-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Ubisoft sued for shutting down The Crew
- Thread starter IbizaPocholo
- Start date
- Drama Game Dev
LectureMaster
Gold Member
Kvally
Member
I think those are already in the EULA's. I say, just give the two saps like $10 each and piss in their cheerios.
Kadve
Member
Note that in most countries (that aren't the US) there are limits to what a company can put into an EULA. And in some they aren't even legally binding to begin with and pretty much represents a pinkie swear.
Last edited:
Loomy
Banned
That is true.
RoboFu
One of the green rats
Old sign .. those guys split a few years ago then one of them died.. in an " accident "
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Didn't they recently promise an offline patch for this?
Interestingly there was a case in court in Germany in 2013, where a holding organization sued an audio and audio book seller because the seller used the term "purchase" in his ToS but the buyer don't actually get ownership (German law dictates transfer of ownership in a contract of 'purchase' but since there's no transfer of ownership, purchase isn't the right term and hence a whole ToS clause is seen void in the eyes of the plaintiff) because the buyer is not allowed to copy and share the (purchased) files. The court rejected the charge. They argued that "the primary purpose of the contract is the facilitation and provision of the download by the seller and the subsequent listening or viewing by the customer as often as desired" and that reselling and sharing is NOT the primary purpose of such purchase. This has some interesting implication for this topic's case, though: "facilitation and provision of the download" and "as often as desired" are the key phrases. These things won't apply anymore in case of Ubisoft's The Crew "debacle". They do NOT facilitate and provide the download anymore and you cannot play the game "as often as desired".
Technically, this verdict isn't about video games, but "audiobook, musical work, movie or e-book". But it's a solid precedence for video games as they act the same as movie or e-book or song file.
Technically, this verdict isn't about video games, but "audiobook, musical work, movie or e-book". But it's a solid precedence for video games as they act the same as movie or e-book or song file.
Only until laws confirm or deny that. At the least in the EU. As someone here earlier said correctly, you can theoretically write anything you want into your ToS/EULA. That doesn't mean it's legally binding, though: someone's written you have to name your first born after him wouldn't stand up in court – freedom of contract or not.
Last edited:
Lucifers Beard
Member
I was going to say that there would likely be a limit. No chance you can just throw any old shite in there and get away with it.
Grildon Tundy
Member
EULAs are a broken system, and I hope the plaintiffs win. As they are today, there is no way to reasonably prove someone read and understood a EULA before agreeing. 95% of people scroll through them as quickly as it will let them and slap that "agree" button (gut estimate).
The average person reads 200-300 words per minute. So a EULA agreement should be invalid if it takes someone, say, two standard deviations below the average to "read" and agree. Or you put a minimum time limit on it. All they'd need to do is track the time from when the EULA appears on screen to the time someone hits "agree". Two timestamps-->timestamp data sent back to publisher-->done.
But they don't do this. Because (almost) no one reads them, and publishers know it and want it that way. What they want is to overwhelm their audience with legalese to the point they give up and agree to any and all terms and conditions. Because if people actually read and understood what EULAs say, there'd be riots (figuratively and online).
The average person reads 200-300 words per minute. So a EULA agreement should be invalid if it takes someone, say, two standard deviations below the average to "read" and agree. Or you put a minimum time limit on it. All they'd need to do is track the time from when the EULA appears on screen to the time someone hits "agree". Two timestamps-->timestamp data sent back to publisher-->done.
But they don't do this. Because (almost) no one reads them, and publishers know it and want it that way. What they want is to overwhelm their audience with legalese to the point they give up and agree to any and all terms and conditions. Because if people actually read and understood what EULAs say, there'd be riots (figuratively and online).
EDMIX
Writes a lot, says very little
lolz, I actually disagree
Ignorance of the law or any type of contract like this doesn't necessarily void it
Nothing specifically stated by this publisher ever makes any claim that's the game would live on forever it's completely understood it exists online therefore subject to change which clearly is going to include being offline 1 day
I would say the biggest problem you have is look how many fucking games went offline, imagine trying to convince a judge that this publisher specifically tricked you, all Ubisoft have to do is just cite every other fucking game that went off line that clearly didn't have someone trying to make this stupid claim in court lol
This sound dumb and slow, like the person crying over this doesn't understand that the company has no ode to just keep it servers up for life or something and I doubt any court will even waste much time on this.
Pretty much.
New generation of kids are entitled and can't read lol
Nothing regarding this game has ever stated something crazy like The Crew's online will be on forever or anything crazy like this for that to be some expectation or any sort. Even remotely.
This is not even a fucking argument about "The Crew" this is literally trying to challenge all online products as if magically they should never go offline, no fucking court is ruling in those Gen ZXYBBQs favor
like zero
ReyBrujo
Member
Same with pretty much any contract you sign in paper.
Miyazaki’s Slave
Gold Member
This has been in EULA's for years this isn't new at all.
EDMIX
Writes a lot, says very little
Apparently some gamers can't read and are unaware of this, thus it must be a company's fault a customer can't read or something lol
I'm shocked that some even didn't know this in this thread which makes this even funnier.
Being slow isn't some magical excuse for something and I don't really get the argument being made by some regarding not reading it. It still exist, it still is stated within the game, can be looked up etc. None of this is a mystery and I'm surprised how many really think being slow is now this excuse for a lawsuit
Thats like eating raw meat or drinking Clorox or something and claiming cause it NOT telling you bold letters NOT to do it, you must sue (turns out it does say this but...........hey, no way to prove someone reads and understoods words) =)
xrnzaaas
Member
They promised to make Crew 2 & Motorfest offline (without any timeline or details what will be available in offline mode). First game will stay dead unless that fan project succeeds somehow.
Crew 1 & 2 are actually quite different despite both offering the map of USA. For me the biggest difference is the story mode in Crew 1 which was quite good (for racing game standards).
Sure people usually move on to newer things, but I wouldn't be surprised that some people stayed with 1 or at least returned to it occasionally.
Last edited:
EDMIX
Writes a lot, says very little
I can understand that, I haven't been into racing games like that in ages, the only racing IP I care about is GT now says, but thats how I am with MP lol only IP I care about is Battlefield.
Generations ago I think I played so much more of each genre, like playing Need For Speed series, Burnout, Unlimited, Mario Kart, GT, Midnight Club etc now I just play GT. I'm all raced out lol
Solarstrike
Member
Grildon Tundy
Member
It's the best system we've got, but it's still whack.
Shake Your Rump
Banned
I don't know about PC or Xbox, but PlayStation games have had notifications on the game case when internet is required for most functionality. I think that is a fair warning.
GT7 is basically dead without internet. This is one thing that Forza does much better than GT.
GT7 is basically dead without internet. This is one thing that Forza does much better than GT.
FeralEcho
Member
Yeah...God forbid someone actually owns what they fucking buy... That's now entitlement.
Instead let's pucker our lips,kiss that multibillion dollar corporation in the ass and spread our cheeks waiting for the big "get comfortable with not owning anything" dong to penetrate only because some people are comfortable doing that already.
Brilliant.
GametimeUK
Member
Online only games don't stay online forever and a developer is at no obligation to continue providing the service either. Sure there's an argument to be made that the game could have been developed to support offline play, but ultimately it wasn't made that way and people still bought it anyway.
I put the blame on the user for this one. Nothing was hidden from them, they supported the service.
I put the blame on the user for this one. Nothing was hidden from them, they supported the service.
Last edited:
EDMIX
Writes a lot, says very little
Just stop man, you fucking know its an online game, its a game on a server, nothing even remotely stated by this publisher ever made some claim that it would on forever to really be acting as if this is some wild new idea that you were tricked into lol
I'd only feel this is a real legit claim if it was a single player, offline game with no EULA making a statement about it being removed at some point or something.
Yea, god forbid gamers use common sense and actually read right? lol
Your first time playing an online game or?
no stop, that is waaaaay to logical and rational for here lol
I think its wild we even have gamers acting as if they never heard of a fucking online game before lol
Like...stop.
nkarafo
Member
Honest question: Why must the consumer always assume a server won't last forever? The back of the box only has a "online only" indication in fine print. Nowhere it says the game may stop function at any time in the future. So when you sell a game like this you always assume the buyer will assume this is the case. This is a lot of assumptions. Shouldn't there be some indication about this? I mean, duh, nothing lasts forever but when you buy something there's a warranty. Did this game come with a warranty that it will work for at least an X amount of time? Did they pull it from the stores when they knew they can't cover that warranty anymore?
This could also true for all online-only games on the market btw. However, most other games are either free or require a subscription. When the servers die, they stop selling subscriptions so nobody can spend money for something they can't use. AFAIK, this game was sold like a regular $60 game in shops, no?
Or maybe i'm old and don't know better, i haven't played any multiplayer game the last 10 years.
Last edited:
BlitzerRadic
Member
Why the hell would you agree to something if you dont understand what you're agreeing to?
GametimeUK
Member
This is a great question, but on the back of the box for The Crew, my understanding is it says the game is subject to license and provides a website to check the terms and conditions from Ubisoft (which I assume would have covered them removing online). It also states SCEA may retire the online portion of the game at any time.
nkarafo
Member
It says "online portion" specifically? Because that would indicate there's an offline portion as well. But the whole game is online, not a part of it.
midnightAI
Banned
Do people try and sue Netflix every time a film or show is removed?
nkarafo
Member
Does Netflix sell these movies or shows?
MonkD
Member
They let you pay for the game before you agree to the EULA. It's not the protection that some people think it is.
Calverz
Member
They did. I was playing it a couple of weeks ago. I’m sure it was “offline” but my ally was still online connected. So I have no idea.
Team Andromeda
Member
Stupid case. You can't expect a publisher to keep servers going for a game indefinitely, hope they lose and have to pay costs
GametimeUK
Member
Yes it states online portion specifically. However with the front of the box stating online is required along with the back of the box stating the online portion can be retired I would seriously question somebody's reading comprehension if they didn't conclude that meant the whole game would be removed as that's the online portion.
there is an offline portion to the game that can be accessed to get to the games main menu, so the use of the word "portion" is actually correct.
midnightAI
Banned
I was just asking the question, the terms of the agreements are different, but you do agree to terms upon registration, or in the case of games you buy a license to use that software which will have terms attached to it.
Is it right? erm, in this case, complicated, it has a major multiplayer component which requires an internet connection and servers to play, I suppose the best way of dealing with it would be to allow offline play but for some games thats impossible or expensive to change. If its costing $1000's of dollars (probably $10,000s) a month to keep the server going for 100 players or less then I don't blame them for shutting it down.
winjer
Gold Member
There was a time, when all MP games for PC came with the online SDK.
This meant that gamers could host their own servers. And this had huge advantages.
Such as customizing servers. Much fewer cheaters, because clans could monitor players and see if anyone was cheating.
And when a company decided to shut down their own servers for the game, players could still host their own servers.
That is why games like Counter Strike 1.6, Quake3, Unreal Tournament and many others, can still be played today, despite all these companies having closed their own servers.
And it's not just online servers. People could also create lan parties.
It's impressive how much value gamers have lost from MP games.
Last edited:
thief183
Member
Totally agree, they should just release a server side client and call it a day. I think it is what will happenJust stop man, you fucking know its an online game, its a game on a server, nothing even remotely stated by this publisher ever made some claim that it would on forever to really be acting as if this is some wild new idea that you were tricked into lol
I'd only feel this is a real legit claim if it was a single player, offline game with no EULA making a statement about it being removed at some point or something.
Yea, god forbid gamers use common sense and actually read right? lol
Your first time playing an online game or?
no stop, that is waaaaay to logical and rational for here lol
I think its wild we even have gamers acting as if they never heard of a fucking online game before lol
Like...stop.
Similar threads
- Locked