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

  • 🔧 Issue with uploading attachments resolved.
  • 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.
 
Whoever wins, we all lose, since this is America.
Now, if the powers that be pass a law that states " always online games must have an offline version when they shut down".. That would be a pipe dream.
 
I'm not saying they have to keep their servers going forever; they should just allow the players to run their own.

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.

Yes, yes, I know, there are clone servers for a lot of older MMOs, but that's software that's been reverse engineered to approximate the same functionality, it's not indicative of what the actual server software is like.

I guess there's no reason a company shutting down servers couldn't release it, I suppose, but I'm sure some whiney players would still complain that wasn't enough if they couldn't easily use it.
 
The Crew is like 30GB, there's no way they NEED to have an online server.

Just release an offline patch, Ubisoft! Is it that hard?
 
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.

The lifespan of a game is one or two years. Legally I would define it as three years. Hardly any games are remembered longer than that. Take a survey and you’ll find most gamers play a game on average for a few weeks or a few months. The game is ten years old. The value of the game is long past zero for the company.

You also can’t force a company to do work (i.e. make offline mode or allow hosted servers). And you can’t force them to provide source code or anything else to assist in setting up custom servers. Both of these things are gross violations of human rights.

There’s no case here. Instead, consumers should be more selective with how they choose the games they want to play. Don’t buy games that become useless when the servers go down. We should also defend our right to reverse engineer these games so they can be properly preserved.
 
Last edited:
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.
I want to agree and it's more moral, but it would lead to interesting scenarios.
What happens if a company is bankrupt? Employees have to do that for free? What if the necessary employees have been fired? What if software for it has been deleted?

I just don't see this as something feasible. I can imagine, Ubisoft would have to be upfront with the fact that the game won't be available forever, sure. But anything more than that and I cannot imagine any court siding against them.

How can any form of work be compulsory? And what if they simply aren't able to provide it for any reason?

Ubisoft could just add a disclaimer saying "This game is online only and will not be available forever" and in the eyes of any court and judge worth their salt, that is enough. You agree to the terms, after all.

I do support the petition, but I'm not very hopeful tbh.
 
Last edited:
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.

The lifespan of a game is one or two years. Legally I would define it as three years. Hardly any games are remembered longer than that. Take a survey and you’ll find most gamers play a game on average for a few weeks or a few months. The game is ten years old. The value of the game is long past zero for the company.

You also can’t force a company to do work (i.e. make offline mode or allow hosted servers). And you can’t force them to provide source code or anything else to assist in setting up custom servers. Both of these things are gross violations of human rights.

There’s no case here. Instead, consumers should be more selective with how they choose the games they want to play. Don’t buy games that become useless when the servers go down. We should also defend our right to reserve engineer these games so they can be properly preserved.
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.
 
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.
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?
 
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.

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 have no idea why people are addressing you as if you said the thing you said.
 
The lifespan of a game is one or two years. Legally I would define it as three years. Hardly any games are remembered longer than that. Take a survey and you’ll find most gamers play a game on average for a few weeks or a few months. The game is ten years old. The value of the game is long past zero for the company.
I have a physical copy of GTA III for the PlayStation 2. An offline copy of a license to access the game with any working PS2. As long as the physical copy is in working condition, I can still play it on any working PS2.

"Lifespan of a game" only loosely applies to games with online functionalities or online community, not single player titles.

You also can’t force a company to do work (i.e. make offline mode or allow hosted servers).
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."
Instead, consumers should be more selective with how they choose the games they want to play. Don’t buy games that become useless when the servers go down.
Again, vote with your wallet.
 
You also can’t force a company to do work (i.e. make offline mode or allow hosted servers). And you can’t force them to provide source code or anything else to assist in setting up custom servers. Both of these things are gross violations of human rights.
>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


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.

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. This isn't World of Warcraft, the other players aren't a necessary element, you're talking about a few days of work at worst. 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. If you believe that to be unfair and onerous, I don't know what to tell you other than "grow up and be a lolbert somewhere else"
We should also defend our right to reserve engineer these games so they can be properly preserved.
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". 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.

Good solution, but go tell the companies hoarding their source code for (((copyright))) reasons that.
 
You know an easier and more effective solution? Stop buying always-online games you fucking gooners.
Or at the very least maintain a realistic level of commitment to them.

The only online games I play anymore are War Thunder and sometimes Counter Strike.

I could care less if Counter Strike got shut down, it's only fun for memeing around in Casual with a Nova anyway.

With War Thunder I would be disappointed but that disappointment would be tempered by a sense of liberation.

Neither of them are worth the hassle of a lawsuit, and I don't understand why these two guys think The Crew is.
 
why these two guys think The Crew is.
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.
 
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.
If this is related to Ross Scott's "Stop Killing Games" campaign (I'm not sure that it is but it's quite possible) they are probably legit. Ross Scott, the guy running the Accursed Farms channel, really loved The Crew so when Ubisoft killed it he took it personally. He's not asking for donations but instead asking lawyers which countries and states have the best consumer protection laws to go after Ubisoft and potentially get the industry to give up on games as a license and go back to games as a product. Ironically the two places with the best shot are France/the EU and California. In France they've already filed complaints a few months ago. I'm not sure how these lawsuits in california are being funded but if it's with IOLTA accounts then it would be impossible to grift on donations.
 
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 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.

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?
 
Back
Top Bottom