The Crew players "received the benefit of their bargain and cannot complain now that they were deceived," Ubisoft argues
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.
Whose exact quote do you think you’re quoting? Every time i hear this phrase it’s always said the way OP said it, never the way you said it. Also please try to talk to people in a less pissy way
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.
I first heard they were doing propaganda( to make them self look good in a positive light) by basically promoting in a show mythic quest, I’m guessing the creator of isaip is no saint either
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.
You are right you can’t steal something that is not ownable, but paying for the game is what allows you to play so playing without stealing is still breaking their rules. Instead of buy to own they made it pay to play. But that sucks so fuck them anyway
Every AAA game company’s have been for 30 years and still currently are arguing this in courts all the time.
The actual public facing employees don’t have to, but sometimes still do, though usually in an unofficial capacity these days.
AA / indie devs are more of a mixed bag. A few will openly say ‘fuck it, pirate it if you can’t afford it, idgaf’, but the majority will denounce piracy if its relevant or if prompted.
copyright infringent is commonly also referred to as IP theft, theft of intellectual property.
unauthorized use, sale, or distribution of ip is ip theft.
when it comes to software, basically , unless your software is distributed under some kind MIT or GPL or other copyleft liscense… all of the software legally is ip, and using it in an unauthorized manner is copyright infringement… which is also referred to as ip theft.
so yes, ip theft is a form of theft, and gaming companies and lawyers and other lawyers have been successfully suing other people and other companies into oblivion over this basically since the industry began.
copyright is a type of intellectual property, an area of law distinct from that which covers robbery or theft, offenses related only to tangible property.
I mean, I can be as much of a pedant as you and post an unsourced definition of ‘ip theft’ … or maybe you could just admit you’d never heard of the term ‘ip theft’, or are unaware of its use.
Its a pretty commonly used term, especially amongst government regulatory and business organizations, as well as academics who study policy, in the US.
The term itself, its phrasing, is intentionally constructed to frame copyright infringement as a form of theft, stealing something that doesn’t belong to you.
The psychological framing of the term is meant to frame losses from someone committing copyright infringement against you as equivalent to losses from being robbed.
The entire point of the usage of this term is to mold public perception.
Here’s some examples where very prominent US institutions/organizations use some construction or variation of ‘ip theft’ as an umbrella term to refer to all kinds of copyright, trademark and/or patent infringement:
And finally, literally IPTheft.org, which basically functions as an all-in-one training/resource hub that connects business people to all kinds of resources to report when they have suffered… IP theft.
I’ve always heard it referred to as infringement, in a legal context. I’m sure game publishers (and music, film, etc.) would like to equate it in the public mind with common theft of physical goods, but it’s all just propaganda.
We’re just playing games with words at this point. The law is pretty clear, that distributing a copyrighted work such as a copy of a video game is illegal. I don’t know why people like to repeat this line, that “if buying a game isn’t owning then piracy isn’t theft.” Maybe it is a moral/ethical argument? It’s not going to help you in court.
The entire original comment chain that lead to what I replied to … was all about playing word games with slogans, progoganda, public relations.
The law may be ‘clear’, but it is clearly bullshit.
It is absurdly deferential toward the rights of megacorps and hostile to the rights of consumers.
Laws are supposed to reflect and codify morals and ethics, arise from them… not determine them.
But, as we slip more and more into a cyberpunk dystopia of hypercapitalist megacorps being able to basically just buy legislators, judges and laws, it will become more evident that the government is just entirely a facade directed by them.
This whole article is about a lawsuit in America, you know, the land of the fee, home of the early and very expensive grave?
The place with the ongoing fascist coup that’s dismantling all the government agencies that regulate corporations, after the richest man in the world just bought an election, and more recently openly tried to buy a state judge, and though he didn’t succeed, will likely face no penalty for doing that very obviously illegal thing?
Also, as far as at least acquring a pirated game?
Its not that hard.
Now hosting them? Sharing them?
Yep, you’re right, that’s a bit more difficult… but hey, be clever enough to not get caught, and thats the same as being rich enough to write your own laws.
Playing devil’s advocate here: both lines are consistent with them owning the games. We just rent them for a while, and own nothing. But pirating is taking what they own without paying - i.e. stealing.
It’s an initiative to get the European parliament to discuss the matter all together, and Iirc, it already has some members that support it. (So It’s not just any ordinary petition that will go nowhere.)
We have already collected 42% of the 1 million signatures from European citizens required. But the deadline is June 2025 and if we don’t get enough signatures by then, it won’t be looked at by the European commission. So to at least get the matter to be discussed, please sign!
(ONLY FOR European Union citizens! No one else! Please do not sign if you aren’t an EU citizen. Also No Brits! there’s another initiative for the UK.)
No, please don’t sign if you are American. That can harm the petition with false signatures.
This is strictly ONLY for European union citizens!
Don’t worry, you can still help by spreading the message among your EU friends or family members(You don’t have to be a gamer to care about this or vote in this!). A lot of the exposure to this initiative is lacking when it comes to non-english speaking EU citizens. You can help there.
Let’s compare with Destiny 2’s back cover, a game that is a MMO and thus “cannot be owned” by the players. Hey, a “Online Play (Required)*” sticker that is not present on The Crew! The fine print has a bit that states that “Activision makes no guarantee of regarding availability of online play or features, and may modify or discontinue online services at its discretion without notice.”
I did and have read about it and disagree. I dont think anyone was tricked and thought they’d have the crew forever. This all seems very self entitled in my opinion. Point out any technicalities that you want to, people should have expected the game to be sunset eventually, and that it would be gone after that, just like every other online only game.
Which was a deception in the first place, because it clearly distinguishes between ‘1 player’ where it doesn’t say anything about needing a network connection, and 2-8 player where it says network and playstation plus required. It also says network features can be removed at any time, but nowhere does it say 1 player is a network feature. It specifically does not say that.
Why weren’t people upset when they first bought the game and realized they needed to be online to play it then? Why did it only become a talking point after the fact? You could argue it was shitty to make it a network only game and I might agree, but to say people were deceived and didnt realize it couldn’t be played offline until the servers were shutdown is absurd.
They probably were upset, but not upset enough to do anything about it because they still wanted to play it. I personally would have refunded it right away, and lots of people probably also did that.
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.
“Nobody reads those EULAs, and the Defendant knows that. Therefore, the Defendant cannot hide behind the EULA as a shield because the Prosecution, having clicked Agree without being required to confirm that they read through the terms, could not have possibly known what they were agreeing to.”
“If you are what you agree to, your Honor, then my clients are an unknown spaghetti of legal mumbo jumbo.”
I would relish a lawsuit against EULAs where the defendant somehow sends the prosecutor a EULA in a software package that declares that they automatically lose the lawsuit by clicking Agree.
It would really hammer in the point that fucking NOBODY reads this shit.
I think someone calculated the time it would take to read every single one you’re expected to agree with in normal every day life, and it worked out to needing 76 work days to read everything you “agree” to in a typical year.
There was a video game store that once, for April Fools Day, included in its sale terms:
By placing an order via this Web site on the first day of the fourth month of the year 2010 Anno Domini, you agree to grant Us a non transferable option to claim, for now and for ever more, your immortal soul. Should We wish to exercise this option, you agree to surrender your immortal soul, and any claim you may have on it, within 5 (five) working days of receiving written notification from gamesation.co.uk or one of its duly authorized minions.
Only 12% of people that purchased that day responded, essentially confirming only 12% of people actually read the terms.
I think one could successfully argue in a court of law that people tend to be hyper aware on April 1st, and so may have read the terms suspecting something amiss when they otherwise would not have.
The judge would tell you you’re an idiot who said nothing worthwhile and that ignorance of the things you agree to doesn’t make them void when they’re used against you.
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.
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.
Whose exact quote do you think you’re quoting? Every time i hear this phrase it’s always said the way OP said it, never the way you said it. Also please try to talk to people in a less pissy way
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.
Thanks for the clarification, it really drastically changes the meaning when said like this versus op…
Not only is that not a quote, but its not even right. Piracy was never stealing, its copyright infringement.
i say ubisoft can eat shit
have not purchased anything from them in over a decade
I got it on one of those giveaways that steam/epic/gog sometimes do, so I never even gave them money over it and I still want my money back.
haha yep, dealing with their shit is not even worth free
By their argument, nobody’s “purchased” anything from them in over a decade!
What they’ve been doing that whole time is committing massive fraud (false advertising, violating the First Sale Doctrine, etc.) instead.
I first heard they were doing propaganda( to make them self look good in a positive light) by basically promoting in a show mythic quest, I’m guessing the creator of isaip is no saint either
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! :)
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.
Yeah I’d really like to know how this ‘you don’t ever own the game’ fits in with their other line ‘piracy is theft’.
how can you have stolen something if you haven’t actually gotten it?
You are right you can’t steal something that is not ownable, but paying for the game is what allows you to play so playing without stealing is still breaking their rules. Instead of buy to own they made it pay to play. But that sucks so fuck them anyway
“You wouldn’t download a car”
Fuck you, I would if I could.
one can dream
Have they ever said that?
Every AAA game company’s have been for 30 years and still currently are arguing this in courts all the time.
The actual public facing employees don’t have to, but sometimes still do, though usually in an unofficial capacity these days.
AA / indie devs are more of a mixed bag. A few will openly say ‘fuck it, pirate it if you can’t afford it, idgaf’, but the majority will denounce piracy if its relevant or if prompted.
Are you sure about that? Because it isn’t theft, it’s copyright infringement.
copyright infringent is commonly also referred to as IP theft, theft of intellectual property.
unauthorized use, sale, or distribution of ip is ip theft.
when it comes to software, basically , unless your software is distributed under some kind MIT or GPL or other copyleft liscense… all of the software legally is ip, and using it in an unauthorized manner is copyright infringement… which is also referred to as ip theft.
so yes, ip theft is a form of theft, and gaming companies and lawyers and other lawyers have been successfully suing other people and other companies into oblivion over this basically since the industry began.
have you just never head of the term ‘ip theft’?
I mean, I can be as much of a pedant as you and post an unsourced definition of ‘ip theft’ … or maybe you could just admit you’d never heard of the term ‘ip theft’, or are unaware of its use.
Its a pretty commonly used term, especially amongst government regulatory and business organizations, as well as academics who study policy, in the US.
The term itself, its phrasing, is intentionally constructed to frame copyright infringement as a form of theft, stealing something that doesn’t belong to you.
The psychological framing of the term is meant to frame losses from someone committing copyright infringement against you as equivalent to losses from being robbed.
The entire point of the usage of this term is to mold public perception.
Here’s some examples where very prominent US institutions/organizations use some construction or variation of ‘ip theft’ as an umbrella term to refer to all kinds of copyright, trademark and/or patent infringement:
FBI
https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/countering-the-growing-intellectual-property-theft-threat
KPMG (huge business consulting group)
https://kpmg.com/us/en/articles/2022/theft-intellectual-property.html
DHS (Homeland Security)
https://www.dhs.gov/intellectual-property-rights
IPRC (Intellectual Property Rights Center)
https://www.iprcenter.gov/
And finally, literally IPTheft.org, which basically functions as an all-in-one training/resource hub that connects business people to all kinds of resources to report when they have suffered… IP theft.
https://www.iptheft.org/
I’ve always heard it referred to as infringement, in a legal context. I’m sure game publishers (and music, film, etc.) would like to equate it in the public mind with common theft of physical goods, but it’s all just propaganda.
We’re just playing games with words at this point. The law is pretty clear, that distributing a copyrighted work such as a copy of a video game is illegal. I don’t know why people like to repeat this line, that “if buying a game isn’t owning then piracy isn’t theft.” Maybe it is a moral/ethical argument? It’s not going to help you in court.
The entire original comment chain that lead to what I replied to … was all about playing word games with slogans, progoganda, public relations.
The law may be ‘clear’, but it is clearly bullshit.
It is absurdly deferential toward the rights of megacorps and hostile to the rights of consumers.
Laws are supposed to reflect and codify morals and ethics, arise from them… not determine them.
But, as we slip more and more into a cyberpunk dystopia of hypercapitalist megacorps being able to basically just buy legislators, judges and laws, it will become more evident that the government is just entirely a facade directed by them.
This whole article is about a lawsuit in America, you know, the land of the fee, home of the early and very expensive grave?
The place with the ongoing fascist coup that’s dismantling all the government agencies that regulate corporations, after the richest man in the world just bought an election, and more recently openly tried to buy a state judge, and though he didn’t succeed, will likely face no penalty for doing that very obviously illegal thing?
Also, as far as at least acquring a pirated game?
Its not that hard.
Now hosting them? Sharing them?
Yep, you’re right, that’s a bit more difficult… but hey, be clever enough to not get caught, and thats the same as being rich enough to write your own laws.
Playing devil’s advocate here: both lines are consistent with them owning the games. We just rent them for a while, and own nothing. But pirating is taking what they own without paying - i.e. stealing.
How did I take it? They still have it. Theft is defined as depriving the owner of property (in most places).
spoiler
bla, bla, copyright infringement
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 you can’t complain if I pirate your games, because I never actually bought them and you weren’t deceived by a lack of purchase.
This is the correct response.
Hijacking.
Are you European Union Citizen? Do you like games?
Do you want to own games again? and not just “License” them? Then please join the Stop destroying Videogames Initiative.
Initiative - https://citizens-initiative.europa.eu/initiatives/details/2024/000007_en
(Only sign if you are a EU citizen!)
It’s an initiative to get the European parliament to discuss the matter all together, and Iirc, it already has some members that support it. (So It’s not just any ordinary petition that will go nowhere.)
We have already collected 42% of the 1 million signatures from European citizens required. But the deadline is June 2025 and if we don’t get enough signatures by then, it won’t be looked at by the European commission. So to at least get the matter to be discussed, please sign!
(ONLY FOR European Union citizens! No one else! Please do not sign if you aren’t an EU citizen. Also No Brits! there’s another initiative for the UK.)
Short video explainer about the initiative - https://youtu.be/mkMe9MxxZiI
For more info visit https://www.stopkillinggames.com/
You can also view the petitions for other countries - (Australia, Canada, UK, Brazil… and more)
signs anyways…is American
No, please don’t sign if you are American. That can harm the petition with false signatures.
This is strictly ONLY for European union citizens!
Don’t worry, you can still help by spreading the message among your EU friends or family members(You don’t have to be a gamer to care about this or vote in this!). A lot of the exposure to this initiative is lacking when it comes to non-english speaking EU citizens. You can help there.
reads a request… doesn’t care… is American 🇺🇸
Let’s see if the physical disc once said anything about needing an online connection for single play. Oh look, it did not, the subscription required was only for 2-8 players network play.
Let’s compare with Destiny 2’s back cover, a game that is a MMO and thus “cannot be owned” by the players. Hey, a “Online Play (Required)*” sticker that is not present on The Crew! The fine print has a bit that states that “Activision makes no guarantee of regarding availability of online play or features, and may modify or discontinue online services at its discretion without notice.”
FF14 also had a “Online Play (Required)*” sticker on its back cover. It clearly states on the rectangular bit above the T Rating: “Users are granted only a limited, revocable license and do not own any intellectual property in the game or game data”
You deceived consumers, Ubisoft. “Online Play Required” is not there, so the game should remain playable offline.
☝️ This guy lawyers
Ubisoft is being fucked on consumer protection grounds, not on false advertisement. It doesn’t matter what they said on box, they broke the law.EDIT: fuck, this is USSA lawsuit. I thought it was French(and EU in general) one.
Technically right but the game required network access to play anyways so I’m not sure that people were deceived by this as it happened.
Did you like, not read any of the comment you’re replying to? Click any of the picture links?
I did and have read about it and disagree. I dont think anyone was tricked and thought they’d have the crew forever. This all seems very self entitled in my opinion. Point out any technicalities that you want to, people should have expected the game to be sunset eventually, and that it would be gone after that, just like every other online only game.
Which was a deception in the first place, because it clearly distinguishes between ‘1 player’ where it doesn’t say anything about needing a network connection, and 2-8 player where it says network and playstation plus required. It also says network features can be removed at any time, but nowhere does it say 1 player is a network feature. It specifically does not say that.
Why weren’t people upset when they first bought the game and realized they needed to be online to play it then? Why did it only become a talking point after the fact? You could argue it was shitty to make it a network only game and I might agree, but to say people were deceived and didnt realize it couldn’t be played offline until the servers were shutdown is absurd.
They probably were upset, but not upset enough to do anything about it because they still wanted to play it. I personally would have refunded it right away, and lots of people probably also did that.
Sounds pretty fair to me.
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.
And this is exactly why Ubisoft is dying. Good riddance.
Yep, couldn’t happen to a nicer publisher :)
Eat shit Guillemot.
Ubisoft can’t complain that I wont buy their games if I don’t really own their games.
Boycott doesn’t work, grab pitchforks and torches(EU citizens only).
Ubisoft’s stocks aren’t looking great at the moment.
Ubisoft’s stocks aren’t ubisoft’s assets. It is opinion on how much they worth, not how much they have.
“Nobody reads those EULAs, and the Defendant knows that. Therefore, the Defendant cannot hide behind the EULA as a shield because the Prosecution, having clicked Agree without being required to confirm that they read through the terms, could not have possibly known what they were agreeing to.”
“If you are what you agree to, your Honor, then my clients are an unknown spaghetti of legal mumbo jumbo.”
“No further remarks, your Honor.”
I would relish a lawsuit against EULAs where the defendant somehow sends the prosecutor a EULA in a software package that declares that they automatically lose the lawsuit by clicking Agree.
It would really hammer in the point that fucking NOBODY reads this shit.
I think someone calculated the time it would take to read every single one you’re expected to agree with in normal every day life, and it worked out to needing 76 work days to read everything you “agree” to in a typical year.
There was a video game store that once, for April Fools Day, included in its sale terms:
Only 12% of people that purchased that day responded, essentially confirming only 12% of people actually read the terms.
12% is honestly way higher than I thought it would be. That number might be inflated by people looking for funny stuff on April 1st though
We are not accounting for the percentage of people who read it but are still cool with forfeiting their soul.
I think one could successfully argue in a court of law that people tend to be hyper aware on April 1st, and so may have read the terms suspecting something amiss when they otherwise would not have.
The judge would tell you you’re an idiot who said nothing worthwhile and that ignorance of the things you agree to doesn’t make them void when they’re used against you.
If buying isn’t owning, surely that means pirating isn’t stealing.
It may be legal, but it certainly ain’t ethical.
Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should do it.
i have the legal right to stand on the street corner and call everyone who walks by a stupid slut.
that does not mean i will at no point get punched
Really unclear if you’re misquoting Jurassic Park, or if Jurassic Park just universally applies to EVERYTHING.
Clever girl finds a way
Hang on to your DODGSON OVER HERE!
Maybe in developing countries, but in developed world(Europe mostly) it isn’t.
Ubisoft doesn’t have to support the game forever.
They can either open up hosting to players or give refunds but they can’t have their cake and eat it too.
The best part is they havent made a compelling game in 10 years. So i wont buy a game of them ever again either way. Its an easy life tbh.
Literally just let people host private servers. It worked fine for decades, and still does.
But then they don’t get money, and they really like getting money.
Wait until some blizzard empoyee comes out and tells how it is expensive for publisher to not pay for hosting.
The HalfLife model worked exceedingly well, until gaben fucked it all up.