UFC-Que Choisir Takes Ubisoft To French Court Over the Crew Shutdown (reuters.com) 53
Longtime Slashdot reader Elektroschock writes: When Ubisoft pulled the plug on The Crew's servers without warning, players were left with a worthless game they'd already paid for. Now, consumer watchdog UFC-Que Choisir is fighting back, demanding gamers' right to play regardless of publisher whims. Supported by the "Stop Killing Games" movement, this landmark case challenges unfair terms before the Creteil Judicial Court (Val-de-Marne near Paris), and aims to protect players from disappearing games. The lawsuit that UFC-Que Choisir filed against Ubisoft on Tuesday alleges that the video game publisher "misled consumers about the permanence of their purchase and imposed abusive contractual clauses stripping players of ownership rights," reports Reuters.
User Licenses.. (Score:3)
Don't they say its just a license and not outright ownership? Wonder how this will go down.
Re: (Score:2)
They do say that, if you RTFA. They also question the legality of the actions taken by the publisher with regard to this license.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Simple: Enforce existing basic contract and property law that we've had for centuries throughout the west.
Is it a "license" and therefore the company retains total control of the product? Fine. There must be a full meeting of the minds and adequate consideration. The term of this license must be clear up front. You are 100% responsible for ensuring all maintenance and up-keep for the duration of that "license".
Is it "property"? Fine. The property must be fit for purpose, not defective, and if you actively s
The REAL enemy here. (Score:2, Interesting)
The Crew, was a game developed and released over ten years ago. You want to define how the hell consumers are actually owed anything after that amount of time, by license or property? Because if you do define it, the next game developed under those constrictions will be priced at the bargain price of "only" $599. In order to cover 10+ years of consumer expectations.
And the actual reason they removed the game? Well..
Publishers often delist driving games like The Crew and Forza Horizon when licensing agreements with car manufacturers expire.
Perhaps we learn who the actual licensing enemy is here, and stop filing frivolous lawsuit
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You pretend like there are only two options: "lie to customers" or "go out of business". That's a false choice, and you're being disingenuous by suggesting it.
There are absolutely, 100%, without a doubt, ways game companies can be honest with their users about the life spans of their games ... and still make a profit.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
You pretend like there are only two options: "lie to customers" or "go out of business". That's a false choice, and you're being disingenuous by suggesting it.
There are absolutely, 100%, without a doubt, ways game companies can be honest with their users about the life spans of their games ... and still make a profit.
And you act as if the spoiled-ass gamers insisting that a 10-year old game stay online no matter what, would have been happy and content with a heads-up.
They'd still be bitching. Just like they are now. And as I pointed out before, the game vendor isn't the real licensing enemy here. So, who exactly should be receiving the complaints here? Are gamers actually smart enough to understand who they should really be complaining to?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe the game box should have a list of when all the licences expire, since apparently a licence is what you are "buying".
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe the game box should have a list of when all the licences expire, since apparently a licence is what you are "buying".
Or maybe there should be a reasonable expectation on the life of any game. No matter how popular.
IF in fact it was indeed the expiring licensing agreement with car manufacturers that caused a beloved game to go extinct, then perhaps the proper compromise should have been the game vendor negotiating with the IP holders and offering the ability for the user community to buy that license extension via a one-time charge rather than kill the game altogether. (Again, assuming it was merely money that was needed
Re: (Score:3)
Let the courts figure it out. If licensed car skins were an issue, Ubisoft could choose to all the skins with Lada's, and release the server protocol.
Re: (Score:1)
We'd complain to the company, if the company gave a flying fornication and would listen.
When you have a few spare compute cycles to spare... install a decent web server on your computer, add PHP (just for the database)... how much resources does that cost you? What's GTAV's footprint? 50gigs?
Somehow, I bet they have that much just sitting around in a drawer or on a shelf.
Would it be better if you were completely unable to get online at all (in any manner, from any device) unless you have today's update to
Re: (Score:1)
The only one who's spoiled here is you. Just because I bought something 10 years ago doesn't mean it isn't still mine and I don't have a right to use it. You don't want to host master servers anymore? Fine. But you aren't allowed to stop me from doing it to use my own product that I paid for.
Re: (Score:1)
I play two over 20 year old games.
There is no damn reason that a game stops working, unless you upgrade the OS and for some reason it does not run on the upgrade. That is pretty rare on windows.
So yes, a game company has the fucking obligation to make their game run for ever, just like Word, Excel and Thunderbird, Chrome or Firefox or "insert what ever product" you are using has.
There is no damn reason a game stops working ... it is fraud if it does.
Re: (Score:1)
Say I buy a game... Diablo II or GTAV or whatever... first place, it should have a physical disc (there are Blu-Rays now, so the game can fit on a couple discs, not a big deal) or SD card, or whatever, end of story, and the CD Key slapped on the case should work with that disc, regardless of whether I'm online or not or the disc is 10 years old or whatever... I should be able to play the game.
Should my computer just self-destruct because it's guts are two years old? A ten-year old game should run awesome o
Re: (Score:2)
To use the good old automotive analogy, if you bought a car, and after 5 years that car refuses to turn on, start, or be moved in any way, despite there being nothing at all mechanically or electrically wrong with it, all because its manufacturer remotely disabled it, you'd be rightly pissed off.
And if said manufacturer used copyright strikes/DMCA takedowns/cease-and-desist orders to stop attempts for third parties to develop their own services to talk to the car and re-enable them, would that be right?
Game
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The REAL enemy here. (Score:4, Informative)
The Crew, was a game developed and released over ten years ago.
Is it the ten years you've got a problem with? Okay, how about:
"The Crew" is just the game that Stop Killing Games has focused on, as it had an extensive global release, a large player base, and a still-active community. There are plenty of other examples
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like an industry problem. It's ridiculous to license a car for a fixed amount of time. Back in the day, a licensed car would be in the game forever, and there was no way to turn it off. The terms have got worse for the consumer, but that was not made clear when buying the game.
For online games they could release the source code of the decade old server, and a patch to allow the use of third party ones. Or a patch to let you play the game offline.
Also remember that this is Europe, so the law on things
Re: The REAL enemy here. (Score:2)
One of the (many) things the grandparent commenter fails to understand about cases like The Crew is that Ubisoft actively locked pla
Re: (Score:1)
You answered your own question, quisling: They disclose before purchase that the game will have a hard sunset of 10 years when the car license expires. See? That wasn't so difficult, was it?
Re: (Score:2)
The release date really isn't the right question to ask. The right question is - when was the last time someone bought a copy of this game expecting to be able to play it? Not every user bought theirs 10 years ago. If I bought mine last month I'd be pretty incensed.
If the company stopped selling it and removed all copies from stores 5 years ago, expecting to end of life it this year, that's one thing. If they have been continually offering it for sale and pull the plug on everyone arbitrarily, that's q
Re: (Score:2)
Don't they say its just a license and not outright ownership? Wonder how this will go down.
Maybe, but then maybe they shouldn't price it as if it was ownership? I'd even argue that if publishers don't provide a way to self-host a server, then they should be required to keep their servers running for 4 years after the final sale of the full price of the game or refund the "purchase" fee.
Re: (Score:2)
French law has a "Legal Conformity Guarantee" requiring a product be fit for purpose. I don't think the question is whether it's licensed or owned, but whether the service is considered to be part of the product.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't they say its just a license and not outright ownership? Wonder how this will go down.
Well it's in France where France has consumer protection laws and truth in advertising laws so they can't just pull the "it's a license not a purchase Nyer Nyer" in a French court and expect to walk out like King Dick. Even though you're purchasing a license it's still a purchase and you still have the expectation that it's not time limited, especially if a time limitation was not specified and clearly advertised before purchase.
Re: (Score:1)
License is ownership.
From what retarded country are you?
Re: (Score:1)
If I buy a new stereo off the shelf, I own it.
If I buy a game, and by some chance it has a physical disc in the case, it's mine.
The disc can self-authenticate (like Diablo II did), problem solved.
Playing online is where the server comes into play (Diablo II, again), and even then, there was options for LAN (in your house) and IP-hosted (for distance multiplayer) playing.
It's all because of the licensed car imagery? Couldn't they issue a patch that turns the cars into more generic versions (kinda like GTAV
Now do IOT devices (Score:2)
Please.
only bought a limited access? so did the button s (Score:2)
only bought a limited access? so did the button say rent? or did it it say BUY? OWN?
Re: (Score:2)
Users still own the game. The game just doesn't connect to any server. You're making the wrong argument here. You need to focus on performance and functionality, not rent vs own.
Re: (Score:2)
but The company has said customers only bought a limited access to the game, not full ownership.
that sounds like you are renting while the pages that ask for your money say you are buying this you now OWN this.
Re: (Score:2)
My point is that this is irrelevant. Whether you license or own something doesn't change the outcome. The company is responding to a direct legal point, but what happens after the legal point is made. "Sorry, we concede you do in fact own the software, you win." But you don't own the server it connects to. The thing you bought is still the same thing you bought.
The whole legal argument is pointless and results in no win for the consumer. There a rich history of law governing specific and expected performanc
UFC? They mean business! (Score:1)
They named themselves after the Ultimate Fighting Championship? That sounds pretty tough! I don't understand the "what to choose" part after and what that has to do with anything. Is this indicating they are going around looking for fights and are not sure which fight they should pick?
Re: (Score:2)
They named themselves after the Ultimate Fighting Championship? That sounds pretty tough! I don't understand the "what to choose" part after and what that has to do with anything. Is this indicating they are going around looking for fights and are not sure which fight they should pick?
If in some way consumers actually get a win here, they will win the right to choose whether they want to spend $599 on the next game or not.
Why $599? Well, it's mostly to cover the new legally-required consumer expectation that games last for 10 years or more.
That's the new price for "winning".
Re: (Score:2)
You are such a tool for coming up with an extreme number. Why are you defending mega corps and billionaires?
Re: (Score:2)
You are such a tool for coming up with an extreme number. Why are you defending mega corps and billionaires?
Why are you defending spoiled-ass gamers who insist that a company keep a 10-year old game online, no matter what?
If that's an extreme number, then I dare you to ask a lawyer to define a reasonable one when gamers insist on 10+ years of guaranteed support. Realize we now live in the era of $800 price tags hung on five-year old gaming consoles being marketed as "the latest".
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you defending spoiled-ass gamers who insist that a company keep a 10-year old game online, no matter what?
We're not insisting they keep a game online. If you want to abandon a game, that's fine. Publish an offline patch so players don't have to rely on your servers anymore. Or publish your online server software so we can run our own. Or even stop fucking suing the third party devs who are making their own servers to support the game that you refuse to support yourself
It's not like we're going to be eating into your profits by hosting our own servers, you're not selling it anymore anyway. Hell, it'll make you
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you defending spoiled-ass gamers who insist that a company keep a 10-year old game online, no matter what?
We're not insisting they keep a game online. If you want to abandon a game, that's fine. Publish an offline patch so players don't have to rely on your servers anymore. Or publish your online server software so we can run our own. Or even stop fucking suing the third party devs who are making their own servers to support the game that you refuse to support yourself
It's not like we're going to be eating into your profits by hosting our own servers, you're not selling it anymore anyway. Hell, it'll make you more money as people buy copies of your "abandoned" game to run on their own community servers.
What you're actually insisting an IP owner and creator do, is give you their IP for free.. Ever consider the fact their server software contains relevant IP used in other product lines still being sold? Because they likely did when making a decision knowing it would create backlash in the community.
Gut feeling? Buried in the EULA somewhere on page 37 is the exacting fine print that offers ZERO guarantees related to server uptime or availability. It likely outlines how the game expectations with regards t
Re: (Score:2)
What you're actually insisting an IP owner and creator do, is give you their IP for free..
Not at all. I've already bought and paid for that IP when I bought a copy of the game.
Ever consider the fact their server software contains relevant IP used in other product lines still being sold? Because they likely did when making a decision knowing it would create backlash in the community.
If that IP is relevant to the bought-and-paid-for software in-hand, it's covered under the original purchase agreement. If it isn't, why is it part of the server in the first place? They might share a common code base (like both running on Unreal Engine, for example), but that argument is akin to saying "You can't have access to your car with a Ford Windsor engine, because we also use that engine in this truck"
Gut feeling? Buried in the EULA somewhere on page 37 is the exacting fine print that offers ZERO guarantees related to server uptime or availability. It likely outlines how the game expectations with regards to delivering any sort of warranty or guarantee, is limited to the locally running code.
EULAs have a
Re: (Score:2)
What you're actually insisting an IP owner and creator do, is give you their IP for free..
Not at all. I've already bought and paid for that IP when I bought a copy of the game.
What are you talking about? You bought a license to use a game developed and wholly owned (including any in-house IP) by the company who created the damn thing. You, don't own any part of that beyond a compiled installer on read-only media unless the company happens to be publicly listed. And then you're likely restricted to a certain class of shares that essentially translate into you having NO real power beyond an investor willing to lose everything.
I would expect that licensing agreements for IP holders, while time limited, cannot be retroactively applied. If the car models and likenesses are already on the disc, it is impossible to remove them. I can see there being a stipulation that no further instances are to be sold or made available once that agreement has expired (which would be a reason to stop selling the game, for instance), but customers who already have the game already have those models/likenesses in-hand, so allowing them to continue using them is not in violation of any agreement.
If there is merely a contractual agreement between th
Re: UFC? They mean business! (Score:2)
I am old enough to remember when buying a game with online content gave you the game client AND server software.
I can still run old Quake online if I want. Costs id Software nothing.
I know companies moved away from this to an online service model to fight piracy. But we, the gaming community, let them.
We should demand a RETVRN TO THE OLDE WAYS. I personally have been avoiding games that can turn off my purchase on a whim.
so this time limited access needs to be upfront (Score:2)
so this time limited access needs to be upfront not hidden and not will end when we fell like.
If they want to do this they need to say you are RENTING the game for at least X time and if they kill it before X time then they must refund you.
and if they say you are renting for at least 24 hours (just to be able to kill it at any time with no refunds) then the buy button must be labeled RENT 24H for the price.
Re: (Score:2)
so this time limited access needs to be upfront not hidden and not will end when we fell like. If they want to do this they need to say you are RENTING the game for at least X time and if they kill it before X time then they must refund you. and if they say you are renting for at least 24 hours (just to be able to kill it at any time with no refunds) then the buy button must be labeled RENT 24H for the price.
The people that ranted, bitched, and screamed about cable TV pricing being too much, literally created the massively fractured industry we have today for viewing content. An industry those same people now have to pay more than cable TV prices ever were, in order to watch the same shit. The cost to legally watch all games in a single NFL season is over $1500 a year now, and requires TEN streaming services.
Now take a guess as to what Greed would do with your suggestion. You're damn right you're gonna pay m
Re: (Score:2)
A modern audience (Score:1)
Turns out there is in fact a modern audience for ubisoft shenanigans: greedy banksters and billion-dollar hedge fund managers!
Sue them into next wednesday! (Score:2)
For all I care they deserve it. If they can't or won't run the servers anymore they should at least release the server as freeware and allow for hobbyists to continue hosting the game. This used to be common practice with multiplayer games and we should enforce this practice by law, especially with people paid solid money for their game copies.
Re: (Score:2)
For all I care they deserve it. If they can't or won't run the servers anymore they should at least release the server as freeware and allow for hobbyists to continue hosting the game. This used to be common practice with multiplayer games and we should enforce this practice by law, especially with people paid solid money for their game copies.
Publishers often delist driving games like The Crew and Forza Horizon when licensing agreements with car manufacturers expire.
Speaking of suing, is the user community willing to pay for the costs to renew the licensing agreements with all the relevant car vendors, IF they're even offering it?
Because that's likely what it would take to legally make this "free".
Re: Sue them into next wednesday! (Score:2)
Th