Dead Game News: Ubisoft is getting sued over The Crew

Summary

Two individuals in California have filed a lawsuit against Ubisoft, claiming the company deceived consumers into thinking they owned physical copies of *The Crew*, which were rendered unplayable after the game's servers were shut down. While the lawsuit highlights concerns about false advertising and game preservation, the speaker is skeptical about its potential to create lasting change. The case may raise awareness but may not prevent future game destruction. The speaker emphasizes that international consumer agencies or legislative action may be the key to solving the broader issue of digital game preservation.

Takeaways

• 😀 Two individuals in California are suing Ubisoft over the shutdown of *The Crew* servers, claiming false advertising regarding ownership of the game.
• 😀 The lawsuit accuses Ubisoft of misleading consumers into believing they owned physical copies of the game, when in fact, the game could become unplayable if servers are shut down.
• 😀 The speaker supports the plaintiffs in spirit but doubts the lawsuit’s chances of success, arguing that the outcome may not lead to meaningful change in game preservation.
• 😀 The most likely outcome is that the court will rule based on the ULA (User License Agreement), which typically gives companies the right to shut down servers at will.
• 😀 Even if the plaintiffs win, the remedy might be more transparent advertising about the possibility of game shutdowns, but this would not address the broader issue of game destruction.
• 😀 The speaker criticizes the lack of understanding of video games in the lawsuit documents, particularly regarding the role of servers and online multiplayer functionality.
• 😀 A key piece of evidence in the case is the expiration date printed on some physical copies of *The Crew* (e.g., January 1, 2099), which may support the plaintiffs’ argument of false advertising.
• 😀 The lawsuit could serve as a valuable test case in U.S. courts to determine whether game destruction practices can be legally challenged, but the speaker is skeptical about the legal outcome.
• 😀 The speaker emphasizes that clearer labeling of potential game shutdowns would not resolve the fundamental issue of games being rendered unplayable after server shutdowns.
• 😀 Despite the speaker's pessimism, the lawsuit is seen as a step toward raising awareness about digital game ownership and preservation, though international efforts are believed to have more potential for success.

Q & A

What is the main reason the two individuals are suing Ubisoft in California?

The plaintiffs are suing Ubisoft for deceptive advertising, claiming that Ubisoft misled consumers into believing they owned the physical copies of *The Crew* video game when, in fact, the game’s servers were shut down, making the game unplayable.

What is the speaker’s initial reaction to the lawsuit?

The speaker expresses support for the plaintiffs in spirit but is skeptical about the lawsuit's effectiveness. They believe the strategy is unlikely to succeed and that it will not solve the larger issue of game destruction.

Why does the speaker believe the lawsuit may fail?

The speaker believes the lawsuit may fail because customers agreed to a user license agreement (EULA) when they installed the game, which typically grants the company broad rights to alter or discontinue the game, including shutting down servers.

What outcome would the speaker find acceptable from the lawsuit?

The speaker would find it acceptable if the lawsuit results in California ruling that the practice of disabling a game that was sold as a one-time purchase is unlawful. However, they express doubt that this will happen.

What does the speaker think would happen even if the lawsuit is successful?

Even if the lawsuit is successful, the speaker believes that the most likely remedy would be clearer advertising of the possibility that the game could be taken down at any time, rather than an actual prevention of game destruction.

How does the speaker feel about the U.S. legal system in relation to game preservation?

The speaker feels that the U.S. legal system heavily favors companies, making it difficult to protect consumers from game destruction. They believe that only an act of Congress could bring about meaningful change in this area.

What is the main issue the speaker sees with the lawsuit’s legal strategy?

The speaker sees a significant flaw in the lawsuit’s strategy, particularly its reliance on the EULA, which is likely to protect Ubisoft’s actions. They also note that the law firm involved may lack a deep understanding of how video games work, which could undermine the case.

Why does the speaker think clearer labeling of game expiration dates might not solve the issue?

The speaker believes that clearer labeling would not solve the broader issue of game destruction because the core problem is that companies can still shut down servers and render the game unplayable, even with better transparency.

What piece of evidence does the speaker highlight as potentially critical for the lawsuit?

The speaker highlights the expiration date on certain physical copies of *The Crew* that states the game 'expires' on January 1st, 2099. They consider this expiration date a potential key piece of evidence for the plaintiffs to demonstrate false advertising.

What does the speaker think the plaintiffs should focus on in their case?

The speaker believes the plaintiffs should focus on the misleading expiration date and push the law firm to incorporate this detail into the case, as it could provide compelling evidence of false advertising.