DEAD GAME NEWS: THE CREW

Ross, your points are as always well taken. Also, many years ago you and I got in a little tiff here where I derided The Crew and the genre of driving game it represented as having little value and an extremely limited appeal. Over the years I've realized I was just wrong, and I just had a too limited sense of empathy or too little experience to understand your perspective.

One thing...I think the person who made that quote about owning nothing was coming from a socialistic model of centralized ownership rather than just corporate ownership, though it definitely gives a bad look. 
 

Have you gotten in contact with the EFF? They seems like they would be the go-to guys for this. 

>Also, many years ago you and I got in a little tiff here where I derided The Crew and the genre of driving game it represented as having little value and an extremely limited appeal.

Yeah, I remember that thread. Time is a flat circle 

Looks like Ross is aware of the EFF. I would personally consider making contact with them my top priority, even if it means becoming something of a nuisance. This is their bread and butter.

I think Australia's ACCC has established that if access to the product is revoked at a later date, the seller must refund those who purchased the product. In addition, the ACCC established that digital games are goods. So, Australia would be a good place to put forth a case in court. I would contact the ACCC, or somebody in Australia who can work with them. If Ubisoft were forced to refund all purchasers of The Crew in Australia, it could send a shockwave warning to publishers everywhere to not tie offline gameplay to online services.

https://www.accc.gov.au/

And if successful in Australia, I'd then look to file the same case in EU countries. It could be possible to file it in the Court of Justice of the EU, whose rulings apply to all EU member states. The process to having a case heard by them should be looked into. It might require first filing in a state court and then being appealed to the CJEU, or it might just require being able to explain why the issue is relevant and important to the EU as a whole.

https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/j_6/en/

This is exactly what Ross warned against, regarding kids growing up with the idea that buying isn't owning

Ross, you should try reaching out to Louis Rossmann. Here is his video on that Ubisoft comment:

I think it would be nice if you 2 managed to get in touch. Maybe something productive could come out of it. Check out his channel in general to get a better idea of him and what he has done in the past. 

Quote

I think Australia's ACCC has established that if access to the product is revoked at a later date, the seller must refund those who purchased the product. In addition, the ACCC established that digital games are goods. So, Australia would be a good place to put forth a case in court. I would contact the ACCC, or somebody in Australia who can work with them. If Ubisoft were forced to refund all purchasers of The Crew in Australia, it could send a shockwave warning to publishers everywhere to not tie offline gameplay to online services.

 

https://www.accc.gov.au/

To clarify the potential benefit here, providing a principle that publishers need to refund products they revoke access to is upheld, even if a case arguing that publishers have no right to revoke access to perpetual-license software were to fail, they could still be gotten by having to refund all sales of The Crew in Australia - which would be disastrous. It would mean that Ubisoft, despite its efforts, makes no profit in Australia from The Crew, and additionally loses all the money they invested into marketing, distribution, support, and related infrastructure for  The Crew in the country. And it would establish that if publishers want to sell their games in Australia, then they need to make sure the single-player content isn't locked behind online access - which, if they're going to do for Australia, they'll likely do for everywhere, otherwise people will just pirate Australia's version of the game, and will take there being a less-onerous version for Australia as an admission that Ubisoft are needlessly screwing others over. So, publishers would have to choose between locking SP content behind online access or being able to sell games in Australia.

Losing an entire Western country (which pays top regional pricing) as a market would be a notable blow, psychologically long-term financially.

So:

- the legality of shutting-off access can be attacked

- the benefit to the publisher in doing so, even if they're legally entitled to, can also be attacked

If it turns out a publisher is legally allowed to discontinue servers for a perpetual-license game, a publisher needing to refund the games it's cut-off access for could still achieve the goal that was sought and send a strong message about what software owners expect from publisher conduct.

The quote button is busted at the moment.

"

Ross, your points are as always well taken. Also, many years ago you and I got in a little tiff here where I derided The Crew and the genre of driving game it represented as having little value and an extremely limited appeal. Over the years I've realized I was just wrong, and I just had a too limited sense of empathy or too little experience to understand your perspective.

"

You can dislike The Crew and racing games in general, apply the same business model to any other game or creative works and it's just as much a problem.  The game itself is kind of irrelevant, the concept itself is just so bad.

"

One thing...I think the person who made that quote about owning nothing was coming from a socialistic model of centralized ownership rather than just corporate ownership, though it definitely gives a bad look.

"

The World Economic forum sure has a lot of billionaires if it's a socialist organization.

Well a pcgamesn.com story about this led me here, so I am now a new member of your community as someone who has purchased this game 4 times, with 3 of them being the ultimate edition, and was an alpha and beta tester of the crew 2 and cant stand that game, it pisses me off how much offline content could still be preserved. 

Just a thought here, but would it help to go after it as a software instead of a game?

ImZerw: That's only an attempt to prevent making it literally illegal for buyers to ATTEMPT to restore a game after shutdown.  It would do nothing for companies encrypting them then shutting them down.

LeeMullinsII: Yeah, I'm surprised they covered it actually.  Also, I'll be doing a live videochat today where I'll talk some more about it.

Regarding game v. software, I don't think there's much of a legal distinction, it's more about good v. service.  Additionally games can have unique artistic content, which might give them a little more consideration in some European countries.

I've... got a... plan.

Not THE plan, and it'd have to be vetted to see if it's even a good plan, but I'm retired with nothing but time and ideas on my hands.  For me, Counter Strike: Global Offensive was my tipping point, and I'm all in on lawsuits that start hammering away at the problem.  Here's what I've been working on since watching your video.  

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gmcxIpNqM2JjeSH_KINVb1iGyCLrMQVuMMwKeUZtVnA/edit?usp=sharing

Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices has some points that I feel like apply here 

Unfair Acts or Practices An act or practice is unfair where it • Causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers, • Cannot be reasonably avoided by consumers, and • Is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition. Public policy, as established by statute, regulation, or judicial decisions, may be considered with all other evidence in determining whether an act or practice is unfair. Deceptive Acts or Practices An act or practice is deceptive where • A representation, omission, or practice misleads or is likely to mislead the consumer; • A consumer’s interpretation of the representation, omission, or practice is considered reasonable under the circumstances; and • The misleading representation, omission, or practice is material.

The act or practice must cause or be likely to cause substantial injury to consumers—To be unfair, an act or practice must cause or be likely to cause substantial injury to consumers.Substantial injury usually involves monetary harm. An act or practice that causes a small amount of harm to a large number of people may be deemed to cause substantial injury

There must be a representation, omission, or practice that misleads or is likely to mislead the consumer—An act or practice may be found to be deceptive if there is a representation, omission, or practice that misleads or is likely to mislead the consumer 

(This one I find interesting as related to a DLC code that expires in 2099 because that is deception in print as one could argue a reasonable consumer would believe that to mean you have access to the DLC content which costs extra through at least the date the code is valid for redemption. Yes it does say terms are subject to change, but the date being in print is misleading to the reasonable average consumer simply by definition of the word expiration. Not including one could be argued as omission, which the game itself never had an expiration date, so deception by misleading for DLC and by omission for the game itself.)

Ida Auken, a Danish MP, was the one who made the the quote and she was a member of a Socialist party but switched to a Social Liberal party in 2014 and was a member when she said that. At least, all the information I can find seems to indicate her meaning was more along the lines of central ownership, though admittedly the fact that the WEF would publish such an opinion might be a matter of them trying to soften people up to losing property rights. The Baltic states and their weird mix of socialism and capitalism tend to muddy the matters.

You cold make a petition on change.org to raise awareness and gain support to start with, also to see how many will support this cause

There is a petition with just shy of 2500 votes on change.org already for bringing offline mode.

https://www.change.org/p/the-crew-1-shutdown-bring-offline-mode-ubisoft

Not trying to dissuade anyone, but was there ever a case when anyone gave a f*ck about a petition at change.org?

A petition for the EFF to respond to Ross's emails might have better luck

I just remembered how great that game was. A real shame.

Good morning friend, I wanted to know how to join the request for users in this case scammed by Ubisoft? I am from Argentina, I bought the game in 2017 for PS4 for the value of USD $21. I still have proof of purchase. The sad thing about this is that a little over a year ago I had downloaded it again, because it was a game that I enjoyed a lot. I didn't know that now I won't be able to play it anymore. TY

Quote

I wanted to know how to join the request for users in this case scammed by Ubisoft?

Ross wants you to email the address in the video, [email protected]

But I think you posting here probably means he'll see it at some point so you should be good.