this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2025
383 points (99.0% liked)

Games

18510 readers
108 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works
383
Ubisoft holds firm in The Crew lawsuit: You don’t own your video games (www.polygon.com)
submitted 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) by misk@sopuli.xyz to c/games@sh.itjust.works
77 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Alk@sh.itjust.works -2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

Do you feel the same way about, for example, a video rental store?

Chill with the downvotes - I'm not disagreeing. I'm just trying to understand where the line is.

[–] greenskye@lemm.ee 22 points 5 days ago

You're specifically paying for an agreed upon amount of time with the product. The negotiated price reflects this limited access to the product.

'Licensing' something with no stated time frame that one side can arbitrarily choose to end at any time makes little sense and they know it. They were perfectly happy with leveraging the assumption that you owned a copy of the product up until it became inconvenient to them.

[–] EisFrei@lemmy.world 13 points 5 days ago

Indeed. If I buy a video rental store, I expect it to be mine until it goes bankrupt.