The EULA that accompanies delisted Ubisoft games requires players to destroy their purchases. Stop Killing Games is fighting to keep titles working after companies abandon them. A major representative for EU publishers opposes solutions like support for third-party servers.
IANAL but wasn’t that text just some “standard” legalese relating to the way they license software and it was basically unenforceable anyway? I know it’s cool to pick on ubisoft for being a shit company, but BG3 had a similar requirement in the game’s EULA:
It seems like the relevant section in the Ubisoft EULA says
“Upon termination for any reason, You must immediately uninstall the Product and destroy all copies of the Product in Your possession.”
I read this wording of this to be stricter than the BG3 example you shared, because the BG3 one seems to be saying “if you don’t agree to this EULA (or if you agree, but later terminate that agreement), then you must uninstall the game”. Whereas the Ubisoft one seems to include Ubisoft terminating the agreement, rather than just the user. That’s just my interpretation of these snippets though, as someone who is not a lawyer. It’s possible that the BG3 EULA also includes other parts that would mean similar to what people are unhappy about on the Ubisoft EULA
yes but there’s still a EULA you agree to about redistribution and how you’re allowed to use the software etc…even FOSS software has licenses. if there’s terms in there about being able to back out of the agreement, i’d imagine there would be a clause about destroying copies of the software
Because a good lawyer looks for any sort of far reaching authority they can legally get away with, and will continues to push boundaries as legally far as they can until they get challenged. All in the name of protecting their clients from liability.
I don’t like it, but I get it. And these things can fall apart when challenged in court or public opinion.
Makes me think of the guy who died from an allergy at Disney land and Disney tried to say he couldn’t sue because of his Disney plus agreement.
Lawyers put in all kinds of legal clauses specifically to try and avoid any and all liability on anything imaginable or unimaginable. Most times it’s beyond what anyone would call reasonable. But we aren’t dealing with reasonable people.
Say I broke a game disk that they told me I had to destroy and I cut myself on it, deep enough to need medical attention. I wonder if I could sue them for the costs, since they specifically told me I had to break my game.
They both are. Both agreements can be terminated for any reason. Larion’s says nothing that would prevent them from terminating the agreement, it only clarifies that the signer can. There’s no real difference here.
I read it the same way you did. If you want to terminate the EULA, then they request you remove your copies of the game. In that snippet it says nothing about them arbitrary demand you delete all your copies.
Exactly this. And it’s kind of logical actually, when you go crazy like writing Larian “fuck this shit I hate the game, you can shove it up your ass” it’s no surprise you’re fed up with the game and don’t want to have it anymore. It’s like when you literally destroyed diskette/CD/DVD back then in a rage (or fighting addiction).
I can’t find it on GOG’s but I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s in most EULAs. I’ve seen emails saying “confidential, if you are not the intended recipient of this email you must delete it.” There’s no way to enforce that. Ubisoft isn’t coming to your house to review the contents of your drives. I’m guessing it’s to stop some loophole like “you said I can’t resell your game so instead I sold my hard drive (that has the game installed on it)”.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Rules
1. Submissions have to be related to games
Video games, tabletop, or otherwise. Posts not related to games will be deleted.
This community is focused on games, of all kinds. Any news item or discussion should be related to gaming in some way.
2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil
No bigotry, hardline stance. Try not to get too heated when entering into a discussion or debate.
We are here to talk and discuss about one of our passions, not fight or be exposed to hate. Posts or responses that are hateful will be deleted to keep the atmosphere good. If repeatedly violated, not only will the comment be deleted but a ban will be handed out as well. We judge each case individually.
3. No excessive self-promotion
Try to keep it to 10% self-promotion / 90% other stuff in your post history.
This is to prevent people from posting for the sole purpose of promoting their own website or social media account.
4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
This community is mostly for discussion and news. Remember to search for the thing you’re submitting before posting to see if it’s already been posted.
We want to keep the quality of posts high. Therefore, memes, funny videos, low-effort posts and reposts are not allowed. We prohibit giveaways because we cannot be sure that the person holding the giveaway will actually do what they promise.
5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW
Make sure to mark your stuff or it may be removed.
No one wants to be spoiled. Therefore, always mark spoilers. Similarly mark NSFW, in case anyone is browsing in a public space or at work.
6. No linking to piracy
Don’t share it here, there are other places to find it. Discussion of piracy is fine.
We don’t want us moderators or the admins of lemmy.world to get in trouble for linking to piracy. Therefore, any link to piracy will be removed. Discussion of it is of course allowed.
IANAL but wasn’t that text just some “standard” legalese relating to the way they license software and it was basically unenforceable anyway? I know it’s cool to pick on ubisoft for being a shit company, but BG3 had a similar requirement in the game’s EULA:
Same for GOG iirc, but I’m too lazy to search.
It seems like the relevant section in the Ubisoft EULA says
I read this wording of this to be stricter than the BG3 example you shared, because the BG3 one seems to be saying “if you don’t agree to this EULA (or if you agree, but later terminate that agreement), then you must uninstall the game”. Whereas the Ubisoft one seems to include Ubisoft terminating the agreement, rather than just the user. That’s just my interpretation of these snippets though, as someone who is not a lawyer. It’s possible that the BG3 EULA also includes other parts that would mean similar to what people are unhappy about on the Ubisoft EULA
Gog doesn’t have this. They specifically market it that you get to download a binary install and keep the game forever.
yes but there’s still a EULA you agree to about redistribution and how you’re allowed to use the software etc…even FOSS software has licenses. if there’s terms in there about being able to back out of the agreement, i’d imagine there would be a clause about destroying copies of the software
that all seems very reasonable
This being “standard legalese” sounds fine to you?
Isn’t the conditions quite different, from your screenshot, you get to devices if you want to terminate. But in the other case, they decide.
Yep I believe that’s what this is. I’ve seen clauses like this in other stuff too. Pretty boiler plate. Not like they can actually enforce it.
Then why the fuck did they write it?
Because a good lawyer looks for any sort of far reaching authority they can legally get away with, and will continues to push boundaries as legally far as they can until they get challenged. All in the name of protecting their clients from liability.
I don’t like it, but I get it. And these things can fall apart when challenged in court or public opinion.
Makes me think of the guy who died from an allergy at Disney land and Disney tried to say he couldn’t sue because of his Disney plus agreement.
Lawyers put in all kinds of legal clauses specifically to try and avoid any and all liability on anything imaginable or unimaginable. Most times it’s beyond what anyone would call reasonable. But we aren’t dealing with reasonable people.
Say I broke a game disk that they told me I had to destroy and I cut myself on it, deep enough to need medical attention. I wonder if I could sue them for the costs, since they specifically told me I had to break my game.
It’s why no legitimate site is reporting this, because it’s nonsense rage bait.
That’s saying that if YOU stop the agreement, you have to delete the game though.
They both are. Both agreements can be terminated for any reason. Larion’s says nothing that would prevent them from terminating the agreement, it only clarifies that the signer can. There’s no real difference here.
I read it the same way you did. If you want to terminate the EULA, then they request you remove your copies of the game. In that snippet it says nothing about them arbitrary demand you delete all your copies.
Exactly this. And it’s kind of logical actually, when you go crazy like writing Larian “fuck this shit I hate the game, you can shove it up your ass” it’s no surprise you’re fed up with the game and don’t want to have it anymore. It’s like when you literally destroyed diskette/CD/DVD back then in a rage (or fighting addiction).
That’s one way to tell everyone that you didn’t understand the comment.
Care to explain then?
I didn’t want to dig out the EULA for more context of that snippet.
I can’t find it on GOG’s but I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s in most EULAs. I’ve seen emails saying “confidential, if you are not the intended recipient of this email you must delete it.” There’s no way to enforce that. Ubisoft isn’t coming to your house to review the contents of your drives. I’m guessing it’s to stop some loophole like “you said I can’t resell your game so instead I sold my hard drive (that has the game installed on it)”.
Nice observation. Nonetheless it is wrong in any circumstance.