• Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      3 months ago

      Maybe raise a stink with your attorney general and/or representative, too. The whole idea that a company can sell licenses for something and then arbitrarily decide they don’t want to do it anymore and revoke all the licenses doesn’t sound legal. And if it is, it doesn’t sound like it should be.

    • Mango@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      3 months ago

      I own the crew, but honestly think it’s a shit game that’s not worth my attention.

      • Einar@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        3 months ago

        It’s not about this particular game.

        It’s about setting a precedent for games you do care about.

        • Mango@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          18
          ·
          3 months ago

          The games I care about will be preserved no matter how the publishers of them flail about

          • Einar@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Not in this case, seeing that progress is stored online.

            Who says that the game you care about tomorrow won’t do this next? Why be against an action/not care about something that can only benefit players now and in the long term?

            • Mango@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              3 months ago

              The games I care about all already have backup options. They’re all the kinds of games that attract people like me who will just fix them right away.

      • psud@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        3 months ago

        The idea is that since the company is French and France has excellent consumer protection, The Crew is the best example of this practice to fight

        It’s not about whether the game is good, it’s about Ubisoft being French

        • Mango@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Didn’t know that. Thanks!

          Also every time I hear about France, I like them more.

      • Gunrigger@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        The Crew was great in its time. It was basically the bridge between Test Drive Unlimited (superior open world gameplay) and early Forza Horizon (superior driving physics). Later Forza Horizon games simply took all the good gameplay features from both TLU and The Crew and is unmatched in quality now.

        The Crew 2 was worse than both its predecessor and the competing Forza Horizon at that time, so if you were talking about that I’d half agree. But it’s still a problematic industry trend worth stopping.

  • Einar@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    63
    ·
    3 months ago

    Digital “ownership”.

    Ubisoft is determined to take things one step further to stamp out any attempts to continue playing it past its expiry date.

  • kaine@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    3 months ago

    How the digital ownership normalized the fact that any service, game can disappear easily. The full digital future empowered the corporations, and that issue is here clearly shown by Ubisoft.

  • umbrella@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    release server software and let us self host!!!

    they dont even need to foot the cost for anything.

      • all-knight-party@kbin.run
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Not the same thing at all. When the Crew is lost, a unique game and its world are lost with it. That’s like saying if you want to play something like Metal Gear Solid you can go play Hitman. They’re broadly the same genre, but a lot of unique art and experience is lost by just giving up and letting it go the easy way.

  • UndeadFoodSnob@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    3 months ago

    Thanks UbiSoft for rubbing it in my face with this message, “You no longer have access to this game. Why not check the Store to pursue your adventures?”

    • xamirozar@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      “Your single-payment rental period is suddenly over. Check out our shop where you can single-payment rent another game.”

      Fixed it for Ubisoft

  • Mango@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    As if copies of a game on your computer is somehow more digital than the copy being on a disk or a chip that’s ROM.

    • evranch@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      3 months ago

      Digital ownership, not storage. As in DRM, GaaS licensing and always-online launchers.

      A ROM cartridge was physical ownership, if you had the cartridge, you could play.

      A CD-key was also a form of physical ownership, install the game and type in the key from the case, you could play.

      • richmondez@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        That should be “ownership” as actual ownership implies having control over a thing and no one who “purchased” this seems to have much control. Breaking the DRM and creating a self hosted sever is taking ownership of it. Don’t pretend CD keys were physical ownership either unless the key was entirely validated offline which admittedly older key schemes were.

  • NoneYa@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    3 months ago

    The biggest reason I never bought this game. I didn’t know they’d go to this length, but knew that they’d be shutting off servers at some point and the game would be worthless. All that money anyone spent on it and the in-game items is now gone. All in Ubisoft’s pocket and all you’re left with is memories of playing the game. Wanna go back for some nostalgia? lol, no, fuck you. Just wait and hope a sequel will get released so they can continue the cycle.

  • UndercoverUlrikHD@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    3 months ago

    It’s a shame, but people are asking for it when they buy, and therefore support, these kind of games. If people simply refused to buy always-online games, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

      • Einar@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Blaming the player goes a bit far, true.

        That said, the sad truth is that companies only react when it affects their bottom line.

        • all-knight-party@kbin.run
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Well, there’s the other route. If they are forced legally to comply, which is what Ross is trying to get done, and is the far better option alongside being more expensive and difficult, because a company’s reaction to finances can be reversed as soon as it doesn’t matter or the public forgets.

      • jyoskykid@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        It is general knowledge that these companies do this. FSF has campaigned a lot against DRM, under the name Defective by Design.

        When someone makes a contract with the devil and complains when it affects them, pointing it out is not victim blaming.

        • AeroLemming@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          3 months ago

          I don’t think it was very well-known in 2014. Besides, “everyone should know that this is a scam” isn’t a reason to make scams legal.