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

Games

18510 readers
102 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 6 points 5 days ago (3 children)

I 100% agree. However, this statement is a very large blanket statement. I see it repeated all over the place. It's great to pirate from greedy megacorps. I do it. It's great. But it's not a great statement to repeat ad nauseam because it doesn't apply to

  • small creators
  • literally anything that's not a "pay once license" (including leasing, renting, etc) If this sentiment gets too popular it will also discourage people from paying for unrevokable copies of content like from GOG or directly from a creator (patreon, etc). It's more like "if buying isn't owning, then piracy isn't theft (sometimes)"

The people who argue against piracy of megacorporations' content will bring up these points every time because this phrase makes no sense from their perspective. It prevents actual discussion from taking place. It's not productive to our cause to use something so ambiguous and inflammatory as a catch phrase.

[–] multiplemigs@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 days ago

Grant me the serenity to pirate the things from big corpos that need pirating, the courage to pay for indie work, and the wisdom to know the difference.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

literally anything that's not a "pay once license" (including leasing, renting, etc)

You can not steal something that it is impossible to own. It is possible to purchase and own a house or a car, someone choosing to lease or rent instead does not change that. It is impossible to purchase or own a copy of The Crew, so it cannot be stolen. You also cannot steal a hotel room, trespassing is a different crime than theft.

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works -1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Do people not literally have the crew on disk? There you go, they own it.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Maybe read the post before replying to comments:

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.

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works -1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Well let me go back to 2005 and tell young me that I only own a license to WoW so I can say "no shit idiot" and slap my future self. If you were deceived that's on you.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Do people not literally have the crew on disk? There you go, they own it.

Well let me go back to 2005 and tell young me that I only own a license to WoW so I can say “no shit idiot” and slap my future self. If you were deceived that’s on you.

Which is it? Pick a lane.

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I was being sarcastic, my bad. How does this convince me people who bought the crew were deceived?

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago

Again, you need to actually read things before replying to comments. No one has said they were deceived. Where do you think you are right now?

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 2 points 5 days ago

The problem is you're using the rational part of your brain rather than starting with a conclusion and working backwards to find justification for your actions.