Ubisoft's The Crew is shutting down 31st March 2024 and will be unplayable after that because it is online only.

[rezerekted]

I've known Ubisoft is a bad company for years and haven't bought anything from them for a very long time. Boycott is all they will understand.

 

[MrGuvernment]

I've known Ubisoft is a bad company for years and haven't bought anything from them for a very long time. Boycott is all they will understand.

But sadly you still have people line up, pre-purchase their games and throw money at am all day long..

 

[DukenukemX]

That sounds like some commie bullshit.

If people refuse to recurrently engage the communists win.

But comrade, this game is for everyone now.

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

you fellas never learn and keep buying their crap.

 

[M76]

Patching it for offline play would have to come free.

And then theres the argument of why dont they just do that out the door initially?

Control, nothing else, they want to dictate how you play the game. They can't sell microtransactions if you can just play offline and use mods and cheats to circumvent their predatory monetization.
I swear the only reason they are eager to implement AI in games is so they have another excuse for no offline mode.

 

[M76]

That sounds like some commie bullshit.

If people refuse to recurrently engage the communists win.

Owning what you bought is actually very capitalist.

You'll own nothing and be happy is more in line with taking away games after a while, and usually people call that communist.

 

[wareyore]

Owning what you bought is actually very capitalist.

You'll own nothing and be happy is more in line with taking away games after a while, and usually people call that communist.

Single player mode or allowing private servers could fix most of the issues we have with these services shutting down. Allowing open source code for networking or mod tools could be a solution, too.

But, I'm old and don't like the subscription models all the kids are raving about.

 

[Darunion]

But, I'm old and don't like the subscription models all the kids are raving about.

No one likes the subscription models except the companies that sell them

 

[Bankie]

man thats frightning that its been 10 years....swore it was like 5. Games like Division could easily be played offline. I'm amazed Ubi doesn't just sell a "Patch" to players so they can do that when they plan to kill the game.

Just wait a few years and you'll be able to buy the fully functional Division Remastered for only $90.

 

[DukenukemX]

Owning what you bought is actually very capitalist.

You'll own nothing and be happy is more in line with taking away games after a while, and usually people call that communist.

That's Feudalism. More specifically, it's Technofeudalism. There's a reason why the EU and US are after Apple for their locked down ecosystems.

View: https://youtu.be/X3FdIyNMaFY?si=TtvLZul9l6Sw_cbA

But, I'm old and don't like the subscription models all the kids are raving about.

You think young people like subscriptions?

 

[Twisted Kidney]

Owning what you bought is actually very capitalist.

You'll own nothing and be happy is more in line with taking away games after a while, and usually people call that communist.

Are you currently or have you ever been a member of the communist party?

 

[Darunion]

Are you currently or have you ever been a member of the communist party?

That word gets thrown around here a lot. Oddly most often used to describe a video game or phone.

 

[Red Falcon]

Owning what you bought is actually very capitalist.

You'll own nothing and be happy is more in line with taking away games after a while, and usually people call that communist globalist.

FTFY

Are you currently or have you ever been a member of the communist party?

For the amount of Chinese computer equipment that some individuals have on here, they may as well be honorary members of the CCP at this point...

That's Feudalism. More specifically, it's Technofeudalism. There's a reason why the EU and US are after Apple for their locked down ecosystems.

I saw corps strip farmers of water ... and eventually of land. Saw them transform Night City into a machine fueled by people's crushed spirits, broken dreams and emptied pockets. Corps've long controlled our lives, taken lots... and now they're after our souls! V, I've declared war not because capitalism's a thorn in my side or outta nostalgia for an America gone by. This war's a people's war against a system that's spiralled outta our control. It's a war against the fuckin' forces of entropy, understand? Do whatever it takes to stop 'em, defeat 'em, gut 'em. If I gotta kill, I'll kill. If I need your body, I'll fuckin' take it! Fuckin' hell ... You still don't see it. But you will one day.

--Johnny Silverhand, Cyberpunk 2077

 

[wareyore]

You think young people like subscriptions?

Someone's paying for it until they aren't. Likely a bunch of 8-14 y/o's parents.

So, yeah, the kids love it.

 

[d3athf1sh]

No one likes the subscription models except the companies that sell them

brainwashed gen-z "kids" think they like it.

what's funny is they still have to buy the really big/good games. same with movies too really. unless whatever streaming platform you sub to happens to have it.

 

[Twisted Kidney]

That word gets thrown around here a lot. Oddly most often used to describe a video game or phone.

Yeah, that's because most people don't understand the difference between political structures and economic systems.
It's the reason communism quips are so easy. As far as I'm concerned the inevitable outcome of pure capitalism is feudalism and communism is just feudalism on a national scale.

Someone's paying for it until they aren't. Likely a bunch of 8-14 y/o's parents.

So, yeah, the kids love it.

They don't love them, they've never known anything else. This shit was never aimed at angry old frogs like us, it was all about making sure the tadpoles grew up in the boiling water. That's why social media puts most of its effort into obtaining children's data.

 

[M76]

FTFY

People want to label everything they dislike with the buzzword they hate the most or heard last these days. But globalism has nothing to do with ownership. Even calling it feudalism is a big stretch as feudalism describes more the social structure rather than commerce. Under feudalism peasants still owned, traded and sold goods.

 

[SmokeRngs]

People want to label everything they dislike with the buzzword they hate the most or heard last these days. But globalism has nothing to do with ownership. Even calling it feudalism is a big stretch as feudalism describes more the social structure rather than commerce. Under feudalism peasants still owned, traded and sold goods.

Under feudalism peasants were effectively owned by the landowners, also known as nobles. Most couldn't even move without permission from the local noble. Peasants worked the land and were allowed to keep a portion of what they made. Said portion was determined by the nobles/landowners.

I have no clue where you learned your history but you definitely didn't learn any facts about feudalism. It's one of the worst as well as one of the most restrictive systems ever invented by humans. The primary cause of the downfall of feudalism was the printing press as it allowed many more people to learn to read and become educated. Once that happened the stupid peasants were no longer stupid and weren't putting up with what was effectively slavery.

 

[IcePickFreak]

Wait til you guys learn about how Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 (and the upcoming 2024) works and demand an offline version of the entire planets hires satellite imagery.

 

[Armenius]

Wait til you guys learn about how Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 (and the upcoming 2024) works and demand an offline version of the entire planets hires satellite imagery.

If you have the drive space then there is no reason to prevent people from sourcing the data.

 

[IcePickFreak]

If you have the drive space then there is no reason to prevent people from sourcing the data.

Right, that's how it was done in the past for flight sims via third-partys. It ate up a ridiculous amount of disk space for a relatively small area.

My point was demanding laws as some suggested would mean stuff like that would go back to third-party. I doubt anyone is gonna offer a several petabyte install.

 

[DukenukemX]

Under feudalism peasants were effectively owned by the landowners, also known as nobles. Most couldn't even move without permission from the local noble. Peasants worked the land and were allowed to keep a portion of what they made. Said portion was determined by the nobles/landowners.

I have no clue where you learned your history but you definitely didn't learn any facts about feudalism. It's one of the worst as well as one of the most restrictive systems ever invented by humans. The primary cause of the downfall of feudalism was the printing press as it allowed many more people to learn to read and become educated. Once that happened the stupid peasants were no longer stupid and weren't putting up with what was effectively slavery.

The Apple store and Amazon work just like feudalism. You want to sell your goods on their land/market then you need to go by their rules. Hence, technofudalism.


View: https://youtu.be/w70Xc9CStoE?si=9xIPn3TP86AGebN9

 

[Darunion]

The Apple store and Amazon work just like feudalism. You want to sell your goods on their land/market then you need to go by their rules. Hence, technofudalism.

Every retail store has their own rules and will fine you if you fail any of their checks or procedures. We have a person on staff just to manage all the different stores rules to make sure we meet all of them as they are constantly changing. So not just app stores.

 

[SmokeRngs]

The Apple store and Amazon work just like feudalism. You want to sell your goods on their land/market then you need to go by their rules. Hence, technofudalism.


View: https://youtu.be/w70Xc9CStoE?si=9xIPn3TP86AGebN9

I'm no fan of either company but what you describe has nothing to do with feudalism, techno or otherwise. Owning and selling a product on a marketplace is far different than feudalism. Under feudalism Apple and Amazon would own the product made by you and allow you a certain number to sell while Apple and Amazon kept the rest of the products for themselves. Apple and Amazon would also own you and wouldn't allow you to sell the product anywhere else but approved Apple or Amazon stores.

 

[DukenukemX]

Every retail store has their own rules and will fine you if you fail any of their checks or procedures. We have a person on staff just to manage all the different stores rules to make sure we meet all of them as they are constantly changing. So not just app stores.

Yes but every store also has a competitor. Apple's App store doesn't. Xbox, Playstation, and Nintendo don't have competitors on their devices. In this case, your games can only connect to the companies online server. You want your game, then you go by their rules. Your game no longer works? That's too bad.

 

[1_rick]

I'm no fan of either company but what you describe has nothing to do with feudalism, techno or otherwise. Owning and selling a product on a marketplace is far different than feudalism.

Here's a better example: Apple and Google (and Valve) charging 30% is like getting a table at a flea market and whoever runs the show demands 30% of everything you sell, instead of $10/table or whatever.

 

[DukenukemX]

Here's a better example: Apple and Google (and Valve) charging 30% is like getting a table at a flea market and whoever runs the show demands 30% of everything you sell, instead of $10/table or whatever.

In true capitalism there's always competition. Apple, Google, and Valve charge that much money because they all have their own ecosystems. They are not in direct competition. You can argue indirect competition, but this creates markets that compete against markets. In the case with The Crew, you're stuck with Ubisofts market. That market has shut down, and with it the ability to play the game you bought. Instead of letting owners of The Crew decide who should host the server, owners are automatically stuck on with their servers. If anything, this should bring up the question of ownership of digital goods you purchased. If you own it, then measures need to be taken before shutting down servers to allow players to continue to play online. If you don't own the digital assets you purchased, then this should be made aware to consumers.

 

[Darunion]

Here's a better example: Apple and Google (and Valve) charging 30% is like getting a table at a flea market and whoever runs the show demands 30% of everything you sell, instead of $10/table or whatever.

Analogies dont work too well. Because you have to have been selling a product specifically designed to only work at that market and no where else. and you needed information and utilities from the market to even start working on it.

 

[Armenius]

In true capitalism there's always competition. Apple, Google, and Valve charge that much money because they all have their own ecosystems. They are not in direct competition. You can argue indirect competition, but this creates markets that compete against markets. In the case with The Crew, you're stuck with Ubisofts market. That market has shut down, and with it the ability to play the game you bought. Instead of letting owners of The Crew decide who should host the server, owners are automatically stuck on with their servers. If anything, this should bring up the question of ownership of digital goods you purchased. If you own it, then measures need to be taken before shutting down servers to allow players to continue to play online. If you don't own the digital assets you purchased, then this should be made aware to consumers.

Your wires got crossed. Where the game is sold has no bearing on how the backbone servers are operated. This has nothing to do with capitalism or competition. Ubisoft is paying for operating the servers the game depends on, so they are free to stop operating those servers when it's no longer financially viable. Giving players the option of operating their own servers or just playing the game offline is another argument altogether, but this is another cost of time and money to Ubisoft that has no meaningful return on investment for them at this point.

We can argue all day that the game should have been made that way from the start, but the past is in the past and nothing is going to change that at this point. We can only try and get companies to do better in the future. The video above sounds nice, but a "gamer's bill of rights" was brought up nearly 20 years ago when the digital future was first foreseen and these concerns were being talked about. It was dismissed as "entitlement" even by the gaming community at large, and game preservation efforts are still largely dismissed or ignored to this day.

 

[GoodBoy]

Doesn't mean we should stand for it, or not try to do something about it.

Everyone should go to: https://www.stopkillinggames.com
And see if there is anything you can do.

Like the guy in the video says, in his mind one thing this is about is preserving art. He has a valid point.

 

[Darunion]

Doesn't mean we should stand for it, or not try to do something about it.

Everyone should go to: https://www.stopkillinggames.com
And see if there is anything you can do.

Like the guy in the video says, in his mind one thing this is about is preserving art. He has a valid point.

I do like to argue counter points for fun and thought.

But it could be slippery too if you are required when you make a thing to ensure that people can enjoy that thing forever.

It really could just be a simple gesture of, here is the server code, figure it out yourself and could be 'enough'.

 

[DukenukemX]

Your wires got crossed. Where the game is sold has no bearing on how the backbone servers are operated. This has nothing to do with capitalism or competition. Ubisoft is paying for operating the servers the game depends on, so they are free to stop operating those servers when it's no longer financially viable.

They made it like that. They should be required to allow players to host their own servers. Like the Game Avengers which did shut down servers but also patched the game to allow players to use their own servers. No wires crossed here. You're just used to companies needing to host a games servers.

Giving players the option of operating their own servers or just playing the game offline is another argument altogether, but this is another cost of time and money to Ubisoft that has no meaningful return on investment for them at this point.

If Ubisoft can take the game away then the initial payment of $60 or $70 should cover the investment cost. Ubisoft is busy abusing the grey area of software ownership that it will be tested in court. I don't know about you but adding an offline feature to a game is a lot cheaper than court fees.

We can argue all day that the game should have been made that way from the start, but the past is in the past and nothing is going to change that at this point.

You make it sound like the past doesn't matter. I can assure you it does.

We can only try and get companies to do better in the future. The video above sounds nice, but a "gamer's bill of rights" was brought up nearly 20 years ago when the digital future was first foreseen and these concerns were being talked about. It was dismissed as "entitlement" even by the gaming community at large, and game preservation efforts are still largely dismissed or ignored to this day.

Nobody in the gaming community thinks that ownership is entitlement. That's like saying Kotaku and IGN represent the gaming community, which they don't. That's like saying the GamerGate wiki is correct, which was totally fabricated. What we really need is digital ownership enforcement. The guy in the video doesn't want to expand it that far, but it really needs to be done. We really need to know if software ownership is actual ownership. If Ubisoft can take that ownership away then you never really owned the game. Brings up the question as to why we're paying ownership prices?

 

[M76]

Your wires got crossed.

Actually yours are, and not just a little.

Where the game is sold has no bearing on how the backbone servers are operated.

If you sell a product that depends on some sort of online service then you are obligated to provide that service. The company I work for is actually in one such contract, because someone made a bad deal 10 years ago, so we must continue to provide servers for that service indefinitely without any recurring payment.

This has nothing to do with capitalism or competition.

I don't know what do you mean by that. We are living in capitalism so everything has to do with capitalism.

Ubisoft is paying for operating the servers the game depends on, so they are free to stop operating those servers when it's no longer financially viable.

They sold products that depend on the servers, they can't just unilaterally shut them down when it is no longer convenient for them. If their clients were corporations who could afford litigation they'd be sued to oblivion for breach of contract. There was no expiration date placed on the game when they sold it.

Giving players the option of operating their own servers or just playing the game offline is another argument altogether,

No it's not another argument. If they want to change the deal they must offer a new deal that is acceptable to their clients.

but this is another cost of time and money to Ubisoft that has no meaningful return on investment for them at this point.

And they should've thought of that when they decided to sell live service games that are unable to operate offline. But of course they always intended to leave people out to dry, which is not only scummy, but probably illegal too.
A good class action needs to happen to put an end to this practice.

We can argue all day that the game should have been made that way from the start, but the past is in the past and nothing is going to change that at this point. We can only try and get companies to do better in the future.

Nobody expects ubisoft to release an offline patch now. This is not about that. But the only way they'll do better in the future is if we rub their noses in it right now and don't let them get away with it.

The video above sounds nice, but a "gamer's bill of rights" was brought up nearly 20 years ago when the digital future was first foreseen and these concerns were being talked about. It was dismissed as "entitlement" even by the gaming community at large, and game preservation efforts are still largely dismissed or ignored to this day.

That's the defeatist's argument. Oh, we shouldn't even try anything because last time it wasn't taken seriously.

 

[LurkerLito]

A good class action needs to happen to put an end to this practice.

And why do you think that every account you have a "service" with has an legally binding anti class action section in it now that they forced you into with no way to opt out? The companies know we can't hurt them individually, only as a group or class in a lawsuit. It no surprise that companies like blizzard won't let you access your games that you bought under different terms unless you agree to their new rules. I have always said that click through licenses should be illegal especially when it deals with taking away rights of one of the parties unilaterally. If they want to take away someones rights to a trial by a jury in favor of arbitration or to remove the right to form a class action lawsuit, that should require a signed on paper legal document in the presence of actual lawyers/judge or it should be illegal. Otherwise clauses like these in click through licenses are no better than adding a clause "you become my slave" in it which is actually illegal.

 

[reaper12]

Actually yours are, and not just a little.

If you sell a product that depends on some sort of online service then you are obligated to provide that service. The company I work for is actually in one such contract, because someone made a bad deal 10 years ago, so we must continue to provide servers for that service indefinitely without any recurring payment.

They sold products that depend on the servers, they can't just unilaterally shut them down when it is no longer convenient for them. If their clients were corporations who could afford litigation they'd be sued to oblivion for breach of contract. There was no expiration date placed on the game when they sold it.

No it's not another argument. If they want to change the deal they must offer a new deal that is acceptable to their clients.

Actually these are all kind of silly statements. Lets go through them one by one. Have you actually read the terms and conditions of any game that you have ever brought?

If you sell a product that depends on some sort of online service then you are obligated to provide that service. The company I work for is actually in one such contract, because someone made a bad deal 10 years ago, so we must continue to provide servers for that service indefinitely without any recurring payment.

Your company made a mistake and screwed up a contract and they are now obliged to provide a service that they aren't making any money on. If your company was doing it again, you bet they would make sure that they could either terminate the service when it was no longer viable or make sure that the other company paid to keep the service in place.

They sold products that depend on the servers, they can't just unilaterally shut them down when it is no longer convenient for them. If their clients were corporations who could afford litigation they'd be sued to oblivion for breach of contract. There was no expiration date placed on the game when they sold it.

Yes, they can. Because unlike your company's mistake, Ubisoft has that covered in their EULA. If you don't agree with the terms and conditions, then the game doesn't install.

No it's not another argument. If they want to change the deal they must offer a new deal that is acceptable to their clients.

No they don't. As above, when you install the game and accept the terms and conditions, you agree that, you or Ubisoft can terminate the contract at any time.

Now you can argue about the morals of their decision all day, but legally, I bet they have it all locked down pretty tight.

I wonder how the Stop Killing Games will work out. I am not sure they will get the numbers they are looking for. I hope it does go well. However, I think nothing much, if anything, will happen.

Realistically I think the only real chance of forcing changing is to stop buying games. And just like the Stop Killing Games petitions, I don't think many people care enough to bother.

 

[Darunion]

If you sell a product that depends on some sort of online service then you are obligated to provide that service. The company I work for is actually in one such contract, because someone made a bad deal 10 years ago, so we must continue to provide servers for that service indefinitely without any recurring payment.

The problem is that you as the person you 'bought' the game, already agreed to terms that you are not entitled to play it forever. Well you didn't buy anything, you paid for a temporary usage license.

We agreed that they may terminate our ability to play the game at any time without reason and they can change the terms on demand. Basically they covered their ass so they DO NOT have to support something forever.

We can't force companies to run servers for games indefinitely, that it just silly thinking, do remember we are talking about a video game here. I still feel the proposed EOL plan at launch should happen and if ever changed it should cause refunds to happen in that event it gets violated. That would force companies to budget and calculate in to profit and running costs of a product.

This would then IMO force them to make a better product if they know they will have to run a host for 10 years or whatever. Or maybe move them back into less online features if not needed for the core of the game.

I do think it is too late for the crew, but we need to push on companies so they dont see this is the best option. Maybe others will see this and shy away from it.

Seriously though, how does ubi still hang out so strongly lol

 

[M76]

And why do you think that every account you have a "service" with has an legally binding anti class action section in it now that they forced you into with no way to opt out? The companies know we can't hurt them individually, only as a group or class in a lawsuit. It no surprise that companies like blizzard won't let you access your games that you bought under different terms unless you agree to their new rules. I have always said that click through licenses should be illegal especially when it deals with taking away rights of one of the parties unilaterally. If they want to take away someones rights to a trial by a jury in favor of arbitration or to remove the right to form a class action lawsuit, that should require a signed on paper legal document in the presence of actual lawyers/judge or it should be illegal. Otherwise clauses like these in click through licenses are no better than adding a clause "you become my slave" in it which is actually illegal.

EULA's are not legally binding, they are basically toilet paper in an actual court here in the EU. It's just another way to make you fall in line and do nothing out of fear because the EULA said so. It is nothing but a strongarming tactic. It doesn't have to be legally binding, people just have to believe it is. And most of the players of the Crew probably aren't even 18. How can an underage teen enter into a legally binding agreement with a company? These terms of service agreements should all be null and void. You can't legally be bound to anything that you were not aware of at the time of purchase, even as an adult.

Imagine buying a car paying for it, then when the vehicle is delivered to your house a rep comes around and makes you sign a paper that restricts how and when can you use it, and that it can be taken away at any time. And if you don't agree you can not use the car at all, but you are not getting a refund either. Nobody would be OK with that. Yet here we are dismissing or even defending the very same thing for software products.

 

[M76]

Actually these are all kind of silly statements.

No they aren't, read the post above.

The problem is that you as the person you 'bought' the game, already agreed to terms that you are not entitled to play it forever. Well you didn't buy anything, you paid for a temporary usage license.

That's what they want you to believe, but you entered into the contract when you purchased the game, they can't change the terms later. The only terms I can legally agree to is what I was aware of at the time of purchase. Anything that is only revealed to me after the purchase is finalized cannot be binding. Just imagine if you could enter into legally binding agreements after the fact in any other purchase, that you are forced to either accept or loose your money.

Nobody is going to convince me that this is normal and I should just shut up and accept it. And even if it is legal, it needs to become illegal.

We agreed that they may terminate our ability to play the game at any time without reason and they can change the terms on demand. Basically they covered their ass so they DO NOT have to support something forever.

It is more for discouraging people from seeking justice. If it would come to covering their asses it would be like a sheet of paper against a sword, it would not stand a chance. They know they can get away with it, because they know nobody is suing them over a $60 game. And thus far nobody has seen the opportunity to take it up as a class action. So they'll continue to get away with it. The worst thing we can do is accept it as "that's just how it is". We should shout it off the rooftops that we don't accept it, and that we are not paying for their games anymore.

We can't force companies to run servers for games indefinitely, that it just silly thinking, do remember we are talking about a video game here.

Yes we can and we should. It is their job to either sell the game clearly labelled as a time limited service with a set end date, or to make the game function on its own.
And we are talking about a game that probably has <100 daily players by now, a single server can probably serve them, hardly unbearable cost for a company of this size.

I still feel the proposed EOL plan at launch should happen and if ever changed it should cause refunds to happen in that event it gets violated. That would force companies to budget and calculate in to profit and running costs of a product.

It absolutely must happen, but if we timidly just go along with this it will never happen, why would they change their behavior if there are no repercussions for it?

This would then IMO force them to make a better product if they know they will have to run a host for 10 years or whatever. Or maybe move them back into less online features if not needed for the core of the game.

I do think it is too late for the crew, but we need to push on companies so they dont see this is the best option. Maybe others will see this and shy away from it.

And the best way to push companies is by not letting them off the hook.

Seriously though, how does ubi still hang out so strongly lol

It isn't, but that has more to do with the quality of their games than this. Almost every western AAA gaming company is struggling now. Stuck between DEI mandates and what the players want. You can't get funding unless you use DEI hiring practices and put DEI approved narratives and designs into your games. But the games shaped by DEI are getting rejected by players more and more often.

 

[Furious_Styles]

It isn't, but that has more to do with the quality of their games than this. Almost every western AAA gaming company is struggling now. Stuck between DEI mandates and what the players want. You can't get funding unless you use DEI hiring practices and put DEI approved narratives and designs into your games. But the games shaped by DEI are getting rejected by players more and more often.

There are DEI mandates? Who is enforcing them?

 

[wareyore]

And why do you think that every account you have a "service" with has an legally binding anti class action section in it now that they forced you into with no way to opt out? The companies know we can't hurt them individually, only as a group or class in a lawsuit. It no surprise that companies like blizzard won't let you access your games that you bought under different terms unless you agree to their new rules. I have always said that click through licenses should be illegal especially when it deals with taking away rights of one of the parties unilaterally. If they want to take away someones rights to a trial by a jury in favor of arbitration or to remove the right to form a class action lawsuit, that should require a signed on paper legal document in the presence of actual lawyers/judge or it should be illegal. Otherwise clauses like these in click through licenses are no better than adding a clause "you become my slave" in it which is actually illegal.

Every single TOS, right? It's 100% their sandbox.