Full title: Ubisoft says you “cannot complain” it shut down The Crew because you never actually owned it, and you weren’t “deceived” by the lack of an offline version “to access a decade-old, discontinued video game”
Ubisoft’s lawyers have responded to a class action lawsuit over the shutdown of The Crew, arguing that it was always clear that you didn’t own the game and calling for a dismissal of the case outright.
The class action was filed in November 2024, and Ubisoft’s response came in February 2025, though it’s only come to the public’s attention now courtesy of Polygon. The full response from Ubisoft attorney Steven A. Marenberg picks apart the claims of plaintiffs Matthew Cassell and Alan Liu piece by piece, but the most common refrain is that The Crew’s box made clear both that the game required an internet connection and that Ubisoft retained the right to revoke access “to one or more specific online features” with a 30-day notice at its own discretion.
Deny. Defend. Depose.
Here’s the original in higher quality and less cropping: https://i.imgur.com/XzgU9AS.mp4
The watermark in the bottom right corner says KLING AI 1.6
Thanks for that! :)
Ubisoft cannot complain when gamers “pirate” their games then.
If buying isn’t owning, piracy isn’t theft and all that.
Goddammit… get the quote right:
If buying ain’t owning, piracy ain’t stealing.
Whose exact quote do you think you’re quoting? Every time i hear this phrase it’s always said the way OP said it, never the way you said it. Also please try to talk to people in a less pissy way
Piracy was never stealing, in so far as legality is concerned in the USA, at least.
Stealing requires the owner of the stolen thing to be deprived access of that thing. If someone steals your car, you cannot access it anymore, since it was removed from you by the thief.
Piracy copies your car, meaning you still can access your car but someone else can drive a copy of your car. The first example is a major inconvenience to you, the second example has absolutely no negative effect on you.
It is why instances of piracy that make it to a court of law are tried as Copyright Infringement cases, and not theft or piracy cases. When your ISP spies on you and sends you a letter after you pirate something in an insecure manner, you get sent a Notice of Copyright Infringement, not a Notice of Theft.
In fact, I downloaded a Rimac Nevera just yesterday.
For Cyberpunk 2077, but still. Would, could, did.
Exactly. It also means you’re being sued by the copyright holder and not the state. You won’t go to prison for this shit, as opposed to actual theft.
Not only is that not a quote, but its not even right. Piracy was never stealing, its copyright infringement.
Thanks for the clarification, it really drastically changes the meaning when said like this versus op…
Ubisoft you can’t complain if I pirate your games, because I never actually bought them and you weren’t deceived by a lack of purchase.
Hijacking.
Are you European Union Citizen? Do you like games?
Do you want to own games again? and not just “License” them? Then please join the Stop destroying Videogames Initiative.
Initiative - https://citizens-initiative.europa.eu/initiatives/details/2024/000007_en
(Only sign if you are a EU citizen!)
It’s an initiative to get the European parliament to discuss the matter all together, and Iirc, it already has some members that support it. (So It’s not just any ordinary petition that will go nowhere.)
We have already collected 42% of the 1 million signatures from European citizens required. But the deadline is June 2025 and if we don’t get enough signatures by then, it won’t be looked at by the European commission. So to at least get the matter to be discussed, please sign!
(ONLY FOR European Union citizens! No one else! Please do not sign if you aren’t an EU citizen. Also No Brits! there’s another initiative for the UK.)
Short video explainer about the initiative - https://youtu.be/mkMe9MxxZiI
For more info visit https://www.stopkillinggames.com/
You can also view the petitions for other countries - (Australia, Canada, UK, Brazil… and more)
ONLY FOR European Union citizens! No Brits!
signs anyways…is American
No, please don’t sign if you are American. That can harm the petition with false signatures.
This is strictly ONLY for European union citizens!
Don’t worry, you can still help by spreading the message among your EU friends or family members(You don’t have to be a gamer to care about this or vote in this!). A lot of the exposure to this initiative is lacking when it comes to non-english speaking EU citizens. You can help there.
reads a request… doesn’t care… is American 🇺🇸
This is the correct response.
Ubisoft cannot complain if I pirate their games, because they never actually sold them. And I’m not deceiving them with my intention of never, ever, give them a dime.
though their games aren’t worth playing in the first place
On that I disagree, and that’s part of the problem. I do love some of their games, but I’m not going to reward their behavior anymore
i say ubisoft can eat shit
have not purchased anything from them in over a decade
By their argument, nobody’s “purchased” anything from them in over a decade!
What they’ve been doing that whole time is committing massive fraud (false advertising, violating the First Sale Doctrine, etc.) instead.
I got it on one of those giveaways that steam/epic/gog sometimes do, so I never even gave them money over it and I still want my money back.
haha yep, dealing with their shit is not even worth free
I first heard they were doing propaganda( to make them self look good in a positive light) by basically promoting in a show mythic quest, I’m guessing the creator of isaip is no saint either
Let’s see if the physical disc once said anything about needing an online connection for single play. Oh look, it did not, the subscription required was only for 2-8 players network play.
Let’s compare with Destiny 2’s back cover, a game that is a MMO and thus “cannot be owned” by the players. Hey, a “Online Play (Required)*” sticker that is not present on The Crew! The fine print has a bit that states that “Activision makes no guarantee of regarding availability of online play or features, and may modify or discontinue online services at its discretion without notice.”
FF14 also had a “Online Play (Required)*” sticker on its back cover. It clearly states on the rectangular bit above the T Rating: “Users are granted only a limited, revocable license and do not own any intellectual property in the game or game data”
You deceived consumers, Ubisoft. “Online Play Required” is not there, so the game should remain playable offline.
☝️ This guy lawyers
You deceived consumers, Ubisoft.
Ubisoft is being fucked on consumer protection grounds, not on false advertisement. It doesn’t matter what they said on box, they broke the law.EDIT: fuck, this is USSA lawsuit. I thought it was French(and EU in general) one.
Technically right but the game required network access to play anyways so I’m not sure that people were deceived by this as it happened.
Did you like, not read any of the comment you’re replying to? Click any of the picture links?
I did and have read about it and disagree. I dont think anyone was tricked and thought they’d have the crew forever. This all seems very self entitled in my opinion. Point out any technicalities that you want to, people should have expected the game to be sunset eventually, and that it would be gone after that, just like every other online only game.
Which was a deception in the first place, because it clearly distinguishes between ‘1 player’ where it doesn’t say anything about needing a network connection, and 2-8 player where it says network and playstation plus required. It also says network features can be removed at any time, but nowhere does it say 1 player is a network feature. It specifically does not say that.
Why weren’t people upset when they first bought the game and realized they needed to be online to play it then? Why did it only become a talking point after the fact? You could argue it was shitty to make it a network only game and I might agree, but to say people were deceived and didnt realize it couldn’t be played offline until the servers were shutdown is absurd.
They probably were upset, but not upset enough to do anything about it because they still wanted to play it. I personally would have refunded it right away, and lots of people probably also did that.
Sounds pretty fair to me.
If buying isn’t owning then sharing isn’t stealing…
By principle I avoid “online required” games.
Avoiding doesn’t work, grab pitchforks and torches(EU citizens only).
It may be legal, but it certainly ain’t ethical.
Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should do it.
i have the legal right to stand on the street corner and call everyone who walks by a stupid slut.
that does not mean i will at no point get punched
Really unclear if you’re misquoting Jurassic Park, or if Jurassic Park just universally applies to EVERYTHING.
Clever girl finds a way
Hang on to your DODGSON OVER HERE!
Maybe in developing countries, but in developed world(Europe mostly) it isn’t.
If you never actually own a Ubisoft game that logically pirating them isn’t theft right? Right?
I am 100% serious, I don’t see the contradiction in this.
It’s a license to play the game, so when you pirate it is like sneaking into the movie theater. There’s no additional cost to the producer, but theoretically a loss of revenue from the license (movie ticket) you didn’t buy.
All that ignores the fact that they sure do pretend they are SELLING the game when it’s convenient.
I agree with this point, and it’s also why I think the class action suit makes sense. Some of the people who bought The Crew got a physical copy, which is now just a useless disc. It’s still just a license like you said, and I agree that it feels like they’re selling the game.
It’s like if the movie theater sold a DVD for a movie, but the disc will only work while you’re in the theatre. Pirating might still be a crime legally but I don’t think anyone should feel bad about doing it here, Ubisoft absolutely does not deserve your money over slimy business practices like this.
Agree top to bottom.
I think a better comparison would be a “Drive-In Theater”, because with pirating you’re just seeing the film, not using their seats/venue (servers) so it’s like you’re sitting in the neighbors yard watching it from their porch. Still costing them what would be considered a “viewing purchase” for the data but you’re really not putting a strain on the theater itself by “attending or sneaking in”.
I mean you’re still using the Drive-In’s gravel and taking up space, but I see what you mean.
…you’re using the drive-in’s gravel and space from the neighbor’s yard?
Ah I missed that. Thanks.
the fact is, that most people who pirate, wouldn’t pay for it if they couldn’t pirate. It’s not a loss of revenue in most cases. I sure as shit wouldn’t pay for media if i couldn’t pirate. I’m poor as fuck.
No one should own an Ubisoft game. Its a company thats at the top of the list with Nintendo as far as the level of hatred and vitriol they have for their own paying customers goes.
You’re correct, and this goes for ALL steam games
Half Life 2 works offline just fine. You can even run the exe directly without Steam open. You just cannot compare the two. But yes, if Steam get shut down you obviously cannot download them again. Same goes for games on GOG. You could archive them, but you can also archive games from Steam, it’s all the same.
I wasn’t saying you can’t play them, just that you don’t own them. This is still true with DRM free games. GOG’s agreement is different to Steam’s in that you own your purchase
You don’t think you own every house with an unlocked front door, do you?
You don’t really own a house at all. Gotta pay eternal rent to the government to keep it
Damn.
Damn
Or, ownership itself is a service. Rights mean nothing if nobody enforces them, and that includes property rights.
Problem is Ubisoft games are so shit now days it’s not even worth the effort to pirate them.
Yes sir 100% correct.
Logic checks out
It’s a nice sentiment but seriously - the whole “if buying isn’t owning then pirating isn’t stealing” thing is both overused and has always annoyed me. How are the two related? You can still be stealing regardless of if you have an option to buy or not. You could still steal an item that isn’t for sale.
What we really should be focusing on is whether pirating in and of itself is stealing, and whether it should be a crime. This overused phrase is distracting from the issue at hand, imo.
How are the two related?
A user obtains the game through legitimate means by “buying” the game. However, they do not own the game, and are in fact, just renting something. This is despite decades and decades of game buying, especially pre-Internet, equating to owning the game and being able to play the game forever, even 100 years from now.
By pirating the game, a user has clawed back the implied social construct that existed for decades past: Acquiring a game through piracy means that you own the game. You have it in a static form that cannot be taken away from you. There’s still the case of server shutdowns, like this legal case is arguing. But, unlike the “buyer”, the game cannot suddenly disappear from a game’s store or be forcefully uninstalled from your PC. You own it. You have the files. They cannot take that away from you.
The phrase essentially means: You have removed my means of owning software, therefore piracy is the only choice I have to own this game. It’s not stealing because it’s the only way to hold on to it forever. You know, because that’s what fucking “buying” was supposed to mean.
I think Ubisoft is clearly in the wrong, but you’re not making a good case. You’re conflating very different meanings of the word “own”.
In terms of legal ownership, only the copyright holder owns the intellectual property, including the right to distribute and license it. When a consumer “buys” a piece of media, they’re really just buying a perpetual license for their personal use of it. With physical media, the license is typically tied to whatever physical object (disc, book, ROM, etc.) is used to deliver the content, and you can transfer your license by transferring the physical media, but the license is still the important part that separates legal use from piracy.
When you pirate something, you own the means to access it without the legal right to do so. So, in the case at hand, players still “own” the game in the same sense they would if they had pirated it. Ubisoft hasn’t revoked anyone’s physical access to the bits that comprise the game; what they’ve done is made that kind of access useless because the game relies on a service that Ubisoft used to operate.
The real issue here is that Ubisoft didn’t make it clear what they were selling, and they may even have deliberately misrepresented it. Consumers were either not aware that playing the game required Ubisoft to operate servers for it, or they were misled regarding how long Ubisoft would operate the servers.
Ultimately I think what consumers are looking for is less like ownership and more like a warranty, i.e. a promise that what they buy will continue to work for some period of time after they’ve bought it, and an obligation from the manufacturer to provide whatever services are necessary to keep that promise. Game publishers generally don’t offer any kind of warranty, and consumers don’t demand warranties, but consumers also tend to expect punishers to act as if their products come with a warranty. Publishers, of course, don’t want to draw attention to their lack of warranty, and will sometimes actively exploit that false perception that their products come with a perpetual warranty.
I think what’s really needed is a very clear indication, at the point of purchase, of whether a game requires ongoing support from the publisher to be playable, along with a legally binding statement of how long they’ll provide support. And there should be a default warranty if none is clearly specified, like say 10 years from the point of purchase.
I’m not trying to frame this in the context of the lawsuit, even though that’s the point of the original article. The Crew’s nonfunctionality is just a consequence of our lack of ownership.
Perhaps this article would explain things better than I could.
Ultimately I think what consumers are looking for is less like ownership and more like a warranty
No. That’s not true. Otherwise people wouldn’t be reciting this phrase over and over again.
Consumers want to fucking own shit again! Renting everything is the entire fucking problem.
My point is they never have and never will.
Ubisoft can’t complain that I wont buy their games if I don’t really own their games.
Boycott doesn’t work, grab pitchforks and torches(EU citizens only).
Ubisoft’s stocks aren’t looking great at the moment.
Ubisoft’s stocks aren’t ubisoft’s assets. It is opinion on how much they worth, not how much they have.
Don’t like this? Sign the EU petition Stop Killing Games.
Yea I was thinking about this !
I wish I could sign. Sadly, not all european citizens are EU citizens.
When does Ubisoft realize that “you never owned it” and “you can’t complain” are arguments for not buying their next game?
Why buy what you can’t own? ☠️
They know. But consumers / voters are morons that will buy anyway, so they have no incentive to give a fuck.
Will they? A lot of “live service” games are failing of late.
I think they are realizing. It’s why they are looking to sell assets to China I assume. Source
damn. their stock is almost worthless. Keep it going!
They can’t complain because they never got my money.
If buying isn’t owning, piracy isn’t stealing.
The problem is it’s getting harder and harder to pirate games, especially games that are entirely online.
I like the cut of your jib.
When you “buy” software, you’re buying a license that grants you permission to use it subject to the terms & conditions. The stealing as the law would see it is from using software without purchasing a license or using it in violation of the license.
It even extends to digital content people “buy” on Steam, or Google Play, or Amazon including books, music, and videos. You didn’t buy that content, even if you think you did. You bought a license to it which is why occasionally Amazon or whoever will just scrub the content from your account without your consent. That’s also why in some countries you pay VAT on e-books even though you don’t pay VAT on real books - because you actually bought a software license which is liable to VAT.
So the best advice is don’t buy digital media from online services. For games and software it is unavoidable but recognize you don’t legally own squat although most console games on disc or cartridge can still be sold second hand. But even that is being eroded. Nintendo apparently are planning to sell “physical” games in stores but you open it up and there is a redemption code inside. Sony and Microsoft have both tried to get away from physical media too.
Sweet. Just giving me more reasons to not buy Ubisoft’s garbage.
They can’t complain when I never actually give them money but still play then
