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
[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Depends if you see theft as someone taking something they didnt pay for or earn, or if you see it as someone depriving someone else of their property, or both of them count.

I'd argue both qualify as theft, and pirating is the first case. Just because you can replicate something for free (which is not the case with software) does not mean you are entitled to it.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Depends if you see theft as someone taking something they didnt pay for or earn

Ah, so children playing in the park is theft. (They didn't pay for or earn it). Drinking from a creek is theft. Breathing air is theft. I quoted your post, I guess that is theft as well.

does not mean you are entitled to it.

I am not claiming they are entitled to it, I'm just saying it's not theft.

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You can't steal from nature. Parks are provided for the public, its literally the whole point.

Any more gotchas?

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

So you don't define theft as "someone taking something they didnt pay for or earn" then. Glad we agree.

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

If someone's part of the "public" then its provided to them for 0$, thats the deal. If they are an adult in that area they might pay for it in taxes, but most places won't limit access to local taxpayers. There is nothing underhanded happening there. Its provided for a group of people and those people use it within the guidelines setup for them.

Im sure you will have as little to say in your next reply but do try to actually make a point.

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

If someone's part of the "public" then its provided to them for 0$, thats the deal. If they are an adult in that area they might pay for it in taxes, but most places won't limit access to local taxpayers. There is nothing underhanded happening there. Its provided for a group of people and those people use it within the guidelines setup for them.

Of course it is. I don't know who you think you're disagreeing with here.

Im sure you will have as little to say in your next reply but do try to actually make a point.

Interesting considering you had a lot to say without making any point at all. What exactly is the point you're trying to make here?