Ubisoft's The Crew is shutting down 31st March 2024 and will be unplayable after that because it is online only.

M76 said:
EULA's are not legally binding, they are basically toilet paper in an actual court here in the EU. It's just another way to make you fall in line and do nothing out of fear because the EULA said so.
Click to expand...
Is it the same for a TOS for the online service's?

So, can the EU folks go ahead and sue these folks, please? Does a "class action" lawsuit exist there? Or, has that already happened?
 
wareyore said:
Every single TOS, right? It's 100% their sandbox.
Click to expand...
Can't say it's every single one, but a majority of them now yes have binding arbitration clauses. And yes it's their sandbox and they can say how we should be able to play in it, but that doesn't change the fact that binding arbitration and anti-class action clauses are going outside their sandbox. It is going against my rights as a citizen of the US. It is taking AWAY my rights guaranteed to me by the constitution to a jury trial. That is what I am saying should be deemed illegal. It's not that you shouldn't be able to in a court of law in the presence of a lawyer representing me and one representing the company in question to make a formal contract stipulating that we will abide by a binding arbitration clause, but it should absolutely be illegal to do that in a click through ToS or EULA no matter how it is worded. That also doesn't address that all of these forced ToS and EULA updates were made under duress. No different than saying sign it or I shoot you in the head. They are forcing you to agree or they are removing your ability to use the thing you paid for and even for some like with Roku, that MAKES you press I agree then gives you in fine print 30 days to opt out via a written letter you have to send via post office mail, should also be illegal. If pressing I agree is legal when there is no other option other than to give up on what you purchased is considered legal, then me pressing I agree and saying "not" should be just as legal to say I never agreed to your terms in the first place and am not bound by them.
 
LurkerLito said:
Can't say it's every single one, but a majority of them now yes have binding arbitration clauses. And yes it's their sandbox and they can say how we should be able to play in it, but that doesn't change the fact that binding arbitration and anti-class action clauses are going outside their sandbox. It is going against my rights as a citizen of the US. It is taking AWAY my rights guaranteed to me by the constitution to a jury trial. That is what I am saying should be deemed illegal. It's not that you shouldn't be able to in a court of law in the presence of a lawyer representing me and one representing the company in question to make a formal contract stipulating that we will abide by a binding arbitration clause, but it should absolutely be illegal to do that in a click through ToS or EULA no matter how it is worded. That also doesn't address that all of these forced ToS and EULA updates were made under duress. No different than saying sign it or I shoot you in the head. They are forcing you to agree or they are removing your ability to use the thing you paid for and even for some like with Roku, that MAKES you press I agree then gives you in fine print 30 days to opt out via a written letter you have to send via post office mail, should also be illegal. If pressing I agree is legal when there is no other option other than to give up on what you purchased is considered legal, then me pressing I agree and saying "not" should be just as legal to say I never agreed to your terms in the first place and am not bound by them.
Click to expand...
The US Constitution has no bearing on private matters. It's purpose is to define the relationship between the people and our government. So, there is no "trial by jury" right. And the gov't isn't shooting you in the head if you don't click the box on a gaming EULA or app TOS.

And civil laws differ region to region. That's why I asked about the EU.

Having said that, the way consumers and users of these services are treated by them in the US is horrible and this sort of situation amplifies the challenge for the consumer. I work with software engineers and "senior business leaders" and the way they talk about users . . . man. Also, I have other concerns regarding apps that we use for groceries and medications, benefits like SSI, Medicare, etc. What happens when it's all on an app and we have to click the box to engage with our government? Then, I think we will cross a Constitutional line. But, the "analog" option is almost always going to be the escape clause they have in place, for now, - looking at you CBDC.

There are some real property rights issues these things bring up and I think the gaming space is catching up to the rest of the entertainment industry. I think specifically about streaming services versus download or physical copy media and how that effects consumer rights for other media. If I buy a DVD, I own the copy of the media and the right to fair use. I can even make a backup copy for personal use. Versus, having the inability to use the media because the "Sony Movie Validation Service" for Movie X is taken offline. I believe this is part of the reason for game companies to push "online" services and make them integral to the media. Then, there is no expectation the media works without the service and no guarantee you can always use the media forever. Like streaming on Netflix. You don't own the media, even if you download it to watch later, and they can/do remove/add media regularly.

It'd be cleaner if they just moved all these games to a subscription service. Which, I think is where we're going soon. Most new releases require some form of login or validation online, at a minimum. Which sucks. So, I think we are much closer to owning nothing in this space.
 
Furious_Styles said:
There are DEI mandates? Who is enforcing them?
Click to expand...
Ah, nobody of consequence only the ones in charge of their cash flow...
wareyore said:
Is it the same for a TOS for the online service's?

So, can the EU folks go ahead and sue these folks, please? Does a "class action" lawsuit exist there? Or, has that already happened?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I don't think class actions are a thing here. Consumer disputes are handled by organizations like the ECC on a case by case basis.
 
wareyore said:
The US Constitution has no bearing on private matters. Its purpose is to define the relationship between the people and our government. So, there is no "trial by jury" right. And the gov't isn't shooting you in the head if you don't click the box on a gaming EULA or app TOS.
Click to expand...
The 7th Amendment would seem to apply as it covers civil suits, no?

I actually think the 7th amendment should be grounds for a suit overturning binding arbitration requirements; but I’m not a lawyer, so what do I know.

I certainly think that no contract clause in common law should be enforceable if it requires that one party give up constitutionally protected rights.

Edit: on further reading, the arbitration clauses appear to be a loophole, because you do have the ability to waive your right to a jury trial, but I still think it’s unconscionable and should be forbidden to be a clause in contracts. Let that decision be made in pre-trial hearings and motions.
 
LodeRunner said:
The 7th Amendment would seem to apply as it covers civil suits, no?

I actually think the 7th amendment should be grounds for a suit overturning binding arbitration requirements; but I’m not a lawyer, so what do I know.

I certainly think that no contract clause in common law should be enforceable if it requires that one party give up constitutionally protected rights.

Edit: on further reading, the arbitration clauses appear to be a loophole, because you do have the ability to waive your right to a jury trial, but I still think it’s unconscionable and should be forbidden to be a clause in contracts. Let that decision be made in pre-trial hearings and motions.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree that the practice is garbage, one sided and anti consumer.

One of the key provisions of the EULA is the jurisdiction of the agreement, on top of all teh one way clauses. The arbitration laws have been in the federal code for decades. Nothing to stop one from filing whatever they want in whatever court they want. If you think you can make a SC case out of it, go for it.

A potential strategy I've heard of could be for a large group of individuals to demand and execute the arbitration clauses in the agreements they've signed, forcing the company to manage hundreds or thousands of individual actions all over. My bet, if you saber rattle enough, they may refund you. Then what?

I just don't see a bunch of gamers filing enough complaints with Ubi about a server shutting down that gets any traction, makes it's way through civil processes and ends up in federal civil court.

But, hey, I'd love to see it.

Start here:

https://legal.ubi.com/NoticeOfDispute/en-US
 
wareyore said:
I don't disagree that the practice is garbage, one sided and anti consumer.

One of the key provisions of the EULA is the jurisdiction of the agreement, on top of all teh one way clauses. The arbitration laws have been in the federal code for decades. Nothing to stop one from filing whatever they want in whatever court they want. If you think you can make a SC case out of it, go for it.

A potential strategy I've heard of could be for a large group of individuals to demand and execute the arbitration clauses in the agreements they've signed, forcing the company to manage hundreds or thousands of individual actions all over. My bet, if you saber rattle enough, they may refund you. Then what?

I just don't see a bunch of gamers filing enough complaints with Ubi about a server shutting down that gets any traction, makes it's way through civil processes and ends up in federal civil court.

But, hey, I'd love to see it.

Start here:

https://legal.ubi.com/NoticeOfDispute/en-US
Click to expand...

not sure if you saw my earlier post but there's already someone trying to get people together to do something about this. here
 
Darunion said:
Yea. I still feel that video games are a level of art and should always exist (in some form) and companies should provide a way to immortalize it so people could always enjoy it no matter when.
Click to expand...
They do - physical media.
 
M76 said:
No they aren't, read the post above.
Click to expand...

Yes they are, your statements are ridiculous, no matter which way you look at it.

If the EULA is legally binding, then your statements are silly because it's there written very clearly that they can do what they just did.

If the EULA isn't legally binding, then your statements are just silly because there is no contract at all.
 
reaper12 said:
Yes they are, your statements are ridiculous, no matter which way you look at it.
Click to expand...
Now you are just coping.
reaper12 said:
If the EULA is legally binding, then your statements are silly because it's there written very clearly that they can do what they just did.
Click to expand...
I explained why they can't possibly be legally binding, try reading and addressing those points, because I'm not going to repeat myself.
reaper12 said:
If the EULA isn't legally binding, then your statements are just silly because there is no contract at all.
Click to expand...
The purchase is the contract. When you buy something you enter into a contract, even if there is no specific terms documented on paper. Any terms you are only made aware of after the sale is completed and irreversible can't possibly be binding.
 
I have uninstalled the game but, does anyone know how to remove it from my Library permanently?
 
Darunion said:
The problem is that you as the person you 'bought' the game, already agreed to terms that you are not entitled to play it forever. Well you didn't buy anything, you paid for a temporary usage license.
Click to expand...
This gets mentioned a lot but this isn't how people perceive a purchase. This is why this needs to go to court.
We agreed that they may terminate our ability to play the game at any time without reason and they can change the terms on demand. Basically they covered their ass so they DO NOT have to support something forever.
Click to expand...
Like most TOS this can be thrown in the trash.
We can't force companies to run servers for games indefinitely, that it just silly thinking, do remember we are talking about a video game here. I still feel the proposed EOL plan at launch should happen and if ever changed it should cause refunds to happen in that event it gets violated. That would force companies to budget and calculate in to profit and running costs of a product.
Click to expand...
Nobody said forever. Just patch the game so people can do their own hosting.
This would then IMO force them to make a better product if they know they will have to run a host for 10 years or whatever. Or maybe move them back into less online features if not needed for the core of the game.
Click to expand...
Never going to happen. Also, who wants to lose access to their game within a given time frame?
I do think it is too late for the crew, but we need to push on companies so they dont see this is the best option. Maybe others will see this and shy away from it.
Click to expand...
It's called regulation.
Seriously though, how does ubi still hang out so strongly lol
Click to expand...
I don't think Ubisoft is doing great. That's why I fully expect them to eventually get bought up.
 
Armenius said:
Physical media doesn't remove the online requirement to actually play the game.
Click to expand...
There are a number of organizations and people that work devotedly to ease those requirements.

Lawyers and police are seeking them.
 
DukenukemX said:
This has certainly brought into question of ownership of games. I don't think Ubisoft understands what they have done.
Click to expand...
I would like more awareness of this. I know many of us know that it is only a temporary usage license for games and software, but I would like more of the masses to realize this to help push it into something else.

Like if i buy a toaster, i own the toaster. I dont own the rights to manufacture and sell duplicates and that is well known. But if i am done with it I can sell it to someone else. I feel like games need to be back into this realm of allowing a used market and not be able to just take away something i paid for.

There might be some exceptions to this like world of warcraft, but then again maybe not. If blizz doesnt provide servers they should provide server software when they are done.

I am also of the aggressive stance of if you aren't producing hardware anymore (like NES or sega genesis etc) then either you have some level of backwards compatibility or provide some source material for people to keep the games alive without the need of emulators.

I just picture in 20-30 years showing kids or grand kids what games you played might not be possible and i dont want that.

Music and movies get preserved forever even on their original native media formats, games wont go down this path if we let companies pull this stuff.

I know i'm dramatic.
 
Darunion said:
I would like more awareness of this. I know many of us know that it is only a temporary usage license for games and software, but I would like more of the masses to realize this to help push it into something else.
Click to expand...
Not only make people aware of this, but the courts. Again, this is a legal grey area that corporations like Ubisoft are abusing. Ubisoft also operates in France and not USA, which is a problem for them since France is more consumer friendly than USA. It should be on the box and a message that appears on the screen that lets you know that the product isn't yours and support can end within 10 years.
Like if i buy a toaster, i own the toaster. I dont own the rights to manufacture and sell duplicates and that is well known. But if i am done with it I can sell it to someone else. I feel like games need to be back into this realm of allowing a used market and not be able to just take away something i paid for.
Click to expand...
Absolutely this. Look at how the $70 games are selling. The biggest games of 2024 aren't $70, and they're not even $60. They're $30 to $40. They spent hundreds of millions of dollars to make a game that nobody wants to pay $70+. This is because it used to be something you could buy used for a much cheaper price, but you can't do that today with digital purchases.
There might be some exceptions to this like world of warcraft, but then again maybe not. If blizz doesnt provide servers they should provide server software when they are done.
Click to expand...
Everquest allows people to operate their own private servers, so I feel World of Warcraft shouldn't be the exception. People want to do this.
I am also of the aggressive stance of if you aren't producing hardware anymore (like NES or sega genesis etc) then either you have some level of backwards compatibility or provide some source material for people to keep the games alive without the need of emulators.
Click to expand...
I'm OK with them not interfering with the creation of emulators. The DMCA should stay out of emulation.
 
sleepeeg3 said:
They do - physical media.
Click to expand...
some boxed games don't even come with a disc anymore just a download code, some others just come with a partial install, the rest has to be downloaded.

but that's only for console, for our beloved PC, we don't even get those. that's why i have recommended grabbing some of those cheap white label hard drives off ebay or using old ones of your own and a sata to usb adapter and backing up the "unofficial installer" of games you may want to play in the future. otherwisse there's no telling whether they're gonna work or not. heck steam doesn't even support windows 7 anymore let alone xp. so how many old games do you own on steam that may or may not even work on win10/11? i know i had a hard time getting the game "Prototype" working because i have too many cpu cores.
 
Last edited:
1_rick said:
Here's a better example: Apple and Google (and Valve) charging 30% is like getting a table at a flea market and whoever runs the show demands 30% of everything you sell, instead of $10/table or whatever.
Click to expand...

All three of those companies offer far far more services than a table at a flea market. If the flea market was running a credit card processor and concession stands with free drinks, maybe that would be a similar comparison.
 
Bankie said:
Ubi is apparently removing licenses in order to totally kill the game after the servers are shutdown. There appears to be a workaround at least but who knows if Ubi will try to stop that as well?

https://www.pcgamer.com/games/racin...eminder-of-how-volatile-digital-ownership-is/
Click to expand...
its true, i must have got it free at some point as i never played it, but it was there in my library.

1712943705542.png
 
Lakados said:
Ubisoft doing this sort of crap is why I won't be getting their new Star Wars game regardless of how awesome it might actually be.
Click to expand...
So many people are so excited to get it. Ubi knows how to just pull this and distract people later.
 
Darunion said:
So many people are so excited to get it. Ubi knows how to just pull this and distract people later.
Click to expand...
And just as many more are pissed it's $110 USD... and has season passes for a single-player game, either way, it's on my do not touch list for now, may re-evaluate that in a year or so.
 
I only click his videos to downvote and report as misinformation or repulsive content.
 
Lakados said:
It doesn't really talk about gameplay which is the only aspect I particularly care about, if that's good then its likely a good game, but Ubisofts business practices are making it extremely difficult to even want to give the game a chance.
Click to expand...
If the game has day 1 DLC and other stuff that costs $200, then you know it isn't a good game. Ubisoft is trying to promote their Ubisoft+ where you can rent the game for $18 per month, because by contrast it seems a lot cheaper than $200. Considering how many games of theirs have failed, I don't think this will be different. They're leveraging the Star Wars IP to sell. I thought this was the same franchise as Fallen Order and Survivor, but those were made by EA. Considering the style that Ubisoft goes for in their games, I'm sure this will be grindy with copy and paste quests.
 
DukenukemX said:
If the game has day 1 DLC and other stuff that costs $200, then you know it isn't a good game. Ubisoft is trying to promote their Ubisoft+ where you can rent the game for $18 per month, because by contrast it seems a lot cheaper than $200. Considering how many games of theirs have failed, I don't think this will be different. They're leveraging the Star Wars IP to sell. I thought this was the same franchise as Fallen Order and Survivor, but those were made by EA. Considering the style that Ubisoft goes for in their games, I'm sure this will be grindy with copy and paste quests.
Click to expand...
And a very empty “Open World” that leads to a few hallway simulations.
 
Ubi and bad press? No, companies do not care about bad press. They hire hitmen!! BOEING????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top