If this case goes ahead it could easily backfire in a big way. What if the court decides in favour of Ubisoft? It would set a precedent that would encourage any publisher to add needless DRM in all single player games. At best Ubi will have to push out a patch to make a really old and pretty shit single game payable at worst we could see this practice in every game. I bet Ubi would be happy to go to court on this one against a group with shoestring lawyers...
While I agree in principle, the issue is that the terms and conditions are not put in front of the customer in advance of purchase, they are presented afterwards on bootup. You can easily get a refund on Steam, but the moment you download the product on PSN, you are not eligible for a refund.
Nobody is required to read the eula. it is something you read post-sale.
While the online gameplay was the main focus, there is also a single player campaign that I personally preferred. I also enjoyed just driving around and exploring the map. With the servers being shut down, It would make total sense to disable the online content and leave the single player intact. That's what many other games have done before. So yeah, this is such a case.
The large corporations will be fine, they will absorb the cost and pass it on to consumers in the end, it's the smaller businesses that will suffer and fold due to the extra overheads that a ruling like this could cause. It's not a matter of corp dick sucking it's about being careful what you wish for.
I get it, but by the same token, this is also currently worthless:Small firms are already actively being destroyed by big corps, I don't care about them. I care about OUR (as consumers) rights, we can't really defend against multi bilion dollar entities and that's where goverment/law should step in to stop those greedy motherfuckers. That's what (sometimes) EU is doing and forcing giants like Apple to make some pro consumer things for a change.
This thing is essentialy worthless right now:
Same goes for digital version, don't you think they should?
a: refund this (hard to do with physical)
b: make offline patch
Ubisoft will happily do nothing, someone has to force them.
The problem with this argument is that if this is expected to hold up in court, then why are there separate TOS and EULAs at the title screen? The store legalize is obscured on purpose, whereas title screen agreements can’t be obscured since they pop in front of you and require direct acknowledgement from the user. Direct acknowledgement from the customer should preempt the purchase in the same manner that occurs on game title screens.
I get it, but by the same token, this is also currently worthless:
Is the expectation that this should be made playable offline? How would this be accomplished realistically?
Note that I am not trying to defend Ubisoft here, this is just low hanging fruit. There are a flood of online only games that have shut down permanently, and I don’t see how there can be any expectation that they must be changed to accommodate offline play.
I know there’s a wide difference between say, a game like The Division where it is online only, but it is entirely feasible to play it single player from start to finish… and a game like Counterstrike where the nature of the game is multiplayer. , But how would you regulate it through legislation? I mean, something as simple as “what is a JRPG” among gamers can explode into pages and pages of arguments. Can we expect lawmakers to write competent legislation that would be favorable to consumers considering the DMCA still exists?
Just some random thoughts. I don’t think this will go in the direction gamers hope. As I said before, I do hope a peripheral effect occurs where if a game is online only and the developer wants to establish that there can be no expectation of indefinite service, then the EULA and TOS must be presented and agreed upon before the customer can purchase the product.
The problem with this argument is that if this is expected to hold up in court, then why are there separate TOS and EULAs at the title screen? The store legalize is obscured on purpose, whereas title screen agreements can’t be obscured since they pop in front of you and require direct acknowledgement from the user. Direct acknowledgement from the customer should preempt the purchase in the same manner that occurs on game title screens.
I've always heard about the slippery slope fallacy, but in my personal lifetime I have found it not to be a fallacy, but a reliable trend. Especially in the age of instant, global information.
Not sure Wikipedia makes for a compelling argument, which I will touch on in a sec.Wildstar is:
The Crew:
If game was multiplayer only I don't think people would have problem with it
I like how none of this refutes what I said. Your characterization is also hilarious, given that if you’d bothered actually reading my posts in their entirety instead of skimming, some might accuse me of being an Ubisoft shill because I am arguing that Ubisoft will likely win the case, not lose.
Not sure Wikipedia makes for a compelling argument, which I will touch on in a sec.
This is how Ubisoft markets the game, with their opening salvo:
I get what you’re trying to argue, it’s why I brought up The Division, a game I actively play and can be played and completed 100% solo. Same for The Division 2, you can complete the game and its Warlords of New York expansion single-player. Wikipedia lists these Ubisoft titles as strictly multiplayer. That’s factually inaccurate. I have over 1000 hours on The Division 2 and at least 1/3 of it was playing solo. Trust me, I know. It could 100% be a single player offline game with how it is structured. Nevertheless it is online only.
But again, how exactly do you legislate this effectively? You tried to carve out a clear distinction due to Wildstar being an MMO. Final Fantasy XI is a 21 year old MMO whose playerbase has declined to a point that the developers introduced mechanics many years ago called “trusts” that give you AI party members so you can complete content originally designed for six-player parties. Essentially, the entire game can now be played solo. Is Square Enix now obligated to make it offline playable when the game ceases to be profitable due to a nonexistent playerbase?
I just don’t see how this plays out favorably, and lawmakers who are generally uninformed about many aspects of the world around them end up writing sound legislation that clears this all up. Trust me, I would prefer to be able to play The Division offline in the distant future, single-player when the servers inevitably stop being supported.
What do you mean clear? Maybe I'm missing something. I think they mean hosting the game on their own servers.
If you watched the video he makes it clear how his goal is to challenge this sort of thing for all games, not just The Crew.
No case. You are buying a licence that is granted to you at a sole discretion of the licence owner. Physical and digital makes no difference here.
They don't care.
Ubisoft, much like Microsoft, are going down the path of a subscription model where you NEVER own anything and you’ll be happy about it! I’m not too sure what part of this deal people don’t understand but this is shocking for gaming. I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again, gaming today cannot touch the glory days of gaming from the 360 era and before that, you know- the days you actually OWNED games.Small firms are already actively being destroyed by big corps, I don't care about them. I care about OUR (as consumers) rights, we can't really defend against multi bilion dollar entities and that's where goverment/law should step in to stop those greedy motherfuckers. That's what (sometimes) EU is doing and forcing giants like Apple to make some pro consumer things for a change.
This thing is essentialy worthless right now:
Same goes for digital version, don't you think they should?
a: refund this (hard to do with physical)
b: make offline patch
Ubisoft will happily do nothing, someone has to force them.
