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

  • 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.
 
Players should be authorized to run private server if they shut theirs down.
Thats not a practical solution and legally could almost never be a thing. Too many issues with copyright laws, licensing laws relating to various actors and the use of their voice/likeness, IP issues, etc...

For example if cryptic were to shut down STO tomorrow forcing a situation where players could run a private server would never be able to happen. Too many IP licensing issues from the rights owner, it makes considerable use of likeness and VO work for various actors, includes some third party stuff under contract, etc... this would be a legal nightmare to navigate and you'd never get a situation where you'd be able to deal with it well enough that a law could be enacted to allow it. It would never pass a legal challenge because of all those issues

Even single player games have alot of these issues. Its just not feasible most of the time

Xarpho's Return said:
The Crew is like 30GB, there's no way they NEED to have an online server.
You'd be surprised at some things companies do to ensure piracy isn't practical in a single player game. More than a few have always online systems implemented to design their games in such a way where some amount of data processing thats absolutely key to the software being able to function properly requires access to some server side service. Lose access to that and the game is essentially fucked and hard coded to be fucked. Company just needs to register whatever method they're using as some kind of trade secret and thats it, you're never getting access to it nor would you be allowed to run an emulated version of it even if you could reverse engineer and somehow patch the issue. They'd sue the asses off everyone involved

The Last Stand said:
Okay, then WHY have your single player campaign/access restricted or confined to an INTERNET connection or server? You're placing a expiration date on a product for NO REASON.
Not for no reason. Such things are almost always related to either anti piracy measures and as such are designed and implemented specifically in a way that prohibits creating an offline solution, or because there is some key piece of tech that requires access to something proprietary to the company. The latter isn't that common these days but it does happen at times. Usually with specialized licensed software

The Last Stand said:
"Lifespan of a game" only loosely applies to games with online functionalities or online community, not single player titles.
Not really. You'd be surprised how many single player titles this does not apply to. Companies pull licenses to single player titles more often than people realize

The Last Stand said:
Sure, you can. Consumer feedback/outrage and voting with your wallet is the best tool against companies that do not do their due diligence for their consumers. Or, as you say, "forcing a company to do work."
Voting with your wallet doesn't work that way. Servers are a major infrastructure investment. Offline mode as you put it would essentially require a company to rewrite and release what amounts to an entirely new game. No amount of voting with your wallet will ever result in forcing a company to allow hosting your own servers - with many games that crosses the line into IP issue, their own licensing issues, legal rights of actors and multiple third parties. It absolutely will not happen, the same way you're never, ever going to see legally operated versions of star trek online or that old republic mmo for those very reasons

Chuck McGill said:
>noooo you can't just force that factory to install a guardrail on that catwalk
>noooo you can't just force general mills to stop dumping pink dye into the river!
>noooo you can't just tell that ammonia plant to go somewhere else
None of those things have anything to do with whats being talked about here whatsoever. They are in no way comparable

Chuck McGill said:
I can and will expect companies to do work to make their games playable after server shutdown if I pay money for them. If they don't want that, then they can issue refunds. If they don't wanna do that, then they can go back to making single-player focused games that make minimal use of online features.
You can't. You won't and none of those things are going to happen. You have completely unreasonable expectations

Chuck McGill said:
Besides, this isn't a huge amount of labor. In the case of The Crew, it would take a few tweaks to the game at best to render the game playable offline.
That is never the case. Whether it can even be done depends entirely on why its dependent on a connection to the server and how it was implemented

Chuck McGill said:
But it's a few days worth of work that doesn't benefit the company in any way, so it doesn't get done unless laws are made to force them to.
No it is absolutely not a 'few days work' nobody with any development experience will ever make a statement like that. That is weeks if not months work, assuming it can even be done at all without rewriting the entire game. You are in no position to claim otherwise, you have no idea how any of it was implemented. Anybody who claims anything programming related, let alone on a game - one of the most complicated pieces of software there is, will only take a few days, has no idea what they are talking about. Ever. and no, no laws can force them to do anything of the sort either.

Chuck McGill said:
Funnily enough, one of the solutions proposed is for game companies to stop being such greedy cocks with their source code, and release it to the public once the game's shut off. If game companies would just release the code after the servers shut down, fans would have a much, much easier time getting it to run on private servers, and the company could exonerate themselves easily by saying "the code's right there, do what you will with it".
It'll never happen. Aside from the fact source code is copyrighted property and a big part of what a software company owns, a huge part of most of it is proprietary and protected as a trade secret of the company that owns it. They can't be forced to release it and will never do so on their own. Go ahead and tell a software company that spent tens of millions developing a new engine that they intend to use for the next 20 years that they have to release the source code to it after some time has passed since their first game that uses it has hit the market. They'd never be able to function as a business

Chuck McGill said:
As it stands, most of the people that have revived dead MMOs have largely had to reverse engineer the game's source code from scratch in order to get it to work.
Which is all kinds of illegal, almost always gets you shut down sooner or later, potentially with a lawsuit if not criminal charges depending on what it is you're reverse engineering and who owns the actual rights, and - and here is the best part - they can contact your ISP and have you permanently blacklisted from every single ISP in your country for getting reported for running a 'private server' without authorization. Its been done, many times. It happened to dozens of people who tried to run private meridian 59 servers back in the day. Don't fuck around where mmo software is concerned, their legal departments don't take kindly to it. Nor do the iP owners those games are usually based off of

Chuck McGill said:
The fact that its publisher is Ubisoft, a French publisher and thus under the blanket of both French and EU consumer protection laws is what made it especially attractive to this cause. The fact that The Crew is a game that has a viable single-player element largely independent of the multiplayer elements, and the fact that it was sold as a buy-once game rather than an ongoing live service like most MMOs is just icing on the cake.
Where it is happening is irrelevant. They're going to get told to fuck off and laughed out of court

and no, it was not sold as a 'buy once game' it has a constant server connection in order to run ffs

Chuck McGill said:
The reality is game companies pull this anti-consumer shit kind of a lot, and not just with chintzy mobile games or MMOs either. And just about everybody does it and there's no penalties for doing it other than losing a tiny bit of customer goodwill, so 'vote with your wallet' becomes an infeasible strategy. The only solution from there becomes relief through the court systems. I'm not sure why people have an issue with that. How many heckin' BOYCOOOOOOOOOTS have to be tried before someone's allowed to make a run at them in court?
There is nothing anti consumer about implementing anti piracy methods. Nor in ensuring those methods make it unfeasible to enable any form of single player ability without a server connection given thats the whole point of implementing it in such a way. To be able to do otherwise would by definition defeat the whole purpose of implementing it that way in the first place

Even mentioning MMOs in that context is retarded. They're designed to be client-server based. They literally cannot function as a single player game and have far too many legal issues attached to them to ever allow a third party to legally operate them after the official shutdown of the service. That isn't even getting into the fact that if you've ever played the game you're trying to emulate you've already signed a legal agreement stating your agreement not to attempt to do anything that would be required in order to successfully emulate any part of the software. Read the fine print of the EULA next time. Hell they can call the feds on your ass if they get it in their heads you used a packet sniffer to intercept data as a first step toward developing an emulated version, and good luck claiming you didn't

I'll say it again, the court system will laugh at this and tell you to fuck off and stop buying games/read the licensing agreement before you buy them next time if you have a problem with it
 
I swore off full-price new videogames when I could no longer either:

A. Own a physical copy of the game that couldn't be edited in any way.
B. Play it offline.

Everything I've bought since then has, yes, been through online sales where I don't "own" anything, but, they're old titles going cheap and I've long since beaten them and they are just for harmless fun with no great investment in rewards, collections, and grinds that that would represent a true loss of money/time if they just suddenly pulled a plug somewhere.
 
Dude, it is not the end of the world if companies have to allow you to play a game offline or on a community server—and it doesn't even mean they have to "maintain a service indefinitely." Why are lolbertarians so insane?
I agree. I think it could be regulated, but it’s hard to regulate. Do you say all games sold have to have an offline mode? How do you define that? Do you say that every online game can allow for public servers? I’m not sure if that’s practical.

But that’s all hypothetical. In this case, there are no laws that Ubisoft is breaking.
 
>ITT:Videogame companies can't support servers forever

Zoomers are a lost generation. Genuinely, a lost generation if we're on fucking KIWIFARMS and don't understand the concept of fucking private servers.
 
If Ubisoft is being so jewish as to not release the code and allow players to run their own servers, and not keeping them up for players themselves, they deserve the expensive court case that costs more than just keeping the game up for 200 people. Retards.
 
You own nothing anon except the disk/code paper & move on there are other live services in the sea.
 
I admit I don't have any first-hand knowledge of how the servers for things like MMOs are set up, but I'm guessing the average person is probably not set up to run one even if they had the software.
Depends on the server.

There are straight-up emulators of dead MMOs' servers out there made by dedicated autists that can be run on VPSes. It's not infeasible.
 
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.
Tell that to people who sell verified cheap accounts for exploiting and cheating by switching their region to buy massive amounts of cheap copies for a game. 1 example that comes to mind is the black ops series.
 
It is worth noting that WonderWino is technically correct, but it's technically correct in the way that federal prosecutors can indict a ham sandwich.

It's true, but modern companies tend to turn a blind eye because of the PR disaster of being shitheads about private servers of dead things.
 
You can’t reasonably expect a company to maintain a service of a video game indefinitely, especially when it’s an off-the-shelf license and not a subscription.
Nobody is saying they should, just that they should be honest about what they are selling at minimum, and ideally provide end of life plans up front either by patching out the online authentication for single player games and/ or giving players the opportunity to host their own server for multiplayer
 
Let's be honest here. This looks like a generic racing game. There are like a million of them out there already. What makes this one so special to throw a hissy fit over it?
 
I agree. I think it could be regulated, but it’s hard to regulate. Do you say all games sold have to have an offline mode? How do you define that? Do you say that every online game can allow for public servers? I’m not sure if that’s practical.

But that’s all hypothetical. In this case, there are no laws that Ubisoft is breaking.
The only solution I see is to make it mandatory that if a game that requires servers to play shuts down? The company must make the code for running them public to allow private server setup. If that runs afowl of some contract you signed with the voice talent/actor likenesses/music royalties or whatever? Too bad, write a less shitty contract next time when you all know that you will not be running the game in perpetuity.
 
If that runs afowl of some contract you signed with the voice talent/actor likenesses/music royalties or whatever?
I really do not see how it would. The server end of the client-server pair tends to only handle maintaining a worldstate, modifying the worldstate in response to packets received from clients or on various timers, and sending packets about the current worldstate to clients. None of these things involve actor likenesses, it's just game logic.
 
How can any form of work be compulsory
What is conscription?
Let's be honest here. This looks like a generic racing game. There are like a million of them out there already. What makes this one so special to throw a hissy fit over it?
See
It was a perfect storm kind of situation. It is being used as the poster child for the Stop Killing Games campaign, because it was announced that the game would be rendered unplayable/shutdown and was a great candidate for pushing back against the 'well we turned the servers off, go fuck yourself' when the game plays perfectly fine without any of the online-only functionality.
 
The only solution I see is to make it mandatory that if a game that requires servers to play shuts down? The company must make the code for running them public to allow private server setup. If that runs afowl of some contract you signed with the voice talent/actor likenesses/music royalties or whatever? Too bad, write a less shitty contract next time when you all know that you will not be running the game in perpetuity.
Music royalties are a completely different can of worms that I doubt they'll ever be willing to tackle since the money behind them is basically infinite. GTA games get periodically stripped of their soundtrack every 5 years when the music licenses run out, yet I don't see anyone suing take2 / Rockstar.
Let's be honest here. This looks like a generic racing game. There are like a million of them out there already. What makes this one so special to throw a hissy fit over it?
Just like everything else Ubisoft have released in the last decade - it's mediocre slop. It's not about the game but the message it sends to the rest of the industry, publishers shouldn't be able to simply shutdown servers and prevent you from playing the game you paid for.
 
I should elaborate a bit more.

The thing that makes WonderWino technically correct is that judges are banal retards. What can happen is that, say:

1) The original client logic files are encrypted
2) The server runs on modified client logic files that were decrypted by Person X, then re-encrypted by Person Y, and will only operate with these
3) The IP holder will claim to the judge that Person Z running Private Server A or whoever broke the encryption (see also: Nintendo's bullshit)

3 is what kills private servers and so on, the IP lawyers can basically lie to the judge and won't be called out unless the private server owner has money, simply due to the sheer cost of fighting it out.
 
Why the hell not? Even ignoring offline-only titles, there are 20 year old online games that still are playable and some of them still have the original servers up.
You can still play the first Quake online. Hell, it's possible to play Battlespire's online multiplayer if you really want to.
 
Back
Top Bottom