lawsuit alleges this is “exactly” what happened when Ubisoft shut down its servers for The Crew in 2024 — suddenly leaving consumers unable to access something they purchased and assumed they owned. The lawsuit says players were duped in two ways: First, by allegedly misleading players into thinking they were buying a game when they were merely licensing it — even if a player bought a physical disk. Second, that Ubisoft “falsely represented” that The Crew’s files were on its physical disks to access freely, and that the disks weren’t simply a key for the game. Ubisoft is violating California consumer protection laws, the lawsuit alleges.
Both plaintiffs purchased the game well into its lifespan, in 2018 and 2020, respectively, on physical discs. The lawsuit says neither would have purchased the game “on the same terms,” i.e., price, knowing the game’s servers could be taken down, rending The Crew totally unplayable even in an offline mode. The lawsuit also covers the backlash to Ubisoft’s decision to shutdown the servers and not include an offline version of the game; it cites several games that turned servers off but patched in an offline option, like Knockout City and two of Ubisoft’s own games, Assassin’s Creed 2 and Assassin’s Creed 3. Ubisoft responded to the criticism and vowed to include offline versions of its existing games in The Crew franchise, like The Crew 2 and The Crew Motorfest — but the lawsuit says this does nothing to amend the problem of The Crew’s server shutdown.

The plaintiffs are looking for the court to approve the lawsuit as a class action, meaning other The Crew players may get involved. They’re looking for monetary relief and damages for those impacted by the server shutdown. The lawsuit follows a campaign from YouTube creator Ross Scott to urge companies to “stop killing games,” a movement that kicked off after The Crew announcement was made. The Stop Killing Games movement is petitioning the European Union to force game companies to keep games in playable states. It currently has more than 379,000 signatures.

As media continues to go more and more digital, the issue of owning vs. licensing — especially in video games — becomes more of a problem. While some people are taking games into their own hands (like with the player-created The Crew Unlimited), the onus is largely on companies and what they do to preserve their games and servers. But in California, Gov. Gavin Newsom recently signed a bill into law that requires companies to tell consumers they’re buying licenses, not games themselves, in online storefronts. The law itself, introduced by California assemblywoman Jacqui Irwin, is actually partly inspired by Ubisoft’s shutdown of The Crew. The law, however, doesn’t do anything about the fact that games are licensed and not purchased outright, nor does it stop a company from rendering a game unplayable, but it does, in theory, offer transparency on the issue.

Ubisoft declined to comment.

Update: We’ve updated this story to note Ubisoft declined to comment.
 
You know an easier and more effective solution? Stop buying always-online games you fucking gooners.
 
You know an easier and more effective solution? Stop buying always-online games you fucking gooners.
Some good games are online-only for no reason at all. Anyway, as much as I hate gaming journalists, it's great that this article was published. The EU petition might get a massive boost in signatures from this.
 
Some good games are online-only for no reason at all.
It's not for no reason it's just that none of them benefit you. Always online is great for anti-piracy and awful for user experience.
 
Maaaan, this is a real bitch.

I hate both parties.

On the one hand, fuck Ubisoft. Possibly the single worst company in AAA gaming right now. Only competing with EA, and I think they win by a fair margin.

On the other hand... Either these people are trying to run a con here, or they're retarded, because everyone knows online-only games are not perpetual.
 
Imagine trusting Ubisoft of all publishers to enable some kind of community server solution to their glorified gacha game
 
Either these people are trying to run a con here, or they're retarded, because everyone knows online-only games are not perpetual.
They should be. The developers should at least refund you for bricking your game or, ideally, patch the game so people can play it without having to be connected to the company's servers.
 
Some good games are online-only for no reason at all. Anyway, as much as I hate gaming journalists, it's great that this article was published. The EU petition might get a massive boost in signatures from this.
you don't need to play EVERY good game.
 
What a great excuse for game companies to brick the software they sold and steal their customers' money.
If you didn't buy it in the first place, theres nothing to steal. Stop being such a crackhead whelp.
 
They should be. The developers should at least refund you for bricking your game or, ideally, patch the game so people can play it without having to be connected to the company's servers.
Players should be authorized to run private server if they shut theirs down.
you don't need to play EVERY good game.
Thanks to the hard work done by Ubisoft et al. in that industry, there aren't that many anymore.
 
Last edited:
Scorched Earth, fuck 'em. Not like there's any value left in keeping that market "free" anyways.
 
They should be.

Right after you invent a new school of economics where servers don't require resources, maintenance, and staff.

The developers should at least refund you for bricking your game or, ideally, patch the game so people can play it without having to be connected to the company's servers.

I conditionally agree with the offline patch. Obviously sometimes that's not realistic, though. Sometimes the multiplayer element is too integral to the game to really make it worthwhile. MMOs and multiplayer arena shooters, for example.

Basically, if there is no meaningful "single player" element. Just running around an empty map shooting at walls doesn't really seem worth it.

But if you expect a refund because an online service game shut down, well... you shouldn't have paid money for it in the first place.
 
Sometimes the multiplayer element is too integral to the game to really make it worthwhile. MMOs and multiplayer arena shooters, for example.
Okay. Imagine if Quake released today, but it was designed so that you could only play on the company's servers; you could not run your own server or play locally. Would it be "inventing a new school of economics" if the developers either implemented those features from the beginning or released a patch that enabled those features before shutting down their servers?
 
I hope this lawsuit goes through because fuck Ubisoft

Also they are having a disaster of a year aren't they? You love to see it
 
Okay. Imagine if Quake released today, but it was designed so that you could only play on the company's servers; you could not run your own server or play locally.

Okay, I'm imagining it's Quake Champions, which sucks.

Would it be "inventing a new school of economics" if the developers either implemented those features from the beginning or released a patch that enabled those features before shutting down their servers?

"Inventing a new school of economics" refers specifically to the idea that companies should be obligated to keep a server going forever. Nothing else.

I'm not a fan of always online games. I don't think companies should go that route. I don't thin they have to. But /if/ they do, it's unrealistic to assume that an always-online game will work forever. It sucks, but it is what it is.
 
“Imagine you buy a pinball machine, and years later, you enter your den to go play it, only to discover that all the paddles are missing, the pinball and bumpers are gone, and the monitor that proudly displayed your unassailable high score is removed,” lawyers wrote in the lawsuit,
A pinball machine is a physical object.
Physical objects are scarce. That means that, if I try to do something with a pinball machine and you simultaneously try to do something different with the same pinball machine, we get into a physical conflict with one another. Therefore, property rights are a solution to this problem of conflict avoidance.
Digital objects are not scarce. They can be copied and reproduced ad infinitum without affecting the present or future supply of that object. Nobody is talking about breaking into your house and stealing CDROMs or parts of your HDD platter - these are physical objects.
De facto, "buying a game" on a virtual storefront means that you are buying the access right that some company offers you the bandwidth and server storage and entitles you to connect to their servers to transfer a copy of the game to your machine. Plus achievements, multiplayer, yadda yadda.
It makes no sense whatsoever to apply property rights that are relevant to scarce physical goods to non-scarce goods, such as "intellectual" goods or "digital" goods. You will get into conflicts with the former if you do so. "Intellectual property rights" are a dangerous and heinous attack against real property rights to physical goods.
 
"Inventing a new school of economics" refers specifically to the idea that companies should be obligated to keep a server going forever. Nothing else.
I'm not saying they have to keep their servers going forever; they should just allow the players to run their own.
 
Back
Top Bottom