Ubisoft shut down The Crew in 2024

Archive: https://archive.is/2025.04.09-191645/https://www.polygon.com/gaming/555469/ubisoft-holds-firm-in-the-crew-lawsuit-you-dont-own-your-video-games

Ubisoft responded to California gamers’ The Crew shutdown lawsuit in late February, filing to dismiss the case. The company’s lawyers argued in that filing, reviewed by Polygon, that there was no reason for players to believe they were purchasing “unfettered ownership rights in the game.” Ubisoft has made it clear, lawyers claimed, that when you buy a copy of The Crew, you’re merely buying a limited access license.

“Frustrated with Ubisoft’s recent decision to retire the game following a notice period delineated on the product’s packaging, Plaintiffs apply a kitchen sink approach on behalf of a putative class of nationwide customers, alleging eight causes of action including violations of California’s False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, as well as common law fraud and breach of warranty claims,” Ubisoft’s lawyers wrote.

  • CileTheSane@lemmy.caEnglish
    21·
    1 day ago

    Depends if you see theft as someone taking something they didnt pay for or earn

    Ah, so children playing in the park is theft. (They didn’t pay for or earn it). Drinking from a creek is theft. Breathing air is theft. I quoted your post, I guess that is theft as well.

    does not mean you are entitled to it.

    I am not claiming they are entitled to it, I’m just saying it’s not theft.

    • Rekorse@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      21·
      14 hours ago

      You can’t steal from nature. Parks are provided for the public, its literally the whole point.

      Any more gotchas?

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.caEnglish
        1·
        8 hours ago

        So you don’t define theft as “someone taking something they didnt pay for or earn” then. Glad we agree.

        • Rekorse@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          21·
          6 hours ago

          If someone’s part of the “public” then its provided to them for 0$, thats the deal. If they are an adult in that area they might pay for it in taxes, but most places won’t limit access to local taxpayers. There is nothing underhanded happening there. Its provided for a group of people and those people use it within the guidelines setup for them.

          Im sure you will have as little to say in your next reply but do try to actually make a point.

          • CileTheSane@lemmy.caEnglish
            1·
            37 minutes ago

            If someone’s part of the “public” then its provided to them for 0$, thats the deal. If they are an adult in that area they might pay for it in taxes, but most places won’t limit access to local taxpayers. There is nothing underhanded happening there. Its provided for a group of people and those people use it within the guidelines setup for them.

            Of course it is. I don’t know who you think you’re disagreeing with here.

            Im sure you will have as little to say in your next reply but do try to actually make a point.

            Interesting considering you had a lot to say without making any point at all. What exactly is the point you’re trying to make here?