Full title: Ubisoft says you “cannot complain” it shut down The Crew because you never actually owned it, and you weren’t “deceived” by the lack of an offline version “to access a decade-old, discontinued video game”
Ubisoft’s lawyers have responded to a class action lawsuit over the shutdown of The Crew, arguing that it was always clear that you didn’t own the game and calling for a dismissal of the case outright.
The class action was filed in November 2024, and Ubisoft’s response came in February 2025, though it’s only come to the public’s attention now courtesy of Polygon. The full response from Ubisoft attorney Steven A. Marenberg picks apart the claims of plaintiffs Matthew Cassell and Alan Liu piece by piece, but the most common refrain is that The Crew’s box made clear both that the game required an internet connection and that Ubisoft retained the right to revoke access “to one or more specific online features” with a 30-day notice at its own discretion.
I gotta thank Ubisoft for saving me money by consistently saying dumbass shit so I don’t buy their crappy games. The one Elon tweet was still pretty funny though I won’t lie.
This is why I will always have some nostalgia for physical media. I still got CDs I bought in the 90s (which I’ve copied onto my hard drives a long, long time ago) and while they need a like coaxing to work at times, they are forever mine and no one can take them from me.
I was very hesitant to go on steam specifically for their ‘you don’t own shit even if you paid and followed the rules’ garbage.
Steam is crazy in how it’s still usable and not completely enshittified after existing for so many years. I don’t know how they do it
It’s called staying away from venture capital. It really is as simple as that. Because Valve has a lucrative business model they have no need or desire to raise capital from outside investors, therefore there is nobody to squeeze them for value at the expense of their customers.
If you watch Cory Doctorow’s talk where he coined the word “enshittification” he explains how the process works, and it starts with outside investment. Enshittification is just a catchy term for value extraction, from the perspective of the customer.
Damn, now I understand the hype!
I bought Star Wars squadrons and it worked for a bit. Now it doesn’t even boot and I don’t know why. Initially it was my shitty anti-virus that was causing the problem, but even after disabling it it doesn’t load.
If buying isn’t owning, piracy isn’t stealing.
When you “buy” software, you’re buying a license that grants you permission to use it subject to the terms & conditions. The stealing as the law would see it is from using software without purchasing a license or using it in violation of the license.
It even extends to digital content people “buy” on Steam, or Google Play, or Amazon including books, music, and videos. You didn’t buy that content, even if you think you did. You bought a license to it which is why occasionally Amazon or whoever will just scrub the content from your account without your consent. That’s also why in some countries you pay VAT on e-books even though you don’t pay VAT on real books - because you actually bought a software license which is liable to VAT.
So the best advice is don’t buy digital media from online services. For games and software it is unavoidable but recognize you don’t legally own squat although most console games on disc or cartridge can still be sold second hand. But even that is being eroded. Nintendo apparently are planning to sell “physical” games in stores but you open it up and there is a redemption code inside. Sony and Microsoft have both tried to get away from physical media too.
And people will still defend this company
I think there is an implication that if you buy a game which is online by nature (e.g. an MMO) that the servers can and will shut down eventually. My cupboard is filled with defunct MMOs. And people do not “own” any commercial software per se, they run it under licence.
So I don’t see that Ubisoft has any legal obligation here. But as a good will gesture they really should put the server code in escrow, or open source chunks of it so that games can continue to enjoy life after the company itself has no economic incentive to continue running it.
If they don’t sell the game but a long term rental license, then they should not say “we’ve sold 1234557890 copies of <game>”.
The thing is with MMOs or online only games do you have a valid expectation of the game surviving forever?
It was deliberate choice by them to make even the single player campaign online homie. It ain’t an mmo, and it never should have been built like this.
Don’t even play like that wasnt fucked up, ok? If your actual argument is “i think companies should get to do what they want” them say that, with your whole chest, not this Weak socratic-method-bootlick-bull…
Take that stand and defend it. Or you could also stfu
It was deliberate choice by them to make even the single player campaign online homie.
As one would expect from an online racing game. Anyone buying it would know in advance that single player offline modes do not exist when they bought the game.
It ain’t an mmo, and it never should have been built like this.
It kind of was and it was intended to work as it did by the company that made it.
If your actual argument is “i think companies should get to do what they want”
My argument us that this is a game designed to be played online only. When you bought the game the packaging/materials do not talk about offline play so you shouldn’t expect it to work in a way it expressly isn’t designed to do. Adults should be aware of what things do when they buy them.
It ain’t an mmo, and it never should have been built like this.
It kind of was and it was intended to work as it did by the company that made it.
Adults don’t dance around semantics in debate when they’re called out. I told you to stand up and this is your response? Mebbe you’re not even hidin! Maybe it’s the only way you can talk?
I guess you disagree, but I find your speech pattern embarrassing and tiring.
Be better eh? For me
Your perspective seems to be you should get whatever you want regardless of the actual product you were sold and the terms of that sale. That’s not rational. You bought an online only game. If you wanted a single player offline mode to exist then you should have bought a game that had one.
Removed by mod
Pretending authority is your only tactic. As the likely old-head here I deny you my permission to “be the adult in the room”
Call out use of argument from authority fallacy, call to his own authority instead… Quite ironic.
Well you know what, I call upon the deep magic of rule 2 to remove your message (for the part I didn’t quote, for those who wonder).
roll dice, get a critical failure “well fu…”
Anyway, please stay civil, no matter how heated a debate can become.
deleted by creator
Technically they’re right, which is why pirating Ubisoft games is ethical.
Edit: Pirating Nintendo games is ethical too, of course.
Ubisoft deserves to go bankrupt, get dissolved, and have their IP’s sold to people aren’t malicious.
Some call it piracy when you download games, movies, music, software or books. I call it an online public library. In 2003 I used to get video games from the public library, install them on my PC and play them. You had to have the disk in your CD drive to play the game so when the game was due back at the library you could return or renew it. If game makers don’t provide hard copies then downloading is no different than using the library.
If you never actually own a Ubisoft game that logically pirating them isn’t theft right? Right?
I am 100% serious, I don’t see the contradiction in this.
It’s a license to play the game, so when you pirate it is like sneaking into the movie theater. There’s no additional cost to the producer, but theoretically a loss of revenue from the license (movie ticket) you didn’t buy.
All that ignores the fact that they sure do pretend they are SELLING the game when it’s convenient.
I think a better comparison would be a “Drive-In Theater”, because with pirating you’re just seeing the film, not using their seats/venue (servers) so it’s like you’re sitting in the neighbors yard watching it from their porch. Still costing them what would be considered a “viewing purchase” for the data but you’re really not putting a strain on the theater itself by “attending or sneaking in”.
I mean you’re still using the Drive-In’s gravel and taking up space, but I see what you mean.
…you’re using the drive-in’s gravel and space from the neighbor’s yard?
Ah I missed that. Thanks.
No one should own an Ubisoft game. Its a company thats at the top of the list with Nintendo as far as the level of hatred and vitriol they have for their own paying customers goes.
You’re correct, and this goes for ALL steam games
Problem is Ubisoft games are so shit now days it’s not even worth the effort to pirate them.
Logic checks out
Yes sir 100% correct.
It’s a nice sentiment but seriously - the whole “if buying isn’t owning then pirating isn’t stealing” thing is both overused and has always annoyed me. How are the two related? You can still be stealing regardless of if you have an option to buy or not. You could still steal an item that isn’t for sale.
What we really should be focusing on is whether pirating in and of itself is stealing, and whether it should be a crime. This overused phrase is distracting from the issue at hand, imo.
How are the two related?
A user obtains the game through legitimate means by “buying” the game. However, they do not own the game, and are in fact, just renting something. This is despite decades and decades of game buying, especially pre-Internet, equating to owning the game and being able to play the game forever, even 100 years from now.
By pirating the game, a user has clawed back the implied social construct that existed for decades past: Acquiring a game through piracy means that you own the game. You have it in a static form that cannot be taken away from you. There’s still the case of server shutdowns, like this legal case is arguing. But, unlike the “buyer”, the game cannot suddenly disappear from a game’s store or be forcefully uninstalled from your PC. You own it. You have the files. They cannot take that away from you.
The phrase essentially means: You have removed my means of owning software, therefore piracy is the only choice I have to own this game. It’s not stealing because it’s the only way to hold on to it forever. You know, because that’s what fucking “buying” was supposed to mean.
Ubisoft cannot complain if I pirate their games, because they never actually sold them. And I’m not deceiving them with my intention of never, ever, give them a dime.
though their games aren’t worth playing in the first place
On that I disagree, and that’s part of the problem. I do love some of their games, but I’m not going to reward their behavior anymore
Ubisoft cannot complain when gamers “pirate” their games then.
If buying isn’t owning, piracy isn’t theft and all that.
Goddammit… get the quote right:
If buying ain’t owning, piracy ain’t stealing.
Piracy was never stealing, in so far as legality is concerned in the USA, at least.
Stealing requires the owner of the stolen thing to be deprived access of that thing. If someone steals your car, you cannot access it anymore, since it was removed from you by the thief.
Piracy copies your car, meaning you still can access your car but someone else can drive a copy of your car. The first example is a major inconvenience to you, the second example has absolutely no negative effect on you.
It is why instances of piracy that make it to a court of law are tried as Copyright Infringement cases, and not theft or piracy cases. When your ISP spies on you and sends you a letter after you pirate something in an insecure manner, you get sent a Notice of Copyright Infringement, not a Notice of Theft.
In fact, I downloaded a Rimac Nevera just yesterday.
For Cyberpunk 2077, but still. Would, could, did.
Exactly. It also means you’re being sued by the copyright holder and not the state. You won’t go to prison for this shit, as opposed to actual theft.
Not only is that not a quote, but its not even right. Piracy was never stealing, its copyright infringement.
Thanks for the clarification, it really drastically changes the meaning when said like this versus op…
“You will own nothing and like it”
I don’t like it, though.
Tell you what customers absolutely can do: decide to stop doing business with you.
Deny. Defend. Depose.
Here’s the original in higher quality and less cropping: https://i.imgur.com/XzgU9AS.mp4
The watermark in the bottom right corner says KLING AI 1.6
Thanks for that! :)
