I read about this yesterday and i hate the precedent of disabling game DLC because you close the online services. They really should just find a way of unlocking all the DLC for everyone if they have no way to track it otherwise its more lost media.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah that would be the ideal situation to me. I know multiplayer stuff can't stay up forever, but people losing their single player access to content kinda stings. If there's one consolation, there's the fact these are big famous series, so there's probably already a way to regain access though piracy if it comes to that. But it really shouldn't have to come to that.
Comment has been collapsed.
Downloading content you paid for can be called hardly piracy.
Comment has been collapsed.
From a personal moral standpoint, I agree.
But somewhere in whatever EULA I'm forced to agree to in order to play, they'll have some note about it being a license that they can revoke at any time and so on.
Comment has been collapsed.
I dunno about the USA, but here it's legit to make a backup copy of any software, provided you bought them a license to use it. That backup shall be usable, else it would be nonsense. They can revoke a license at any time by the EULA, but not without a reason to revoke it. They shall not use any right the EULA grants them in an abusive way. There's no moral point-of-view in all of those stories.... 😉
About the single-player games & DLCs, I don't see that reason, like many people ! That's offline gaming, it costs them no resource if the player keeps playing forever.
Comment has been collapsed.
I definitely don't want to answer from any legal perspective, but it is a maybe.
From copyright.gov, we get this line "It is also important to check the terms of sale or license agreement of the original copy of software in case any special conditions have been put in place by the copyright owner that might affect your ability or right under section 117 to make a backup copy. "
But apparently there was this ruling where the argument is you bought the "license" not ownership of the game. Granted it was also because of a cheating thing but their argument was still because of licensing.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not a lawyer either, I had to do a little research to find what I was talking about !
Here is the French law, in article L122-6-1 from our "intellectual property code", it reads :
II. The person entitled to use the software can make a backup copy when it is necessary to preserve the use of the software.
That law is deliberately worded that way, so it's not possible to debate about "really owning" the software versus "only having a license to use" (and it translates easily and correctly in English).
Looking back on the Ubisoft site, I saw they did not wrote they revoke the licenses, they only wrote they close their online services. Of course, Ubisoft is French, there's a really big chance their lawyers know this law : to my eyes, having the games and/or DLCs not working after September 1st is only a technical problem, not a legal issue. (•‿•)
About the DLCs, this same law is allowing reverse-engineering under circumstances unclear to me, it says something like "for interoperability with independantly-created software", but I don't know if I can read that as meaning it's allowed to "hack" the DLCs back into the game (provided one previously bought the DLCs of course) because the exact meaning of "independent" in this context is not explained. I mean, since DLCs were sold separately, I'm pretty sure they qualify as "independent", but with lawyers nothing is clear unless they explain it themselves. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Comment has been collapsed.
Excellent research on your part though. It's nice to know your rights. And I hope they never have to be challenged. It'd just be nice if this wasn't necessary at all. But it is what it is, at least you can confirm it's within your rights to hack it back in.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm wondering.... Maybe the story you read on the EFF site did mislead you ?
As I understand it, the issue is about a WoW player who used a trainer to help him raise his stats.
WoW is made of two separate software parts : a server, and a client.
WoW players are granted a license to use the server by the means of the official client only, provided they comply with the rules of conduct written in the agreement (EULA or whatever it's called).
The use of the trainer does not affect only the client, and hence is a violation of the agreement licensing the use of the server.
As a conclusion, this ruling the EFF talks about has nothing to do with single-player, offline, games.
I think if the game is checking online if you own a valid license before playing, this does not make this ruling valid, because I'm pretty sure you were never granted a license to use the anti-piracy server-side DRM software this online license check is about, so in turn there is nothing to rule about.
Well, now, reading back their own article :
But the question of whether a user is an owner for purposes of Section 117 depends the substance of the transaction, not just how one party wants to describe it. For example, if you buy the software, keep it on your own computer and don't have to return it when you are done, you probably own it.
There is a confusion between two meanings of the verb "to own" : (1) "physically owning a copy of the bytes of the software" and (2) "legally owning intellectual property and associated rights of the software". When they talk about the ruling about WoW, it's the (2). When they talk about making a backup copy, it's the (1).
As a conclusion, to my understanding you have the very same right to make a backup copy.
disclaimer: I didn't became a lawyer since yesterday, sorry 😅
Comment has been collapsed.
Sure. I'll buy that.
But here's the EULA from Ubi.
1.2 (iv) "remove, alter, disable or circumvent any copyright and trademark indications or other authorship and origin information, notices or labels contained on or within this Product "
1.3 d. create, supply or use alternative methods of using the Products, for example server emulators;
So this line specifically, would hinder anyone without an existing backup. So for instance, you bought the Deluxe Far Cry 3 pack, but it's after September 2022 (or perhaps you just simply had it on backlog until then). Then you can't activate that content and you can't download it presumably based on the notice. Therefore you have no opportunity to make a backup and could only then take it from a pirate site despite having the license to the product.
8. TERMINATION.
The EULA is effective from the earlier of the date You purchase, download or use the Product, until terminated according to its terms. You and UBISOFT (or its licensors) may terminate this EULA, at any time, for any reason. Termination by UBISOFT will be effective upon (a) notice to You or (b) termination of Your UBISOFT Account (if any) or (c) at the time of UBISOFT’s decision to discontinue offering and/or supporting the Product. This EULA will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with any of the terms and conditions of this EULA. Upon termination for any reason, You must immediately uninstall the Product and destroy all copies of the Product in Your possession.
So by my understanding, if they say they stop supporting the product, the EULA is terminated and as such, you're supposed to destroy all copies of the product in your possession.
Now is a "decommission of online services" considered a termination of the EULA?..probably not. But I don't know enough to say for sure.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, those are quite big chars, there's two carefully chosen words in what you quoted :
(1) Ubisoft may terminate the EULA (...) for any reason
--> they need a reason to terminate it
(2) Termination by Ubisoft will be effective (...) at the time of Ubisoft's decision to discontinue offering (...)
--> they decide to terminate
I'm sure there's a difference between a reason and a decision : only willing to decide something is never enough to make a reason.
The EULA does not explain why "discontinue offering and/or supporting the Product" may in all situations be valid reasons : as I said previously they shall not use any right the EULA grants them in an abusive way.
About single-player games, which are software parts that can operate only on the player computer with no cost at all for them, I think there's no reason, that's only a decision, which in turn is not a valid mean to terminate the EULA unless that decision is made with a valid underlying reason (which is nowhere explained as far as I know).
What's the reason here ?
Comment has been collapsed.
oh don't think too much about the big characters on termination. That section was "8." but it triggered some autoformatting that changed it to "1." so I just changed it to (number) 8 myself which made this big and at that point I gave up on ideal formatting for such a small thing lol.
Anyway, reason vs decision feels like language that they can argue however they want. For me, I'd see their reason as what they defined in decommissioning of online services "Closing the online services for some older games allows us to focus our resources on delivering great experiences for players who are playing newer or more popular titles." That's a decision, but their reason is to refocus resources "blah blah".
However, "they shall not use any right the EULA grants them in an abusive way" doesn't hold up for what I see in USA since a previously posted link implied that EULA > copyright law. However, here's a different take on that.
EULAs exist at the intersection of copyright and state contract law, and generally carve out a narrower range of rights for device owners than they would otherwise have. Under the terms of a EULA, the owner of the device does not own the copy of the software sold with it – she is merely a licensee. Licensees aren’t protected by the first sale doctrine or the provisions of Section 117, which the Copyright Office acknowledges as significant in many of the areas studied. The report points out that some courts have refused to enforce EULAs, either on the grounds that they are unconscionably one-sided or because state law requirements for contract formation are not met by a “clickwrap” or “shrinkwrap” license, but as many or more cases have gone the other way.
The provisions of section 117 cover the right to copy. But it also has noted that courts have gone both ways on EULA enforcement (which is bad for understanding policy). But to me, all this means is if you agree to the EULA here in USA, then you've got a good chance that whatever you agreed to can be used against you in this manner.
And honestly might not hold up even outside of America because of this line in the Ubisoft EULA
10.4.1 To the extent permitted by applicable law, this EULA, and any disputes or claims arising out of or in connection with it, or its subject matter or formation (including non-contractual disputes or claims) are governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the United States and the State of California, without giving effect to any principles of conflicts of laws. This EULA shall not be governed by the United Nations Conventions of Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, the application of which is hereby expressly excluded from any interpretation of this EULA.
Comment has been collapsed.
The EULA is there (en-US) and also there (fr-FR).
In both, the § 8 you quoted is very similar, nearly word-for-word translation ("reason" translates to "motif" in French, and "decision" to "décision").
In both, the very last line (in all caps) is making the EULA inferior to the law (mandatory here), and Captain Obvious told me that's why courts are not always enforcing the EULA.
Anyway, reason vs decision feels like language that they can argue however they want. For me, I'd see their reason as what they defined in decommissioning of online services "Closing the online services for some older games allows us to focus our resources on delivering great experiences for players who are playing newer or more popular titles." That's a decision, but their reason is to refocus resources "blah blah".
This is where a real lawyer would be needed, I can't argue correctly with that, except on the point it's not a matter of language that could be freely read and interpreted by one contractor only.
About single-players games, there's no resource to refocus. They can just stop to provide it technically speaking, and it's not a reason to end the right of players already owning a license to play it to continue owning that right.
Moreover, the Ubisoft Account (used to hold game licenses) is free, and there's even free games in mine. From where comes your idea of "resources to refocus" ? They're only killing their old games because they don't like their own games, that's all in my opinion.
Comment has been collapsed.
The problem here is the law appears to allow for a EULA to be on top. Like a court can say no to the EULA, but the way that article points it out, it's like a less than 50% chance that they will. And while Wikipedia is a citation needed kind of source, it's still better than anything I can provide myself so on that note, there is a section EULAs and rights of end users.
These rights only apply to "owners of copies." Most software vendors claim that their products are "licensed, not sold", thus sidestepping 17 U.S.C. § 117. American courts have taken varying approaches when confronted with these software license agreements.
And right below this is the bit about EU not falling for that. So like it works for you but not necessarily for me. However, I'd question if this really even works over there. Because this turns into a side discussion on the right to resale which Steam was in a legal battle over (and lost but plans to appeal?. But like to this day, no EU users I'm aware of can resell their Steam games from their account in any form almost 3 years later.
But back to your second part of the discussion:
About single-players games, there's no resource to refocus. They can just stop to provide it technically speaking, and it's not a reason to end the right of players already owning a license to play it to continue owning that right.
I'm pretty sure their argument would be the validation servers and upkeep. Even if the resources for that should be fairly minimal, and work should be done to just remove said validation, that's still human resources they would have to put towards that task.
But what I can't tell you is if that constitutes termination of the EULA or not. Yet I still have the feeling that in either case, they can word it in such a way that denying access to single player content is just as valid as denying access to multiplayer content.
Comment has been collapsed.
I understand there's a difference between US laws and EU laws about how copyright works with regards to the meaning of words like "copies", "owner", "license", and the like, but each time I go down the rabbit hole ... it looks like it's out-of-topic for the user because of another text which clearly states there's no need to discuss about "owning vs. licensed". I'll get back to this.
But first, about this ruling on the topic of the right to resale Steam games, every article I read clearly state Valve does not want to comply to the ruling (and plans to appeal), so it's not an effective ruling (effective as in, Valve makes changes to Steam so we can resell games either directly from Steam, either with simple tools). At most, it's something someone may use in court only and not in real life outside the courts... so it's not really something, because the geographical territory where it practically means something is really really small. The judges were knowing that, weren't them?
So back to the meaning of words, and the topic.
I'm pretty sure their argument would be the validation servers and upkeep. Even if the resources for that should be fairly minimal, and work should be done to just remove said validation, that's still human resources they would have to put towards that task.
Maybe true, maybe false. You don't know. They didn't claimed it (beware, even if they barely "suggested" it, they still didn't claimed it explicitly as far as I know). What they claimed is that there's an EULA. So I went reading the § 3.1, which is all caps, and I'm quoting the interesting part :
The product may be protected by digital rights management software (“DRM software”). In such case, you hereby agree, acknowledge and consent to the following regarding the DRM software: (i) the installation of the product will cause the DRM software to be installed on your computer; (ii) the DRM software may limit the number of installations of the product; (iii) the DRM software may install on your computer additional components required for copy protection; and (iv) during the installation and/or the first launch of the product, an online connection may be required to unlock the product through the DRM software.
the (i) binds the DRM with the installation of the game
the (ii) limits the number of installations (number as in amount)
the (iii) adds additional components to the DRM itself
the (iv) asks eventually for internet connectivity on installation and/or first launch to unlock the game
there's no (v) after (unless they hijacked my computer to hide it from me LOL)
Nowhere it's said the DRM (and the validation servers and all) may be used as a reason to terminate the EULA. That's where I was discussing the meaning of the words : here, it's important. No need to think about the meaning of a "license" or if you "really own" something. It is just nowhere written that any "validation server" is required on every launch, it's only said during installation or first launch, then there's no limitation of use at all in the EULA (so it can't be enforced).
That's a full stop for me : I mean I won't try to think more about it.
If they have a valid reason, I don't see where it's written, and I would like to know !
Comment has been collapsed.
I brought up the ruling because I'm trying to show the difference a bit in protections. In a place where you actually have a law that supports it, it still hasn't been changed. Now imagine a place where the law purposely made an exception for this concept? I don't want to imply laws can't be changed or improved as they certainly can, but that's an uphill battle.
Nowhere it's said the DRM (and the validation servers and all) may be used as a reason to terminate the EULA.
Section 8 as discussed previously clearly said they can terminate it for any reason. Saying because they felt like it is still a reason. Granted using an excuse like that makes it easier to be sued so they won't put it in that manner, but it's there as a last line of defense.
Additionally, section 3 is likely not referring to ubisoft connect as DRM but external DRM such as Denuvo. Far Cry 5 contains the warning on their steam page.. Ubisoft connect is DRM but in that very section, the language is pointing towards third party installations.
IN NO EVENT SHALL UBISOFT BE LIABLE IN CONNECTION WITH THE COMPONENTS THAT MAY BE INSTALLED ON YOUR COMPUTER BY ANY DRM SOFTWARE. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE VISIT THE WEBSITE OF THE DRM SOFTWARE APPEARING DURING THE INSTALLATION OF THE PRODUCT.
Please visit the website of the DRM software is kicking the problem down to said third party.
But whatever magical server validation they do for their games is not considered in that section. As an indirect, but not exact, example of this difference, I fired up Assassin's Creed Revelations using Ubisoft Connects offline mode(not on this list unfortunately for PC but I am unwilling to install one I'm not already playing just for this reply) and was met with this screen.
As you can see, "extra content" is locked off in a situation where you can't access the server. This appears near identical to the scenario described in the decommissioning of online services. Now I can't verify that it truly doesn't work because I don't actually own that content. But under the assumption that it would behave as described if I did, then this is further showing the difference between the DRM described in section 3 versus whatever they use here. A one time internet connection is not true.
Section 9 also has a nice little gotcha as well.
UBISOFT may modify the Product for any reason or without any specific reason, at any time and at its entire discretion, in particular for technical reasons such as updates, maintenance operations and/or resets to improve and/or optimize the Product. You agree that the Product may install or download the modifications automatically. You agree that UBISOFT may stop to support previous versions of the Product upon availability of an updated version. UBISOFT’s channel partners and associated service providers shall have no obligation to furnish any maintenance or customer support with respect to the Product. UBISOFT also reserves the right to amend the Rules of Conduct set out in Section 1 to place limits on the use of the Product.
Now naturally, one would hope that reading of the first sentence would point towards "technical reasons" being improvements meant to optimize the product. But it still would fall under without any specific reason if they want to deny access.
Comment has been collapsed.
One of the monstrous things when it comes to think juridical is the need to assume bad faith of all parties/contractants, unless specified otherwise by law. As soon as an argument is assuming good faith instead of proving it, then the argument fall (because evidence is needed to have a case in the first place). This is monstrous because it has nothing to do with the real good or bad faith of the parties, it's only the way to think the issue in order to provide a fair argument (that is, not 'fair by itself', but 'fair for all parties').
You are failing to that requirement (and that's so very common).
In a place where you actually have a law that supports it, it still hasn't been changed.
Exactly an evidence of bad faith : either the company that don't change it, either the law itself (yes it happens).
Section 8 as discussed previously clearly said they can terminate it for any reason.
Such a clause cannot be enforced by the word 'any' (EU or US or UK or etc. are the same on this point), its meaning is instead to state there is no closed list of valid reasons, and not to state anything can be a reason like you mean. That's the difference between reason and decision : one contractant cannot decide its will becomes a reason because of this clause. A lawyer would explain that better than me.
Additionally, section 3 is likely not referring to ubisoft connect as DRM but external DRM such as Denuvo.
Section 3 does not define which DRM, thus that's all and any DRM. See point (iii) where it's stated that "the DRM software may install additional components required for copy protection" (so it can install another DRM).
IN NO EVENT SHALL UBISOFT BE LIABLE IN CONNECTION WITH THE COMPONENTS THAT MAY BE INSTALLED ON YOUR COMPUTER BY ANY DRM SOFTWARE.
Whatever they write, they have to provide a product compliant to what they sold (at least in France, and in EU, that's a consumer protection law).
You bought a game, not a DRM software. You didn't chose to have a DRM software installed.
Ubisoft required you to install the DRM software to play the game.
And then what happens? The DRM software calls aliens, and they cryo-freeze your Grandma.
In no events shall Ubisoft be liable of that.
(the DRM software maker is, for sure)
More seriously, in no events one can claim the game is not compliant because of the DRM : Ubisoft acts as a 'proxy' providing to the end-user the DRM software that was provided to them. The DRM provider liability is defined in another agreement between Ubisoft and them.
Please visit the website of the DRM software is kicking the problem down to said third party.
No, it's written "for further information, please visit...". Information is not binding like an agreement (the EULA).
As you can see, "extra content" is locked off in a situation where you can't access the server. This appears near identical to the scenario described in the decommissioning of online services. Now I can't verify that it truly doesn't work because I don't actually own that content. But under the assumption that it would behave as described if I did, then this is further showing the difference between the DRM described in section 3 versus whatever they use here. A one time internet connection is not true.
Assume bad faith, assume bad faith, assume bad faith. Did I said 'assume bad faith' ? LOL
You're describing the technical implementation of the game, but you're not showing it's compliant with the EULA. As a consequence, you're assuming full technical compliance of the game you bought without evidence of it. Then, you try to conclude the game is compliant to the EULA because you assumed it at first. This can't be an argument.
UBISOFT may modify the Product for any reason or without any specific reason, at any time and at its entire discretion, in particular for technical reasons such as updates, maintenance operations and/or resets to improve and/or optimize the Product.
First, it's important to notice that "may modify" does not include the word 'substantially' (because it's not legit) : you bought a game, they can not modify it to become another game, it must remain the same game. The modifications are limited by that requirement.
About 'any reason', see above.
About 'without any specific reason', it's about some anti-piracy measures that may include random modifications, which are not each guaranteed to have a meaning by their own. There's still the need of a reason, but it doesn't have to be specific for each modification made (that's a set of modifications with a single reason, not each modification with a different and specific reason).
This clause is 100% about modifying the Product, it cannot imply changes to the agreement.
UBISOFT also reserves the right to amend the Rules of Conduct set out in Section 1 to place limits on the use of the Product.
In relation to this line, and to correctly understand it, the important idea to have in mind is more or less this :
"Ubisoft may sell you a game with an EULA, then modify the EULA at any time to disallow you to play the game you bought."
No, I'm joking, that would not be legit. Thus any reading of any clause that would lead to that meaning (practically or theoretically) is also void.
But it still would fall under without any specific reason if they want to deny access.
No because the clause is about modifying the Product, not the EULA. See right above about a real limit on their right to modify the Product.
Comment has been collapsed.
its meaning is instead to state there is no closed list of valid reasons
Which again goes back to the decommissioning of online services. While I may not agree with the reasoning, I don't see how this can be dismissed as invalid. And that's in addition to the usual line in section 8 "at the time of UBISOFT’s decision to discontinue offering and/or supporting the Product." They are no longer supporting the product. I'm also just using this as a blanket reply to the later sections about modifying the product, except for one at the very end.
Section 3 does not define which DRM, thus that's all and any DRM.
They clearly refer to Ubisoft Connect in the EULA whenever they want to. But I'll move on from that.
Whatever they write, they have to provide a product compliant to what they sold (at least in France, and in EU, that's a consumer protection law)
I feel like this could go off entirely in another direction as what's the limit to compliant to what you were sold? Is Final Fantasy XIV V1.0 the same as Final Fantasy XIV of today? However, again that likely goes off on an unnecessary tangent so I'll bring it back. These Ubisoft products are still compliant since it's the same thing, what is being limited is your access to that DLC.
And all of that then goes back to section 6. However, I'd actually like to use their TOS. Why? I happen to like the way it states this next thing better and the part at the beginning of the EULA says in case of conflicts, TOS shall govern.
- PLEASE NOTE: UBISOFT MAKES NO GUARANTEES OR WARRANTIES ABOUT OUR SERVICES.
Just making the note for now, there's a better connection for the end.
Then, you try to conclude the game is compliant to the EULA because you assumed it at first
The EULA and DRM discussed an internet connection required upon install and/or launch. I then showed that I can't access those features despite having installed and launched it previously. This actually doesn't say anything about the EULA except that the method the game chose to define access to Extra content should not be equivalent to the DRM discussed in the EULA due to the requirement of a continued online connection. But I am linking it to the decommissioning of online services reasoning because you can see that without whatever method they choose to define access, it doesn't work without those "online services".
In relation to this line, and to correctly understand it, the important idea to have in mind is more or less this :
"Ubisoft may sell you a game with an EULA, then modify the EULA at any time to disallow you to play the game you bought."
No, I'm joking, that would not be legit. Thus any reading of any clause that would lead to that meaning (practically or theoretically) is also void.
So this is the one I'm picking out specifically. Because it took me this long to make the connection, but this has happened before (probably multiple times but just focusing on the one). Destiny 2 did this, multiple times I believe.
Again none of this really makes this right to the consumers, but they clearly can get away with it if anything at all in the TOS/EULA whatever says you bought a license. Their TOS. But I'm not trying to make this TOS overload so here's the relevant part.
Service Provided Content may be altered, removed, deleted, or discontinued by Bungie at any time (e.g., upon termination of this Agreement and/or cessation of online support for the Bungie Services), even if you have not “used” or “consumed” the Service Provided Content prior to alteration, removal, deletion, or discontinuation.
does this not sound somewhat similar to Ubisoft TOS?
WE DO NOT GUARANTEE AND MAKE NO COMMITMENT OR WARRANTY CONCERNING THE USE OF THE SERVICES OR THE RESULTS OF THE USE OF THE SERVICES IN TERMS OF CONFORMITY, ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS, RELIABILITY, SECURITY, AVAILABILITY ETC. WITHIN THE LIMITS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE LAW,
I like Bungie's language better for that point since it is VERY direct with their "screw you". I mean dang, they even cover the fact if you haven't used it, it's still too bad for you. But I do believe Ubisoft has put in enough that it can be inferred.
So perhaps in an effort of shortening this, I'd like to ask this question. Knowing what occurred with Destiny 2 and the similarity between it and TOS/EULA on Ubisoft, can you say that Ubisoft retiring services denying access to DLC is any different than Destiny Vaulting? I guess an argument could be made that things can return from a vault, but that feels like sidestepping since it can also never return.
Comment has been collapsed.
My opinion is still the same : Ubisoft did that because they don't like their games. They are known for that since decades, when compared to other companies : in a word, they care less. About bugs, connectivity issues, many things in fact. Generally speaking, they globally make good games but.... Well, that's also a matter of culture, because in France, liking our work is not always seen as a good thing ; we're not taught to like our work ; and when we discuss about work it may be totally avoided without us French people thinking we forgot something important.
So to my eyes, they're not doing that because they have the right to do it — they obviously also have the right to not do it. And I think the economical, financial argument isn't real because they're providing free games through the Ubisoft account — games that provide no income to them, and even costs them money to provide.
Back to the rights topic, I think what you're explaining is not explaining they right to end those single-player games/DLC. I can't imagine Ubisoft claiming arguments that unclear in front of a judge if they were challenged in court. If there's an explanation, I think it can only be something much clearer.
Which again goes back to the decommissioning of online services. While I may not agree with the reasoning, I don't see how this can be dismissed as invalid.
It's invalid because deeming it valid means 'any decision from their side is a valid reason'. I already explained that, a decision is not a reason, any is not anything, abusive readings are void, etc.
They clearly refer to Ubisoft Connect in the EULA whenever they want to.
No. The two words « ubisoft connect » are written only once in that order. That's in § 3 right after the part I quoted, and that's to state it "may be required to play and access online services and features". So it tells nothing about offline play.
... what's the limit to compliant to what you were sold?
When the software product is functional like advertised (like in 100% functional, not only mostly functional), it would probably always require to challenge the company in courts to have an answer from a judge. This applies to your example about FF XIV.
These Ubisoft products are still compliant since it's the same thing, what is being limited is your access to that DLC.
Precisely, the DLC is a 'Product' like the main game, and it should be compliant. For the most part, compliant includes functional. But there's no point in providing a technically functional multiplayer DLC if there's no players (an exemple I took from yourself).
... I'd actually like to use their TOS. ...
The TOS and the EULA are different documents for a reason.
As a simple example, if someone use the backup copy she made to play the game, then she is not serviced her own backup by Ubisoft, which will not be liable if the backup is damaged. That's a real ruling, allowing them to charge their customers if they ask for a replacement copy of the game (for games provided using physical means).
Ubisoft makes no guarantees or warranties about our services.
Legal guarantees and warranties applies.
... I then showed that I can't access those features despite having installed and launched it previously. ...
That's a fact, not an evidence. If I sell you a car with no tire and no window, then you can show the fact the car is moving on the rims when it doesn't rain. Is it compliant to what you bought? Would you search for the answer in the law, in the past court rulings, or in the private agreement between the seller and you?
... the method the game chose to define access to Extra content should not be equivalent to the DRM discussed in the EULA due to the requirement of a continued online connection. ...
DLC and main game are both 'Products' in the EULA. "Defining access to a Product" is Digital Right Management, aka. DRM. And in turn, DRM are not requiring a "continued online connection" in the EULA.
... But I am linking it to the decommissioning of online services reasoning because you can see that without whatever method they choose to define access, it doesn't work without those "online services".
It works the way they designed it (technically speaking). Is this design compliant with all the requirements? (legally speaking).
The car I previously sold you is using alcohol instead of petrol because I designed it that way. Is it legally allowed?
... Destiny 2 did this, ...
Yeah. And what? Do you have any court ruling saying it's allowed? (and the explanation why?)
I'm not saying it's not, in this example they replaced some content by some other content. I'm saying it's different, and I'm saying sometimes companies are doing illegal things and are neither challenged neither sentenced.
... I mean dang, they even cover the fact if you haven't used it, it's still too bad for you. ...
I mean LOL, that's a legal provision!
Ubisoft is hinting it with the words "applicable law" (and not Bungie).
For example, it means if you paid for it, and do not get it, then you can not oppose them the fact you paid for it to comply them to provide it at whatever cost for them.
The important part of those two quotes is they don't apply to 'Products' but to 'Services'. So it applies about downloading the game because that's a service. How do you read those quotes as applying to running the game on your own device? This cannot be a service!
... Knowing what occurred with Destiny 2 and the similarity between it and TOS/EULA on Ubisoft, can you say that Ubisoft retiring services denying access to DLC is any different than Destiny Vaulting? ...
That's the argument of the worse. It's very tempting for a company in a competitive environment to copy the worst practices of its concurrents if it allows cost reduction. That can easily be a bad practice. And no evidence it's right.
Comment has been collapsed.
How do you read those quotes as applying to running the game on your own device? This cannot be a service!
As referenced, I'm trying to reduce the amount of time on this, you can consider it the same as me having run out of counterpoints :) So I'm only following up on this. As far as why TOS > EULA, the Ubi EULA states:
If You have a UBISOFT Account which can be found on http://www.ubi.com (“Terms of Use”), this EULA shall coexist with, and shall not supersede, the Terms of Use. To the extent that the provisions of this Agreement conflict with the provisions of the Terms of Use, the conflicting provisions in the Terms of Use shall govern.
You agree to both. I'm not even sure it is possible to run the aforementioned games without a Ubisoft account. Perhaps on consoles but I'm limiting it to what I can know about myself.
So the product you bought also requires you to agree to the usage of services. If there is a conflict, the TOS is superior. What is being affected? Online services. But their term "services" applies to everything just like Bungie.
The Terms govern your use of our games, downloadable content, season passes, game software (contained on disc, downloaded, or streamed), other software products, and online and mobile services including their online functions and other features, any updates/upgrades thereto, any related websites, UBISOFT platforms (including without limitation Uplay) and the UPLAY+ subscription service, and the servers, software and framework through which all the foregoing are provided to You (collectively, our "Services").
tbh they should update that UPLAY+ note since it is now Ubisoft+ but that's irrelevant.
Yeah. And what? Do you have any court ruling saying it's allowed? (and the explanation why?)
I'm not saying it's not, in this example they replaced some content by some other content. I'm saying it's different, and I'm saying sometimes companies are doing illegal things and are neither challenged neither sentenced
Indeed, I do not have any court ruling saying it's allowed. But after spending the last few days on this from American standards, I'm confident they can get away with it just like Bungie did. As I learned from another comment here, they seem to have gotten away with this already for H.A.W.X. 2. There's a whole list of other already decommissioned past games but it's a bit of a pain to verify which ones have single player dlc (if any) so I won't try.
I see a lot of things that aren't really "fair" with this resolution, but all of it can be covered by some aspect of the TOS or EULA. I wouldn't put my money on this. I'll cheer for anyone that does though. But the only thing that will be done from my end is simply taking what I've seen from this and telling others when relevant. I won't be like boycott their games, but I'm going to to remember this and encourage piracy of older titles if someone wants the missing content, which I really don't like to do.
Comment has been collapsed.
... I'm trying to reduce the amount of time on this ...
Thank you for your time and for discussing all of that in depth with me ☺🌻 That's still interesting for me 🙂
this EULA shall coexist with, and shall not supersede, the Terms of Use
I'm reading that as meaning "both all provisions from TOS applies AND all provisions from EULA applies".
Since both are written by Ubisoft, with no possibility for the consumer to modify the text, I would say that in case of contradictory parts, the reading the most beneficial to the consumer should be used. But I'm not sure it's always the case, I mean it should be more or less like that in EU, and I don't know about US.
I'm not even sure it is possible to run the aforementioned games without a Ubisoft account.
If I remember correctly I quoted somewhere above something saying it's only for online play. So single-player offline campaigns should be available offline.
If there is a conflict, the TOS is superior.
I understand your thinking : if the EULA shall not supersede, then the TOS may. But in the text it's written both shall coexist.
But their term "services" applies to everything just like Bungie.
I see better what you were meaning before : the Game is a Service as per the TOS, and since the TOS allows them to end the Service, it allows them to end the Game.
But in the EULA the Game is a Product.
You read that as a conflict between TOS and EULA, and want to resolve that conflict by choosing between Service and Product.
I think that's not needed to choose. As per the TOS, the Game is a Service, and as per the EULA, the Game is a Product. Both can apply without conflict. The Service is what Ubisoft provides to the player ; the Product is what the player keeps by himself.
Like in the restaurant, the waiter provides the service, then the client keeps the product he ate (preferably).
In fact, it cannot "work as expected" if you choose between Product and Service : it is truly both.
Since the "license to use the Product" (the Game) is granted by the EULA, and since I didn't found a valid mean in the EULA to terminate that license to use (except for online play, needing online services), I would still and again conclude that they can't take back the right to play the offline parts of the Game from their clients. (disclaimer: this may be wrong! but I don't see where!)
... I'm confident they can get away with it ...
Whatever. What the players can get away with is a more interesting topic (at least for us).
... But the only thing that will be done from my end is simply taking what I've seen from this and telling others when relevant. I won't be like boycott their games, but I'm going to to remember this and encourage piracy of older titles if someone wants the missing content, which I really don't like to do.
One cannot unlawfully enters his own house, even if breaking the door to enter. If my whole reasonning is true, then Ubisoft uses DRM to lock players out of content they have the right to use... I don't know what is the good answer, but for sure that's hard to call piracy to bypass DRMs of a single-player game you bought.
A big issue about that, in online stores, not everybody thinks about keeping a receipt of the transaction when buying. So if the games disappear from the Ubisoft account, it may be hard to know if the game was bought before or not !
(this point by itself is an enormous issue about digital rights).
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm reading that as meaning "both all provisions from TOS applies AND all provisions from EULA applies".
They do except for the other part of the line.
To the extent that the provisions of this Agreement conflict with the provisions of the Terms of Use, the conflicting provisions in the Terms of Use shall govern.
TOS (actually TOU I've been mislabeling it) is superior to the EULA if any line is in conflict. And section 9 in the TOU is basically all about their lack of guaranteeing anything specific "within applicable law".
I don't know what is the good answer, but for sure that's hard to call piracy to bypass DRMs of a single-player game you bought.
I still support the player stance here. But this is then goes back to the lack of ownership again. You do own your house. You don't own this game.
Now don't get me wrong, there's definitely an interesting case potential here since nobody is getting a license revoked with this action. In fact, I've run across something that may finally support your stance from a legal perspective. In 2015 (and expanded in 2018) some exceptions were granted. See here
Section 17
(i) Video games in the form of computer programs embodied in physical or downloaded formats that have been lawfully acquired as complete games, when the copyright owner or its authorized representative has ceased to provide access to an external computer server necessary to facilitate an authentication process to enable gameplay, solely for the purpose of:
I'm cutting off quoting most of this. In short, for once, none of this implies any difference between license or owning. However, we are then hurt once more by the definition of complete game.
(A) For purposes of paragraphs (b)(17)(i)(A) and (b)(17)(ii) of this section, “complete games” means video games that can be played by users without accessing or reproducing copyrightable content stored or previously stored on an external computer server.
That line feels like the gotcha concerning DLC. You're good to go if you have your own backup and can crack it, but it still means that if Ubisoft denies access to downloading said content, you're still committing copyright infringement. But well I can't know how this is going to go down, they may still let DLC get downloaded.
Even more of a bonus fun fact: Apparently these exemptions have to be argued every 3 years, they are not law, and if someone fails to argue for said exception, these quotes can go back to being illegal. That said, it appears this has not been the case so far with each time slightly more provisions being added since 2015.
Comment has been collapsed.
... TOS (actually TOU I've been mislabeling it) is superior to the EULA if any line is in conflict. ...
Ok, so I've read too fast there, oops!
You're somewhat right, but wording it that way may be misleading. You shall not look for conflicting lines in the two texts, but instead apply each one separately, then check if it leads to conflicting situations. Then and only then it's needed to choose with text applies.
That's why it's possible for them to say the Game is a Product in one text, and the Game is a Service in the other. By the line, it's conflicting. But you don't have to choose before applying both, and here both can apply cumulatively with no conflict to solve in the end ! (here only re-wording what I was explaining before)
I still support the player stance here. But this is then goes back to the lack of ownership again. You do own your house. You don't own this game.
We can push the logic up to a point it's only crafting words to brainfuck ourselves :
« Do you own you car? Once bought, are you allowed to make a copy of it? No, you don't, because you don't own the industrial and intellectual property of the car! Thus you don't own you car, you only have a license to drive it! »
And so on. 😂
Even clothes, if you want: « Do you own your clothes? Once bought, are you allowed to make a copy of it? No, you are not allowed to copy them because that's counterfeiting! Thus you don't own your clothes, you only have a license to wear them! »
😂
So... Most of the time, when we 'own' a thing we bought after it was made by someone else, then we're not allowed to copy the thing. It applies to games, we can say we own the games we have a license to use.
... In fact, I've run across something that may finally support your stance from a legal perspective. In 2015 (and expanded in 2018) some exceptions were granted. See here
That's a good link I will keep (into my collection of hundreds of links I'm keeping). And yes, very close or same idea as what I'm saying. Most interesting part is it can be used to answer people saying that's only in EU law and not in US law.
... You're good to go if you have your own backup and can crack it, but it still means that if Ubisoft denies access to downloading said content, you're still committing copyright infringement. ...
I'm not even reading it in a so restrictive way. How to explain?
Let's time-travel to the past a bit!
Definition of the "complete game" is to be read and understood as things are when the game is "lawfully available to buy" (because that's when the agreement is made).
Back to the future!
What was defined in the past as a "complete game" is not to be modified by the fact it's no longer "lawfully available to buy" (because it only means no new agreement can be made).
So, I don't know if this reading is correct, but anyway it protects single-player games and DLC and features ! Except that technically speaking it makes things look like piracy (like I was saying earlier : what to do when no receipt was kept ???), it's in fact only making use of a valid exemption, not only for EU people but also in the US.
Comment has been collapsed.
But you don't have to choose before applying both, and here both can apply cumulatively with no conflict to solve in the end !
What I have not answered to your satisfaction is the ability of Ubisoft to terminate the EULA (which leads to the DRM discussion). This is why I pivoted to the TOU for the discussion on services instead. Ubisoft has not (as of yet) technically terminated the EULA, nor have users terminated their side of things. I do believe they can but that's not what is occurring as of this moment.
But section 9 of the TOU. Where do they give any guarantee their services will remain up without interruption? Here's one that stands out.
"WE DO NOT GUARANTEE AND MAKE NO COMMITMENT OR WARRANTY CONCERNING THE USE OF THE SERVICES OR THE RESULTS OF THE USE OF THE SERVICES IN TERMS OF CONFORMITY, ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS, RELIABILITY, SECURITY, AVAILABILITY ETC. WITHIN THE LIMITS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE LAW,"
Naturally a normal reading of that line implies we're talking about temporary service outages, but it doesn't actually limit duration. Whether we treat the product as a service or keep it separate, the product requires use of the services to access. And they're decommissioning online services, which is how you access said content. So they are locking you out of these services forever.
Should your single player content be tied to online services? Of course not, never argued otherwise. But it is.
In the course of this (today I have clearly failed to minimize my research), I have learned of this lawsuit over the term "buy". It concerns Apple store users who "bought" products that were later removed. I thought about it because "buy" buttons surely appear on Ubisoft storefronts as well. And it may also have ramifications for this discussion down the line. But I think the insistence on license is going to cover Ubisoft from this.
So... Most of the time, when we 'own' a thing we bought after it was made by someone else, then we're not allowed to copy the thing. It applies to games, we can say we own the games we have a license to use.
A house, a car, a shirt, all of these are physical objects. You are allowed to own that copy of the object, not the original copyright itself. But because of this, you can also do almost whatever you want with that copy, including resale.
After all, you can own your car. And not be allowed to drive because you don't have a license. But you can still sell it, sleep in it, whatever.
Ubisoft (and really any software license maker ever) is in full control over your access to the product. You are not allowed to resell it or do any of the actions that are commonly associated with physical ownership. Even without revoking your license to use this product, "1.2 You shall not, directly or indirectly (i) sell, rent out, lease, license, distribute, market, exploit the Product or any of its parts commercially,". Every single physical example of a copy that exists, does not have such limitations.
In fact, there's apparently a term for this. First sale doctrine. "Application of digital copies" being relevant but more so the "Ownership requirement" section.
In all your examples (again physical), they fall neatly under the first sale doctrine. The original creator physically gave up access to the item allowing you to then choose how you want to keep, sell, dispose of it.
But digital items never actually leave the copyright owner's hands. , "first sale doctrine does not apply if the possession of the copy is "by rental, lease, loan, or otherwise without acquiring ownership of it"."
And our dear old EULA has reminded us we do not own this product. It is a effectively a rental with no definitive end date.
"In Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc. the 9th Circuit created a three-factor test to decide whether a particular software licensing agreement is successful in creating a licensing relationship with the end user. The factors include: 1) whether a copyright owner specifies that a user is granted a license; 2) whether the copyright owner significantly restricts the user's ability to transfer the software to others; and 3) whether the copyright owner imposes notable use restrictions on the software. "
So has Ubisoft answered the three questions without being redundant and copying it all again, I do believe they have answered yes to all three questions just in section 1 alone.
Now of course, in both sections they note the EU bits about not following this same logic, but once again, I can only argue for what is legal in USA. Maybe one day this will spread, but as of this moment, that is not the case here.
What was defined in the past as a "complete game" is not to be modified by the fact it's no longer "lawfully available to buy" (because it only means no new agreement can be made).
It's more so that "complete game" can still be achieved with and without DLC. The definition did not say what you are allowed to download. It said "means video games that can be played by users without accessing or reproducing copyrightable content stored or previously stored on an external computer server."
Assassin's Creed Brotherhood with single player only content is a "complete game".
Assassin's Creed Brotherhood with "The Da Vinci Disappearance" downloaded is also a "complete game".
Both are complete games by definition because you can play them, and therefore you are allowed to circumvent DRM in order to allow you to play it. But if you do not have The Da Vinci Disappearance, this does not permit you to obtain a copy of it from an external source. I am purely discussing this as a future minded scenario without knowing for sure how they will implement this.
If DLC gets included in standard downloads even after September, then this section is meaningless. But if it is not, that means in order to obtain it, you'd be getting it from a peer to peer network
I'm sure the logical argument is then, Assassin's Creed Brotherhood without "The Da Vinci Disappearance" is not a "complete game". But there's no exemption made for incomplete games. This could then take away your rights to break DRM on Assassin's Creed Brotherhood. However, it is at least an interesting argument for a future exemption although I kind of doubt it would be granted.
But again this has just been about the legality of it, not morality. I am not going to judge someone for downloading their missing DLC especially when they own a license to do so. But I see nothing in law that supports this as a legal action.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, first I'd say again that I'm not doing more researches on that topic. Sorry for that. And since I'm over 10'000 chars, I'm cutting that in two parts 😁 (now I know the limit!)
Part 1/2:
What I have not answered to your satisfaction is the ability of Ubisoft to terminate the EULA (which leads to the DRM discussion). This is why I pivoted to the TOU for the discussion on services instead. ...
'Copyright' being about restricting the rights of other people to copy their intellectual property after it has been revealed publicly ; the EULA will vanish when their IP will go into public domain.
Since the EULA grants a license to the user ; then terminating it earlier needs to be correctly covered in the agreement terms.
For me, it is not what is said because it often looks like you're trying to make use of the limits of the license to explain its termination.
There are reasons of termination in the EULA, but, as we discussed previously, it's neither the 'time' neither the 'duration' : even if abstract, both are simple concepts, thus if the intent of the EULA author was to limit the duration of the EULA, it should have been worded using words of the semantic fields of 'time' or 'duration' and not using diverted means (which in turn I would want to qualify as 'fraudulent deception', but I'm not a lawyer).
And about the DRM, I have to say it again : the DRM is neither the 'Product' (because the user is not licensed to use it), neither the 'Service' (because it's Ubisoft who makes use of it, not the user). So, at any time, when termination of the 'Service' is the topic, it cannot apply to termination of the DRM. Except if there something I had misread somewhere ?
... Where do they give any guarantee their services will remain up without interruption? ...
Then, following on what I said above, 'Service' termination has nothing to do with single-player games with offline content, whose access is locked by a DRM witch is not the 'Service'.
Naturally a normal reading of that line implies we're talking about temporary service outages, but it doesn't actually limit duration. ...
No, for example it can be permanent incompatibilities of the Game with the user's computer. This provision you quoted is 'within the limits authorized by applicable law', thus at least here there are strong limits in our laws about all those 'we provide no guarantee' provisions (one cannot sell the wind itself, but the mill flour is ok). In short, it only means that any and all valid guarantees are written in law, like for example compliance and conformity as I told you about before : since there is a lot of court rulings on that matter, it would be too complex to write everything in the TOU, so it's worded on the negative form in order to open to the provisions written in the law.
... Whether we treat the product as a service or keep it separate, the product requires use of the services to access. And they're decommissioning online services, which is how you access said content. So they are locking you out of these services forever.
And this is where it's needed to clearly see the gap between the 'Service' and the 'DRM' (as made in the EULA, I'm not creating it). Technically speaking, it often looks like the same thing to the user's eyes because it uses the same software (the 'launcher'). But in the agreement, the 'DRM' is not included in the 'Service'.
Thus terminating 'Services' (like online multiplayer) is not a valid mean (or reason) to terminate the license to use the single-player game (because that's DRM termination).
One more word about the DRM is the 'M' for 'Management' itself : since this software part is only intended to 'manage rights', I think it shall not create rights by itself, so only rights covered in the EULA applies.
Should your single player content be tied to online services? Of course not, never argued otherwise. But it is.
That's true only technically speaking. You're not assuming bad faith here, and you suppose the provided software compliant with the agreement, but this guess is not evidence. As I was telling you previously, the EULA only allows for DRM-check during installation and/or first launch, and not after : the DRM issue is that it's probably non-conformant to the EULA if used to lock the players out of the single-player game they have a valid license to use !
... this lawsuit over the term "buy"....
That's unrelated because the games are not streamed here, but the movies/music are. But yes, of course, if that's "buy", that's "buy". If that's "rent", that's "rent". Renting implies a limit in duration stated by agreement prior to renting. Buying is ... well, a mess. One can buy a ticket and go to the theater, but the movie won't last indefinitely. But that's known by the moment the ticket is bought, so it's ok. In that lawsuit, the debate is about this lack of clarity.
Comment has been collapsed.
Part 2/2:
A house, a car, a shirt, all of these are physical objects.
A game is a few gigabytes stored on a physical device (disc, HDD, SSD, USB stick, SD card, etc.). So it's for sure a physical thing.
The issue here is bytes cannot be seen by the eye. So people wrongly think the bytes are not physical, even when they know the bytes are stored on a device.
In reality, the 'Service' provided by things like the Ubisoft Connect software ('launcher') is precisely 'providing the physical copy to the user by the mean of downloading it directly to the user's computer discs'.
But they didn't wrote that word : 'physical'. Hence all the wrong deductions about it not being 'physical'. After all, you can't download a 'physical' thing? However, the download process precisely replicates a physical set of bytes from a first computer physical storage device to another distant computer physical storage device. (and it's actually pure genius)
You are allowed to own that copy of the object, not the original copyright itself.
Yep, same for the game, the user is allowed to own the physical bytes stored on the physical device (disc, HDD, SSD, etc.). Well, back in the time of discs, the user was in fact allowed to own TWO copies (the disc, and its installation on HDD). Plus a backup (from the law, not the EULA), so that's THREE copies. Plus, then during execution, the games copies parts of itself in RAM and VRAM, so that's always more physical copies (we're at FOUR for now, but if you're doing backups correctly, the backup data should be stored multiple times, so it's even more !). And this is not counting games with licenses allowing multiple installations...
But because of this, you can also do almost whatever you want with that copy, including resale.
Precisely here the French court ruling saying it should be possible for games also.
Ubisoft (...) is in full control over your access to the product....
Wrong. The agreement and the law is in full control, and both Ubisoft and the user shall comply to it.
Every single physical example of a copy that exists, does not have such limitations.
I had that old video game, which was sold on a read-only compact disc plus a re-writeable floppy disc. There was a license token on the floppy. On install, the token was moved on the computer's disc. On uninstall it was moved back to the floppy. This was working until the day something went wrong (physical devices can break down). I cannot re-sell it because of that. And it was a physical copy. As you see, there can be limitations everywhere, some of them are only technical. And when they're not covered by the agreement, they are void in law. Even if it can be difficult to enforce that, they're still void.
But digital items never actually leave the copyright owner's hands. , "first sale doctrine does not apply if the possession of the copy is "by rental, lease, loan, or otherwise without acquiring ownership of it"."
Exactly what the license token on the floppy was made for. That's a technical implementation of the first-sale doctrine. That's the technical implementation they chose. Ubisoft chose another technical implementation (online DRMs). This shall not change valid rights, because the technical implementation has to be conformant to the rights, not the opposite.
This license token makes easier to understand that there's a difference between the copy and the IP. I already told you something about that previously.
Someone may acquire lawfully ownership of a copy of a game, and then re-sell it. What is bought then sold is not the IP, but the license to use the copy.
That's exactly what happens when someone buys a disc with music on it, or a movie, then sell it to someone else. No copyright infringement here. So, why technically prohibiting it with video games ? That's not a copyright infringement issue, and that's not something related to the lack of a disc (because the license token in the example was moveable between the floppy and the computer).
And our dear old EULA has reminded us we do not own this product. It is a effectively a rental with no definitive end date.
But LOL. The user owns the license to use, and an indefinite rental is not allowed because rental is defined by its termination date. (many rentals includes 'tacit renewal' so it looks indefinite when it's not)
Moving forward to the complet games topic :
The definition did not say what you are allowed to download.
As I wrote above, don't tie nodes in your brain (do this expression exists in English?) : they shall provide you the 'Service' of downloading the game to your computer, and you paid for that 'Service'. The game is 'complete' if the only remaining lock on it is a DRM lock, and if it's not multiplayer.
Selecting for you which DLCs you bought is of course a DRM lock.
But there's no exemption made for incomplete games.
Only because that's 'complete' in the meaning of commercial and technical completeness, and not 'complete' in the meaning of story-wise complete. Yes, this whole industry making nearly-empty overpriced DLCs sucks.
But again this has just been about the legality of it, not morality.
Morality? Like I said, I think they don't like their games.
But I see nothing in law that supports this as a legal action.
So, I have a short example about software. It helped me to think twice about 'software piracy'.
Company 'A' is using software to print salary slip or pay slip (or whatever it's named in English). 'A' buys this software to some software making company 'B' which in turn uses online-DRMs to make sure nobody forgets to pay them.
What happens if 'B' goes bankrupt? 'B' servers are shut down and no more able to validate the licenses bought by their client 'A', and voilà! 'A' can no more print the salary slips and pay their employees because it would be piracy to make the software works again without its online-DRM.
Do you really think this can be legal?
Shouldn't there be some protections against such a blatant abuse?
Comment has been collapsed.
That's true only technically speaking. You're not assuming bad faith here, and you suppose the provided software compliant with the agreement, but this guess is not evidence. As I was telling you previously, the EULA only allows for DRM-check during installation and/or first launch, and not after : the DRM issue is that it's probably non-conformant to the EULA if used to lock the players out of the single-player game they have a valid license to use !
I really don't have to assume bad faith as at this point I'm unofficially trying to see things from the way I'd imagine Ubisoft would argue. Neither of us know how Ubisoft Connect works from behind the scenes. But if they were challenged, that question would be answered with no uncertainty. So your argument is the EULA guaranteed only 1 DRM check, mine is that Ubisoft Connect separates itself from that by basis of it being an online service required to use the product where the TOU is superior. Ubisoft themselves can provide actual information on the system structure.
This was working until the day something went wrong (physical devices can break down). I cannot re-sell it because of that. And it was a physical copy
There's nothing stopping you from reselling that. It is not right to do so since the object is broken, but it is not illegal.
This license token makes easier to understand that there's a difference between the copy and the IP. I already told you something about that previously.
Someone may acquire lawfully ownership of a copy of a game, and then re-sell it. What is bought then sold is not the IP, but the license to use the copy.
But that's not how it works here. Perhaps how it should be, but the fact that there's a subsection that specifically covers software denotes the difference in law. And you are unfortunately going right over how the USA handles first sale.
First, EULA wins over first sale, but only in cases when the user has to agree to it and if they didn't give away a physical copy. You learned of the "Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc. " case already about the three questions, but right below that was "UMG v. Augusto " where the three questions was used again but not held because UMG gave physical copies of the disc. Their license which demanded the return of the discs was null because a copy was given away.
First sale ruling applies to all resale of physical video games.
That's exactly what happens when someone buys a disc with music on it, or a movie, then sell it to someone else. No copyright infringement here. So, why technically prohibiting it with video games ?
Again physical. You are perhaps forgetting that digital versions of movies and music exist. I can't resell a song in mp3 form I bought off Amazon. There's a case for that as well that has already concluded. "Again the copyright holders won, on the theory that it is impossible to transfer any digital file from a user's storage medium without making a copy that is controlled by copyright's ongoing "reproduction right", as opposed to the "distribution right" that is extinguished by the First Sale doctrine."
I can resell Skyrim PC disc but not the digital download of Legendary Edition. Of course, this Disc is functionally useless in resell since you have to use a key, a license, to run it and that key is tied to my account. But as long as I'm not falsely advertising it, I'm within my rights to do that. After all, some collector may wish to possess a copy of the disc itself.
After all, you can't download a 'physical' thing?
3d printing. But mentioning that adds very little value to this discussion and requires more research, so I'll leave it at that.
But LOL. The user owns the license to use, and an indefinite rental is not allowed because rental is defined by its termination date. (many rentals includes 'tacit renewal' so it looks indefinite when it's not)
I chose "rental" because that was the closest term to "license". However, that's my choice of words. But as stated previously, the first sale doctrine does not apply in cases of "or otherwise without acquiring ownership of it". Or otherwise is where license apparently lives. A license, as always by laws here, does not grant you any ownership.
As I wrote above, don't tie nodes in your brain (do this expression exists in English?) : they shall provide you the 'Service' of downloading the game to your computer, and you paid for that 'Service'. The game is 'complete' if the only remaining lock on it is a DRM lock, and if it's not multiplayer.
Selecting for you which DLCs you bought is of course a DRM lock.
Separate concern and issue. This section is about the legality of cracking the DRM. Which is legal after the service shuts down. The exemption is not covering how much of the game you have as long as it was "lawfully acquired". Downloading from Ubisoft Connect is lawfully acquired. Downloading missing files from [insert p2p service] is not. The exemption isn't saying "you should have these files", it says if you have them, then you can break it.
So if Ubisoft denies you access to these files, the law is not saying you can get them elsewhere.
Do you really think this can be legal?
Shouldn't there be some protections against such a blatant abuse?
Again, do I think it is fair? No. But I'm saying what is legal, and it is. If company B goes under, company A is can only do their best to find an alternative solution. They may actually be covered under exemption #14 but there may be a technicality there about the meaning of a computer program that controls a device, so I won't offer a conclusion. Aka software inside a printer is a definite yes, but software downloaded to send to a printer I am not sure because that would otherwise be covered by #18 but that one specifies the usual archives.
That said these things happen. It's all worth a skim but going to highlight this:
" This you-don’t-own-it clause is extremely popular among content distributors. A more relevant example might be the Wii U license agreement, in which Nintendo states that “software is licensed, not sold, to you.” Nintendo takes this a step further by claiming that, if they feel the need to terminate your licensing agreement, then “you will immediately cease all use” of Wii U software. Is that… a threat?
Other services, like Amazon Music, Steam, Sony’s PlayStation Network, and Xbox Live have similar clauses in their user agreement. Using this kind of clear language is a good way to shut down any lawsuits, and as you can imagine, it’s common practice among digital distributors."
- Nintendo killed off the Wii shop.
- Microsoft killed its Ebooks (they did offer a refund though).
- Sony is removing purchased movies.
Ubisoft is doing a half step in between. You still have access, just not to all of your game. This shall continue to be legal as long as licenses persist and a court doesn't go against it.
Licensed, not sold.
EDIT: Several hours later, this news has come out. I give up. Maybe they want people to fight...
Comment has been collapsed.
... So your argument is the EULA guaranteed only 1 DRM check, mine is that Ubisoft Connect separates itself from that by basis of it being an online service required to use the product where the TOU is superior. ...
Well, « Ubisoft Connect » is not written once in the TOU. And when there's something about online connectivity, I don't see what you say clearly written (remembering the difference between "online service" and "DRM").
But, also, rebranding a box of pasta as being a box of rice doesn't change the content : so if « Ubisoft Connect » is used to enforce the DRM, then as per the EULA that part of « Ubisoft Connect » is the DRM.
There's nothing stopping you from reselling that. It is not right to do so since the object is broken, but it is not illegal.
You don't got my point : before it was broken, I could have sold the license token. After it broke, I can no longer. The point is : even with "physical" things, there existed software technologies to reduce the right to dispose of the owner.
With those technologies, nobody terminated the license. So, do I still have in right a license or not after the physical thing broke ?
For many physical objects, it's possible to repair them at will. But not for this license token. That's why even if physical, that's not as physical as you have in mind.
But that's not how it works here. ...
Not here either. I was only dreaming awake 😴
If a license token can be bound to a physical object, and then sold by its owner ; then in right the same can be done with a virtual copy. I mean that's not prohibited, and if it's not done that way that's a matter of choice, not a matter of law. I think this whole idea of selling people a "license to use" is dishonest. But that's another topic. For example, there is an obvious drawback, people would sell their license token as soon as they have finished the game, and the editor would get much less money (unless it's allowed to earn a fee on each second-hand sale). So economically speaking, the idea cannot "just work as is". But with some work on it, it may do well. Finally, I don't think that's a valid reason to do the opposite, like "decommissioning" single-player offline games from people who had bought them!
"Again the copyright holders won, on the theory that it is impossible to transfer any digital file from a user's storage medium without making a copy that is controlled by copyright's ongoing "reproduction right", as opposed to the "distribution right" that is extinguished by the First Sale doctrine."
That's what the license token was made for. If such a token was added to digital games, all this paper castle about "impossible to transfer and re-sell" would fall down.
So it's not impossible because of the first-sale rule, but because they do not want it to become possible. First they do not put a license token, then only it needs the first-sale rule to explain it's not possible. A chicken-and-egg situation they created on purpose for economical motivations, but then they commonly says it's because of copyright and it's dishonest for me.
... After all, some collector may wish to possess a copy of the disc itself.
In that example, what you're selling is different from what you bought. (you're selling the physical object without the ability to play the game)
In what I explained above, with a license token, you would be able to sell the same thing you bought (providing you agree to remove the playable game from your library because you're selling it).
... A license, as always by laws here, does not grant you any ownership.
What about people who sell their Steam accounts ?
That's not a single game license at once, but they're effectively selling the licenses they had. Ah, okay, it's not allowed in fact. But it show evidence that's technically possible to transfer or sell a license. And I never heard about someone sentenced about that.
A more interesting question is what happens to their licenses when people die. That's interesting because the EULA and TOU cannot prohibit people to die. Are the heirs getting the licenses ? Are they not ? Anyway, they're getting access to the accounts if I'm not mistaken.
But that's out-of-topic.
So if Ubisoft denies you access to these files, the law is not saying you can get them elsewhere.
That's right, the law is not saying it.
But again, physical things may break at any time. This includes any backup made before Ubisoft denies downloading the files.
For me, the law is missing something here... It sources the origin of that right on the possession of something that's not only physical.
I think I will download each and every Ubisoft game from the list (well, the ones I have in my account), and make a backup of the files for future use.
But then, in the future, I think I will never be able to provide any evidence of the legitimate origin of those files if needed ... !
What's the point of law about which no evidence can be shown ? (question is valid in the other way also : they can not provide evidence the files were downloaded if that was the case).
... company A is can only do their best to find an alternative solution.
No, A must pay their employees. B must do its best to allow A to access the software. If A is big enough, switching to another software may need months, if not years. You can't just say that A is screwed and need to find another solution, becuse the IP of the now defunct B is not worth that !
... Nintendo takes this a step further by claiming that, if they feel the need to terminate your licensing agreement, ...
Only the wording is going further. Nothing new or any different here. That's the same idea.
It remind me of what I was telling you about duration of copyright : in an agreement, the fact it has or not a limited duration is essential to the agreement : the consumer shall be clearly informed of the duration (unlimited, or limited, and if limited what duration). Usually, the seller cannot just say "I will end it later when I choose" because that's abusive. This has nothing to do with "ownership vs. licensing".
Nintendo killed off the Wii shop. /// Microsoft killed its Ebooks (they did offer a refund though). /// Sony is removing purchased movies.
Nintendo -> the shop was an online service ; Microsoft -> refunded ; Sony -> streaming, and bound by other licensing agreements
That's not similar to what Ubisoft is doing, they're clearly going one full step further for me.
... I give up. Maybe they want people to fight...
That's a conspiracy. They trained us with VR games, now they want to mess up with reality as a game. Very bad news 😭
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, « Ubisoft Connect » is not written once in the TOU.
Do note that I've pointed out the TOU has a mistake still using Uplay. It hasn't been updated in two years, but links do appropriately redirect to ubisoft connect concerning account creation. But we can sideline that issue by considering the fact you are required to create an Ubisoft Account to use Ubisoft Services.
And as mentioned before, we don't know the server setup.
Consider the Oauth 2.0 format.
Image
See how there is a business client, a resource server, and an OAuth server?
Who is to say that your licenses aren't held in Ubisoft Connect itself and base game vs dlc are on different resource servers? Who can say if the base game server doesn't require OAuth(or "Online Services") but the DLC does. Through this format, Ubisoft Connect is the only DRM that requires a "one time validation to unlock the product". But if I shut off OAuth servers, you can't send that authentication to the resource servers that contain the DLC.
Ubisoft can tell you. I can't. Although in the process of compiling this, there is ironically a section that attempted to answer this on Wikipedia as well Save time and CTL+F the quote below.
"The Uplay system works by having the installed game on the local PCs incomplete and then continuously downloading parts of the game code from Ubisoft's servers as the game progresses."
From the source quoted in that section
Now that was 12 years ago. It appears some of it was walked back which leads to the current EULA statements. But look closely:
""Whenever you want to reach any online service, multiplayer, you will have to be connected, and obviously for online games you will also need to be online to play. But if you want to enjoy Assassin’s Creed III single player, you will be able to do that without being connected. And you will be able to activate the game on as many machines as you want."
You see online services still going around, even 10 years ago.
Let's go further because as some users have warned us this has happened before. And I see yet another example, a little over a year ago. Ubisoft DRM breaks Might & Magic X single player.
Recall what I said about not knowing the structure of the server access? This is an example. I'm not deleting my earlier theory to at least give insight into the process, but this is an actual example for this one specific game.
Their "one time DRM" check occurs after chapter 1. But that check does not go through Ubisoft Connect itself, it goes through "online services". And what got killed? Online services. Those players can't access their single player games without editing stuff and cannot download DLC period.
So what are we presented with here? Well the M&MX game is clearly not activating Ubisoft DRM during first launch or installation, so how does that fit? Again as before, I am still saying they do not treat Ubisoft Connect the same as third party DRM. The behavior they showed in the case above fits exactly that.
If they design something to require online services, an internet connection may be required. So if a single player game requires said online services, and they cut those online services, your single player game dies. That story did have a happy ending in the end as apparently they did fix it after 4 months.
You don't got my point : before it was broken, I could have sold the license token. After it broke, I can no longer. The point is : even with "physical" things, there existed software technologies to reduce the right to dispose of the owner.
Let's put this another way. Your right to sell is that copy. Not the license. Also it depends. You're asking me to debate the validity of an old EULA I have no access to nor know the terms of the point of sale.Verner vs Autodesk.Inc was an example of reselling software but in this case the person never installed the software.
However, you did install the software which put you under terms of the EULA instead. So, you might be allowed to. You might not be. That's the terms of a new contract. That's not special about physical vs digital. If I give a pawn shop a diamond to hold onto, they can't sell it as I fulfill the terms of repaying that loan.
That's what the license token was made for. If such a token was added to digital games, all this paper castle about "impossible to transfer and re-sell" would fall down. So it's not impossible because of the first-sale rule, but because they do not want it to become possible.
I'm not discussing what could be, but what is. Additionally, while you feel confident in the license token, you do realize that is functionally the same method as ReDigi? They would take the file uploaded to their site, delete it off your computer, and scan your computer for copies to verify it is gone.
Your license token is literally that system with one extra step (the license).
There's no law against a company distributing their software this way. Ubisoft doesn't want to. Steam doesn't want to. And so on. It's not even really a chicken and egg. if Steam said transfers are ok in licensing, bam, it's now legal on Steam. Bonus? Adobe software has a license transfer process
They don't want to do it. Period. Because they don't want to do it, any transfer is then illegal by way of the first sale doctrine not applying to licenses. But that's not even against licenses, because that applies to anything that's not a transfer of ownership. You can't sell a leased car either. Although that's somewhat of a technicality, you can if the contract says you can.
Lease, license, rental, loan. You do not own. First sale doctrine does not apply.
You are right in the sense that if the law said, licenses apply, then bam, licenses apply. But then that's another whole ripple effect of licenses in the entire industry, not just games.
Yet again, it's not a circular loop. Law can decide to change. Or companies can decide to change(like the Adobe example). But neither one at time of writing wants to change, so it has not happened.
No, A must pay their employees. B must do its best to allow A to access the software.
An alternative solution is new software or hacking the old software. None of this said company A people will not be paid. And company B doesn't have to do jack. If they're going out of business, what are you going to do about it? You might be able to get a suit going especially if there was a contract duration. But guess what, still doesn't fix your payment system. It's not illegal to go out of business nor can they truly be compelled to fix your stuff. Let's put this in a more direct way, if Company B is going bankrupt, how many of the actual developers who work and create the software do you think are sticking around until the very end?
In fact, this likely has some bearing on the current situation. The devs or server infrastructure people of 10 years ago may not still be with the Ubisoft. However, unlike Company B, Ubisoft is not going out of business, so it would be good for their image to find the people capable of fixing this. But moving on.
Nintendo -> the shop was an online service ; Microsoft -> refunded ; Sony -> streaming, and bound by other licensing agreements
That's not similar to what Ubisoft is doing, they're clearly going one full step further for me.
The Wii shop provided access to their games. You can't download games including single player ones you purchased because the shop closed. Does that not sound familiar? Wanna see them do it again in 2023? Ah but yes, you can at least still redownload your games that you purchased " for the foreseeable future".
Microsoft was nice. I offered that as a good example, but it doesn't mean they had to do anything (see Nintendo).
So streaming is allowed to be subject to external factors with licensing agreements when you press the "buy" button, and games are not?
And while I have not used the service, there is an ability to download noted on Android and iPod (not PlayStation devices themselves but my goal is only to show the existence of the feature). You can purchase a movie for download. Just like you can purchase a game.
But as always, there's a line to cover the fact this is a license to you that can be removed. Just like a game.
The common factor in all of these is that whatever license agreement these services presented the user with allows for this behavior at some point regardless. You are free to see if you can successfully argue that Ubisoft can't remove their licenses based on whatever interpretation of their EULA and TOU that you may wish to take. However, it's still a reminder that they have not actually revoked any licenses, just ceased "online services" and as we are learning, these services are key factors in the continued usage of the product.
Comment has been collapsed.
Do note that I've pointed out the TOU has a mistake still using Uplay.
No importance. "Uplay" is in § 1 saying the TOU applies to Uplay and Uplay+ usage ; in § 2.1 saying the user need to create an account and in § 5.2 saying the user may be allowed to purchase products via their online store.
That's 4 occurrences, nothing related to limiting or terminating access to games (products).
A fun fact: in French, both "to buy" and "to purchase" translates to the same verb ("acheter"). And the TOU in French is not using the same sections order (§ 5.2 becomes § 3.2 in French).
And as mentioned before, we don't know the server setup.
That's technical, like a car seller won't tell you if the car features a wheel or not. But the wheel has to be there, or it's not a car. (in common sense, cars for disabled people needs specific agreement describing the modifications, like replacing the wheel by a joystick)
See how there is a business client, a resource server, and an OAuth server?
In France, and in Europe, we wrote in laws protections for things made in specific places with specific methods. For example, the wines. Those of Bordeaux or Alsace are not the same, so the laws prohibit to claim false origins for those protected products. It goes further about products made in a specific way. For example, about "la moutarde de Dijon" or "les bêtises de Cambrai" or "les couteaux de Thiers". It goes further because law describe even how to make those products. An example that was famous 12 years ago is "la pizza Napolitaine" : the MEPs voted a law in which are described all the steps to make that pizza. And nobody in EU can call a pizza "Napoletana" without following the legal reciepe.
Here is that law. Read it by yourself (link is in English), and see by yourself how detailed the full reciepe is (tip: search for "olive" inside it).
What you tell me about server setup, OAuth is interesting, but you're only trying to guess how things were technically made. Please do the opposite : start from the texts (EULA and TOU), and look if things are conformant. I'm saying an olive is an olive, a tomato is a tomato, and the EULA said "DRM only on 1st launch or installation". DRM is not an online service provided to the player (that's the opposite of a service provided, like when the cops are asking for your driving license, they're not providing you a service). So, full stop for me on that : it doesn't look conformant to my eyes, and it is not my task to try to make guesses.
Of course, things may be different in your country. Do you have laws that explain how to make a pizza ?
I think whatever they did previously with the software requiring online connectivity to unlock, that's not what they sold as described in the EULA (only lock is the DRM).
You're asking me to debate the validity of an old EULA I have no access to nor know the terms of the point of sale.
No, only showing you things may be made differently. That's to negate the argument of a technical impossibility on their side. They are in charge of making their own software. And they are in charge of writing their EULA/TOU. How come the texts and the things can end up being that different ? That's not right for me.
I'm not discussing what could be, but what is.
But about the DRM and online services, you're still willing to make the right compliant with the softwares they made. And you try hard to make guesses about that. That's the wrong direction.
Your license token is literally that system with one extra step (the license).
No, no, not mine 🙄
And it has nothing to do with ReDigi because it was an offline token, using a floppy. Probably too easy to crack. But the method would be ok today if using a modern cryptographically secure algorithm instead.
Bonus? Adobe software has a license transfer process
Oh, yes. And much more complex software licensing mechanism do exist in the industry (and that's with tokens for offline functionality).
They don't want to do it. Period. Because they don't want to do it, any transfer is then illegal by way of the first sale doctrine not applying to licenses.
You didn't got my point. That first-sale rule is posterior to the practice. That rule was made for them, precisely because they don't want their licenses to be transferrable. They don't want the licenses to be transferrable because of economic issues. And those economic issues may be solved differently than the way they chose. Using a token to hold & transfer the license, and taking fees on each resale allows to solve the economic issue. And then people own that token (not the license, which is still only granted). And then everything is clearer for everybody (even the right is easier, because there's an ownable object).
So, if things are that complicated, that's not because a license is only granted and not sold. And things are complicated because things were made for them.
But then that's another whole ripple effect of licenses in the entire industry, not just games.
As I said, working and well-developed software to manage much more complex licensing schemes already exists in the industry. Looking at the numbers, it is a lesser economic field, less money involved than in the gaming "industry". So, even if piracy is more prevalent about games, they have the money, and the economic issue about licenses being not transferrable has more to do with an older reason that became an excuse for doing anything they want than a real valid reason nowadays (they don't want to invest into something not even new but already existing because in the IP field people often have a rent-oriented mindset). They don't want to evolve that part of their systems because it allows them to f*ck all players who purchased their games 10 years ago by removing the games they don't like (even if they made them).
Yet again, it's not a circular loop.
No, it is. Economic issues (piracy) governed their choices of using DRMs and making the licenses not transferrable. DRMs didn't solved piracy. Not transferrable licenses made themselves unable to transfer the online services to someone else when they feel the need to abandon their games. That's a circular loop !
(this above, plus the other loop I've previously described about the right being for an important part crafted for them)
... But guess what, still doesn't fix your payment system. ...
You got it, why screwing it in the first place if you're not willing to be liable of the consequences ?
The Wii shop provided access to their games. You can't download games including single player ones you purchased because the shop closed.
Downloading is a service, they can stop providing it. Not as they will, but still they can stink that much and still be right.
That's not a similar situation than about Ubisoft.
So streaming is allowed to be subject to external factors with licensing agreements when you press the "buy" button, and games are not?
For sure yes, streaming needs continuous download (a service, with a cost) but single-player games do not (that's playable indefinitely on the player's device at no cost for the IP owner).
... You can purchase a movie for download. Just like you can purchase a game.
...and they say in your link that already downloaded videos will still be available even if made unavailable to download. They even tell to download immediately after purchase!
So, it's 100% what I'm saying : downloading is a service, but the offline game (or the video) is a product.
The confusion comes when it's about online games : the online part is a service.
But as always, there's a line to cover the fact this is a license to you that can be removed. Just like a game.
So, no, there's a difference. Sony only owns IP rights of its own movies. Every other movie offered is licensed for distribution to Sony. And this license to distribute may or may not expire. It's up to Sony to correctly state on its store the expiry date of his licenses to distribute in order to correctly inform the consumer before purchase of the license to watch.
About Ubisoft, they own the IP of all games on Uplay/UbiConnect as far as I know. No third-party IP licensing agreement comes to mess up with their will.
... However, it's still a reminder that they have not actually revoked any licenses, just ceased "online services" and as we are learning, these services are key factors in the continued usage of the product.
DRM is not an "online service" : like when cops checks your driving license, they're not servicing you.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's 4 occurrences,
DRM is not an "online service" :
Combining for shortening and effectively the same reply.
TOU 5.5 "A HIGH-SPEED INTERNET CONNECTION ARE NECESSARY TO ACCESS THE ONLINE FUNCTIONS AND TO PLAY ONLINE AND UNLOCK CERTAIN CONTENT. SUCH CONTENT MAY BE UNLOCKED ONCE ONLY WITH A UNIQUE KEY. A PERMANENT HIGH-SPEED INTERNET CONNECTION MAY BE NECESSARY TO ACCESS OR USE SERVICE(S) INCORPORATING DIGITAL RIGHTS MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY."
To unlock content, it may be unlocked once with a unique key (entering key codes), but then the following line a permanent high-speed internet connection may be necessary to use services incorporating drm.
DRM is not the service. It can be but there's a clear separation in this text otherwise it would be the same as saying "use services incorporating services". DRM depends on online services. And online services are being shut off.
and see by yourself how detailed the full reciepe is
This feels more like it falls under trademark or patent laws. That's another rabbit hole and I won't go down it. But to be clear, I do find it interesting if nothing else that "using an oil dispenser with a spout and a spiralling motion, distribute over the surface area, from the centre
outwards, 4 to 5 g of extra virgin olive oil, with a tolerance of + 20 %." is written into law somewhere.
Please do the opposite : start from the texts (EULA and TOU),
I have no reason to do so. Even without getting into technical side of things with the internet, you're a gamer. You should be at least heard of rumors about things devs have done in shortcuts that are used to meet standards even if they are not the proper way of achieving them.
[Here are some if you haven't]((https://www.polygon.com/2017/9/2/16247112/video-game-developer-secrets)
I provided a diagram of a potential authentication system. I do not work for Ubisoft. I made no guarantees that's how it works. You are asking me to say that what they say in the EULA/TOU isn't being held up. It could, it could not be. You need their server setup information.
A EULA and TOS/TOU does not define implementation. I even provided you an actual example that was covered in news about a specific failure with Might & Magic X and how it worked. See you already understand these concepts because you understand why a game won't work in multiplayer when servers die. You haven't asked or needed an explanation for that.
But where you are having difficulty, and it's right, just not going to be right from Ubisoft's end, is applying that same concept to single player. Single player shouldn't be tied to always online functionality. And Ubisoft promised to drop that some years ago, but that doesn't mean they fully implemented that. Or more specifically, no one gave a guarantee this applied to DLC.
What is DLC...downloadable content. "is additional content created for an already released video game, distributed through the Internet by the game's publisher." So...one might say it is an..online service?
I have granted you the concession that part of Ubisoft Connect is DRM. But nothing said that DRM can't rely on an online service. Not that DRM is the online service. If they shut down the online services, the DRM dies with it.
[see video section]
Oh, yes. And much more complex software licensing mechanism do exist in the industry (and that's with tokens for offline functionality).
There are lots of stories of pirated Windows versions, Photoshop, After Effects. Companies aren't trying to stop all piracy, just deter it. Why are we on Steam? Trying to get/give legitimate games. We could just pirate these things as well.
Using a token to hold & transfer the license, and taking fees on each resale allows to solve the economic issue.
You know what solves that issue best for the company? Not bothering allowing resale. Pirates can pirate. Legit users can buy direct or wait for a sale. License transfers help consumers but that does nothing for the business itself. The fee has to be small enough to justify a user doing it, but if it is too small, then why bother when I(the company) can just sell it direct to you?
So you want them to charge what? $1 a transfer? Why bother when they can get $2 to 5 on Steam instead? If it is below $1 why bother? Just work with humble and get charity credit on your name. Let's not forget, the transfer also likely involves a cut to valve and a cut to the player. These systems also don't spring up from thin air. Someone has to then develop, maintain said infrastructure. And while generally simple, that's still money. Money going out that's not necessarily a decent return over existing systems.
Again, it's not illegal for them to make these systems. There's just low incentive for them to do so.
Not transferrable licenses made themselves unable to transfer the online services to someone else when they feel the need to abandon their games.
This has low relevance to the current situation. The licenses can be transferred if they wanted to, but as long as the system relied on online services, it still dies.
What exactly was the Bethesda launcher migrating to Steam? A transfer of licenses across different online services. But if Bethesda had for some reason decided to just kill the Bethesda launcher, those licenses would have died there.
Downloading is a service, they can stop providing it. Not as they will, but still they can stink that much and still be right.
That's not a similar situation than about Ubisoft.
Sure it is. DLC is downloadable content. As shown above, an online service they are cutting off.
But hey, how about something new to the table? What does a lawyer think?. Bear in mind, this video is from July 11, after the retraction of the Liberation HD thing. However, this is a 30 minute video. I don't watch random unsolicited 30 minute videos and am not expecting the same of you. My limit is like 5 minutes. Additionally, "a lawyer" doesn't mean he is a judge or even a good one, but he is more qualified than I to give a determination, so I share this with only that knowledge.
Valve Subscriber agreement determination: 14:04 in video "But if Valve decides ..nah, nobody can buy Assassin's Creed Liberation anymore. Nobody can access it if they've already purchased it. Well, we're allowed to restrict or cancel your subscription as long as we are ceasing to provide such Subscriptions to similarly situated Subscribers generally. We can do it as long as we decide to do it."
AC Liberation EULA on Steam: 20:01 in video "When we get to liability, we can put together the sentence that says 'In no event can Ubisoft be held liable for any damages arising out of the inability to use the multimedia product."
Ubisoft TOU on their website. Our 2nd favorite document. 22:20 in video. "The Services are supplied on an "as is" or "as available" basis. "We promise nothing."
Feel free to listen to the rest of his analysis here. It might sound familiar and fits within 5 minutes.
Not enough? Well he did a video back when Ubisoft last changed the TOU in 2020, so prior to our current events. Again, 30 minutes long. You think I watched all of this after going through the last one? Absolutely not. But I can skim.
7:04 "A lot of people came to me and asked why are these written that way. And I have to say, the reason they are written this way, is because you are trying to cover what you can't predict."
Seriously most of the middle stuff is about UGC but that's irrelevant to this. So I skipped to the next interesting thing.
30:22 "We may modify our Services and/or your access to them at any time for any reasons." "When you purchase a license to play that game, you are purchasing that license subject to the terms that they wish to offer." "We can change them in the future, and your sole recourse is to stop using whatever we provide." "You aren't buying a right to play Rainbow Six Siege. You are buying an amusement park ticket to go and see Rainbow Six Siege. That may change in the future. And that the entrance rules might change." "..maybe with those rules in place the value proposition isn't there for you. Maybe if you understood that it was a ticket to something that could change, it's only worth $10. And not $60. And that's the education."
32:45 "The more people that can understand that they can change the EULAs, they can change the services, that they can patch something to be entirely different than what it was yesterday. The more people can say 'yes maybe that is worth $60 to me. Or no maybe it isn't.'
How about someone else? It's not Ubisoft, but it discusses EULA/TOS.
10:31 "because, especially in the US, the law and courts have a great deal of respect for private contracts the idea being that two parties that know exactly what they're getting into."
14:50 "but over the last 10-15 years that concept has largely been abandoned and has been a really much of a uniform decision in all courts across the entire country that they're going to support freedom of contract over concepts of unconscionability and that we as adults when we signed this kind of online contract we should be held liable for them as people that can rightfully negotiate contract, even though we really never negotiate those contract we are just given the option to sign it or not sign it."
So. I, someone who is not a lawyer, and this random lawyer on the internet have a consensus that Ubisoft, Steam, anyone can do this whenever they want based on the terms in the United States. Now to be clear, he doesn't agree with these things either and believes that if enough outrage happens, maybe things can be changed.
The second lawyer is a bit different, he's like you can try but probably won't work. Instead you can consider changing state governments instead. hahahaha
Comment has been collapsed.
TOU 5.5 "A high-speed internet connection are necessary to access the online functions and to play online and unlock certain content. Such content may be unlocked once only with a unique key. A permanent high-speed internet connection may be necessary to access or use service(s) incorporating digital rights management technology."
That part is numbered § 3.6 in French TOU and it's not a word-for-word translation, easier to read for me because I'm not a native English speaker.
I've bolded different words than you.
This part of the TOU is specifically intended to rule about content and use of services.
As I told you in my previous message, Uplay/UbisoftConnect may be used to buy products. Thus, what is the content ? (I mean, where is it defined)
To unlock content, it may be unlocked once with a unique key (entering key codes), but then the following line a permanent high-speed internet connection may be necessary to use services incorporating DRM.
Yay, the DRM itself is not a service, so if the player only wants to play an offline single-player game then the player is not using any service requiring that permanent high-speed connection.
The key words here are "use services".
The fact a DRM software was technically made to connect online is in no way the intent of the player, so the player is not using anything online. The DRM is instead, and it's not a service. Is the DRM allowed by the texts to do that ? I'm not sure because of the limitation to first launch and/or installation.
I disagree with your reading of this part of the TOU because it doesn't define anything about the "Products".
DRM depends on online services.
This sentence is confusing the "online services" in a technical meaning and the "online services" as explained in the texts. Too short, and very unclear. Saying "DRM depends on online servers" would be more accurate, and allows to ask : are the texts allowing the DRMs to lock the players out of the games bought when the servers are cut off ? (the texts are explaining they may terminate the services)
But to be clear, I do find it interesting if nothing else that "(... virgin olive oil etc. ...)" is written into law somewhere.
What's interesting is the level of precision. When I'm using oil to cook I never measure it that precisely : "4 to 5 g of oil, with a tolerance of + 20 %"
The EULA/TOU are not precise enough. The ambiguities are making confusion and people are misunderstanding things...
I have no reason to do so.
Then you will never gain complete understanding of all those ambiguities. Over the years many companies did a lot of rewriting to clarify their TOU. They were not doing that without a reason !
See above my question about the content, which is not clearly defined, and which you choose to confuse with the product. That's an educated guess, at most. But that's not written ; and when the player himself is choosing to make educated guesses harmful for him, then there's clearly something wrong.
A EULA and TOS/TOU does not define implementation. (...) You haven't asked or needed an explanation for that.
No, because it would be premature : first, start from the texts. I did cut your paragraph for you : look, you say yourself there's something missing in the texts. So the first task is to tell apart what is written and what is not written. Then only we may look for actual examples and explanations of how things are technically made.
What is DLC...downloadable content. "is additional content created for an already released video game, distributed through the Internet by the game's publisher." So...one might say it is an..online service?
Again you're guessing. In the TOU it's written that Uplay may allow to buy Products. So if the DLC is bought that way, then it's a product. (again a full stop here for me : an olive is an olive, a tomato is a tomato, and so on)
But nothing said that DRM can't rely on an online service.
Again the confusion between technical implementations and rights : if we imagine that DRM technically relies on something online, then the question is : "is it conformant to the texts ?" And for me the answer is no, because the text said the DRM shall trigger only on install/first launch so at no time after a something online may trigger to make things cease to work.
You know what solves that issue best for the company?
No and nobody should care to answer that except maybe the company. Correct question is "what solves that issue best for everyone?", else the market (here the gaming market) will always be sided for a part (the company) at the expense of the other (the gamers), which always lead to problems.
why bother when I(the company) can just sell it direct to you?
Because pirates do not bother.
Money going out that's not necessarily a decent return over existing systems.
Creating a sane market where everyone know what he owns and how to resell it has an intrinsic value which is not replaceable with money. That's a form of return.
Like in the Dark Ages, to cross a bridge traders had to pay the fee. But the owner of the bridge may also denies access to them even if rich enough to pay. We killed that, and life's better now.
This has low relevance to the current situation. The licenses can be transferred if they wanted to, but as long as the system relied on online services, it still dies.
I was meaning that if a token system existed, the online servers may be made transferable to someone else who cares about.
That's an error to think that only the owner of an IP and the entities it designates may be able to correctly protect the IP rights.
For example, when I order things on the net, I'm not always knowing which company will deliver the package (at the time of purchase), but it works.
Same reasoning does apply to IP protection when licenses are wrapped into tokens : checking if someone owns a valid token is enough to protect the IP. And this is still true if the person who checks it is not the owner of the IP.
Sure it is. DLC is downloadable content.
But we saw in my previous message that things people may buy on Uplay are "Products". So DLC is a Product. I mean, after download, the service was provided and doesn't have to be provided again, so cutting it off shall not put an end to already downloaded Products (even if named "downloadable content" to fool everyone into thinking those are not "Products" when it's written they are).
Sooooo... it's late here. I will watch that video tomorrow, and read the remaining part of what you wrote. 😴😴😴
Comment has been collapsed.
This part of the TOU is specifically intended to rule about content and use of services.
As I told you in my previous message, Uplay/UbisoftConnect may be used to buy products. Thus, what is the content ? (I mean, where is it defined)
Products are services. I'd like to highlight again, that wasting your time on watching all of those videos is beyond the scope of my reply. We have things to do. The five minute section I pointed out will cover 99% of everything. The other hour worth of content is more of a driving the point home thing. So me explaining some of this will be made redundant by those five minutes.
Services are anything defined in the first section. And games are included in that definition.
One thing you will learn from it is ambiguity is still allowed within reason. But keeping it on this, "unlock content" has very few interpretations. New weapon, content. New mode, content. New storyline, content. Literally anything in the game that can be unlocked is content. This is by far one of the least troublesome statements in this document.
They didn't define "play online" either. That also has very limited interpretations. But what is play online? "Co op? Multiplayer? Raid? MMOs?" They have no need to define it because all of those things are easily understood under the blanket of play online.
That's the difference between that and services, which incorporates so many different unrelated things, that they have to define it so it can apply whenever they say services. Thus it remains ambiguous but applies every time they use that line. You could similarly ask "what is downloadable content" and it isn't answered in this document either, but it is defined as a part of services, so you are expected to know what it means.
The TOU also governs everything in Ubisoft services, this does not limit itself to Ubisoft Connect. But if you really want to go that route, then you can also make use of the terms of sale..
"When you purchase on the Ubisoft Stores, we grant you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicensed, non-commercial and personal license to use the Ubisoft Products." Actually awkward since this technically applies to things in "tangible medium", but I'm not here for that.
The key words here are "use services".
Which a game is a service. You may wish to ignore that but as they defined that in section 1. This allows them to say "game" if they want to, but "services" if they don't. Perhaps this is my fault, as the section I quoted I did not quote in it's entirety. Doing my best to save characters. So here's the lines before that.
"5.5. What Technical Protective Measures May We Use On Our Services?
CERTAIN UBISOFT SERVICES MAY BE PROTECTED BY TECHNICAL PROTECTION MEASURES AND DIGITAL RIGHTS MANAGEMENT, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, PHYSICAL PROTECTION, TATTOOING (WATERMARKING), DIGITAL KEYS ACTIVATION AND DIRECT ENTITLEMENT. "
So you want that line to be read as "certain ubisoft DRM may be protected by DRM?" I mean that could also technically be true as well, but ask the server structure guys that information. Also always note the word "may". It may do such things, it may not do such things. That provision is used at their benefit.
You may also argue language with a lawyer. But just saying, I've got at least one who agrees with this interpretation for USA.
Over the years many companies did a lot of rewriting to clarify their TOU. They were not doing that without a reason !
In America, this is ok. This is addressed in the video quotes I wrote. Specifically, youtuberlaw. Who has worked on EULAs for corporations. One might say that's a biased perspective, and probably true. But here's the thing, if he's successfully out there writing EULAs for them, it must be working.
"Courts support freedom of contract over concepts of unconscionability"
Really this line is perhaps a little off. There's a limit to that support, but it appears to only be so far that you have the opportunity to review or agree, if you do, tough luck.
You might wonder about EULA vs TOU then since the EULA had you to agree during install, but what about TOU? Feel free to then read the section "Enforceability of the League of Legends EULA Based on Current Case Law". Do bear in mind that this is not a scenario that went to court.
"Yet, even where an electronic agreement requires express assent, there are still reasons why a court may not enforce it. A court will consider whether the terms were presented in a way that provided reasonable notice, i.e., Was the typeface legible? Was the full text of the agreement easy to find? Was the text, even if large, easy to understand? Another element of adequate notice is whether the user was made reasonably aware that it was agreeing to a contract, i.e., was the button meant to indicate assent designated as "I agree" or "Yes", or in an ambiguous manner, such as "submit", "continue" or "show me the lenders?"" - American Bar Association
Bolded right here is about the only case you can perhaps fight on. Or let's say that I could fight on, since I'm the American here.
In the TOU it's written that Uplay may allow to buy Products.
Except DLC is a service. Uplay may also allow you to buy a T-shirt (terms of sale document), but it is not a service. So for that section, they use the word product and do not define what products can be. DLC is both a product and a service.
Also the word is "downloadable". Where do you download from? The internet. They certainly aren't delivering products over LAN.
You don't have to like their definition, but recognize that it is repeatedly placed under the blanket of service.
"what solves that issue best for everyone?"
I'm specifically not advocating for the players intentionally. But I'm saving character count and leaving this alone.
But we saw in my previous message that things people may buy on Uplay are "Products". So DLC is a Product.
Things may be classified in more than one way. You're a human. You're also a mammal.
I'm typing on a laptop. It's also a PC. But every PC is not a laptop.
Every product is not a service.
"The Terms govern your use of our games, downloadable content, season passes, game software (contained on disc, downloaded, or streamed), other software products, and online and mobile services including their online functions and other features, any updates/upgrades thereto, any related websites, UBISOFT platforms (including without limitation Uplay) and the UPLAY+ subscription service, and the servers, software and framework through which all the foregoing are provided to You (collectively, our "Services"). "
But unfortunately, your DLC is. Also your games.
See it's natural to not think of these things in that manner. But it is like a variable in software, if it is defined as such, then it is.
Comment has been collapsed.
Now continuing about your last message :
Products are services. (...)
Tomatoes are olives. 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
Services are anything defined in the first section. And games are included in that definition.
Only online games are included as a whole as being Services by themselves.
And of course a tomato can be both a fruit, and red.
So Product and Service are not mutually exclusive ideas.
If the EULA says the Game is a product, and if the TOU says I may buy Products on Uplay, then Games are Products.
If the TOU says I need Uplay for anything online, then anything online is a Service.
Literally anything in the game that can be unlocked is content. This is by far one of the least troublesome statements in this document.
No, I didn't asked you to explain me what is a content, but explicitly asked to show me where it is defined. Even if the definition is clear for everybody, it doesn't allow to make use of this word as a "magic word" covering concepts previously defined separately.
Here we have Products and Services, with already ambiguously overlapping definitions. Then, voila!, Ubisoft hands the word "content" out of their hat...
That's the work of a magician, not a clearly written agreement, and I want and need clarity to understand.
They didn't define "play online" either. That also has very limited interpretations.
It is not overlapping something else they defined, like about Product / Service / Content. Note that since they sell a licence to use their IP, it is their mandatory task to correctly define what is the license they want to sell.
Like if you sell a car : do you sell everything inside the car along with it or not ? You have to state it clearly if you're the seller.
You could similarly ask "what is downloadable content" and it isn't answered in this document either, but it is defined as a part of services, so you are expected to know what it means.
It is a Product since I may buy it on Uplay, as written in the TOU.
If it includes online features, it is also a Service, as written in the TOU.
If it doesn't include offline features, that Product cannot be used offline only.
I don't see how I could be wrong on that, nor why you're insisting to pretend DLC are "content" : this is overlapping the fact they're Products and Services also.
"When you purchase on the Ubisoft Stores, we grant you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicensed, non-commercial and personal license to use the Ubisoft Products." Actually awkward since this technically applies to things in "tangible medium", but I'm not here for that.
One purchases the license to use the Product, as written in the quote, and also a license to use the Service, as written elsewhere (because else it would be selling the wind itself).
Which a game is a service.
Only a streamed online-only game is a pure Service with no Product associated.
So I'm quoting the TOU again for you :
5.2 What Is Available On Our Store And How Can I Make Purchases In Store And In-Game?
We may allow You to purchase products via our online store accessible at https://store.ubi.com/ or through Uplay.
What they sell on their store are games, so games are Products, right ?
And the EULA, in the very first top paragraph :
PLEASE READ THIS END USER LICENCE AGREEMENT CAREFULLY. This End User License Agreement (“EULA”) governs your use of the videogame, application, software, their associated upgrades, patches, and updates and related services (the “Product”) currently provided or which will be provided by UBISOFT ENTERTAINMENT S.A., or any one of its subsidiaries or affiliated companies, including without limitation UBISOFT EMEA SAS, UBISOFT INC. or UBISOFT MOBILE GAMES SARL (collectively referred to as “UBISOFT").
It's clear with no doubt that Games (aka. videogames) are Products. The "related services" are even included as being a part of the Product, thus obviously not the product itself. This is important about solving eventual conflicts between TOU and EULA.
This allows them to say "game" if they want to, but "services" if they don't.
Service is service, Product is product, Game is game, Tomato is tomato, olive is olive, and so on. Words are not swappable unless explicitly stated. It is explicitly stated Games are Products. Thus, even if Games are Services, one cannot swap a word for the other and shall always use the correct word.
It may do such things, it may not do such things. That provision is used at their benefit.
Limited by legal provisions of conformity.
And, also, since all of this is about IP, they shall protect their IP using appropriate means, else someone would says they abandoned it, and then it may fall into public domain.
You may also argue language with a lawyer. But just saying, I've got at least one who agrees with this interpretation for USA.
See again my previous explanations of the difference between Product and Service. I'm not crafting it : it's written as quoted right above.
I cut through the paragraphs about validity and enforceability of the EULA, except about easiness to understand : when a text is too ambiguous, it mainly shows the will to confuse people, and hence requires more vigilance to read. And that's something that may require to assume bad faith.
Except DLC is a service.
No. The gamer has to buy it on Uplay, and Uplay offers Products to buy. See TOU § 5.2 quoted before : if we may buy Product, there is no line saying we may buy anything else, like Services. So everything we may buy on their store is a Product. In other words, the word "may" is used because we are not compelled to buy anything.
If you read again the very first top paragraphs of both the EULA and the TOU, you'll see that "downloadable content" is appearing in the TOU and not in the EULA. If we read this as meaning DLC are not Products because only explicitly defined as Services in the TOU, then it would also mean that DLC are not even licensed to use by the gamer, which is a false and abusive reading. The EULA does apply to DLC because when bought Ubisoft showed its intent to grant the gamer a license to play it(×), and this is a correct assumption as explained in § 5.2 of the TOU. Moreover the EULA is about "software, their associated upgrades, patches, and updates ... currently provided or which will be provided", and the DLC fits into the definition, even if not explicitly written there.
(×) => when I said "assume bad faith", I didn't said "assume pure evil faith".
DLC is both a product and a service.
This is better.
You don't have to like their definition, but recognize that it is repeatedly placed under the blanket of service.
And the service is a part of the Product in the EULA, thus terminating the services doesn't affect the whole Product. At least if we follow what is written.
I'm specifically not advocating for the players intentionally.
You don't want to be your own worst advocate !? Not an insane idea.
But what if nobody is siding with you and you're siding with your opponents ?
But unfortunately, your DLC is [a Service]. Also your games.
Yep, and hopefully the EULA is making the "related services" being only a part of the Product.
This End User License Agreement (“EULA”) governs your use of the videogame, application, software, their associated upgrades, patches, and updates and related services (the “Product”) currently provided or which will be provided by UBISOFT ENTERTAINMENT S.A.
My conclusion is the opposite of yours :
Knowing the DRM is not an online service even if it makes use of an online server ; even if they may terminate the Services at will, then it cannot terminate the offline parts of the Product.
The more interesting advocate of my conclusion is Ubisoft themselves : when reading their annoncement, they never wrote they terminate the license.
If we go to the link you posted to their annoncement, it lead to a second link to previously decommissioned games, which in turn read :
With this in mind, the online multiplayer services, in-game news and player statistics for the games listed below have been shut down. Please note that the offline features of the games are unaffected and remain available to you.
Comment has been collapsed.
If the EULA says the Game is a product, and if the TOU says I may buy Products on Uplay, then Games are Products.
If the TOU says I need Uplay for anything online, then anything online is a Service.
TOU is held > EULA.
"The Terms govern your use of our games, downloadable content, season passes, game software (contained on disc, downloaded, or streamed), other software products, and online and mobile services including their online functions and other features, any updates/upgrades thereto, any related websites, UBISOFT platforms (including without limitation Uplay) and the UPLAY+ subscription service, and the servers, software and framework through which all the foregoing are provided to You (collectively, our "Services")."
That is one single sentence. It can be argued to be a run on sentence, but it is a single sentence. There is not a period anywhere. Thus all of it is "collectively, our "services". That's also what the lawyer covered. Terms in bold like that are definitions.
See the same format of Terms of Sale.
"These Terms of Sale (the "Terms of Sale") shall govern all purchases of software products and digital content, including without limitation, videogames (whether supplied in a tangible medium, through a digital key or through download), subscriptions services (such as Ubisoft +), in game currency, additional or downloadable content such as season pass, year pass, add-ons, customization elements,Ubisoft collectibles such as figurines, toys, books, t-shirts and other accessories (altogether the "Ubisoft Products"),"
Do note that I did cut that sentence short, but it covers the definition.
Now consider what you are trying to say. You are trying to separate services out thinking it is a separate thing.
Then by that idea, Ubisoft Products only applies to "Ubisoft collectibles such as figurines, toys, books, t-shirts and other accessories " and not games. Because games was covered several lines above. Before even "subscription services".
So either you understand that both things are very long run on definitions, or neither is.
It is not overlapping something else they defined, like about Product / Service / Content.
Which is why they clearly defined service. Product can be defined, but why? They tell you where you can purchase products. "via our online store accessible at https://store.ubi.com/ or through Uplay. " So what's on store.ubi.com? Games, dlc, etc. But also merchandise. That url is actually merch.ubi.com. It is however, a shared domain. Care to argue if that applies, don't ask me. They note Ubisoft Stores in the Terms of Sale (which you also agree to).
So again, they don't have to tell you what a product is, they tell you where to go to get products.
But you would still like to debate content, yes? While there is a section for UGC, that's out of scope here.
However take a look at rules of conduct.
"Abuse, harass or bully other Users or UBISOFT representatives via verbal or written communications. This includes but is not limited to trolling, flaming, spamming, or using language or content We deem illegal, dangerous, threatening, abusive, offensive, obscene, vulgar, defamatory or hateful."
Do they have to tell you not to post a sex tape or do you understand that is included in the word "content"? What about gore? Racist .mp3 rant? If you do understand that, you are capable of understanding the broad applications of the word content.
Just like you understand the term DLC. that content can be a new map, a new mode, a new set of horse armor. Specifics of what each individual DLC does is defined in it's description, but you won't find that in the TOU.
But because they put 20 different things under the term "services", they have to tell you what they all are, because there is no standard definition of services that applies to everything under that blanket.
What they sell on their store are games, so games are Products, right ?
As discussed, so I won't make this long. They sell things other than games.
This is important about solving eventual conflicts between TOU and EULA.
Which would be nice if not for the TOU being superior in all cases where it defines games as a service. not to be confused with the term "games as a service". Games ARE a service. Just like Ubisoft+ is a service.
Thus, even if Games are Services, one cannot swap a word for the other and shall always use the correct word.
Sure they can when they have to be specific.
"5.6. Any Safety Tips When Using Our Services?
"We advise You to take the following precautions in all cases when using a video game. Avoid playing if You are tired and/or short of sleep. Make sure that You play in a well lit room and moderate the brightness of your screen. When You play a video game requiring connection to a screen, play at a good distance from the screen and as far away as the connection lead allows. While using the game, take breaks of 10 to 15 minutes every hour."
The safety tips they provide are exclusively directed towards video games.
If the inconsistency is a concern, then Valve is going to have to replace their usage of "games" with "content and services" past the initial definition.
These definitions are used when they can apply to anything under that umbrella. But when it is very limited, there is no need.
5.1 "Within certain Services, We may offer You the possibility of obtaining in-game virtual currency or additional content which, once added to your Account, can be used to enhance your experience within the game or within the application (“Virtual Content”). "
You can buy Helix points on the store. Virtual currency. That's a product. So it is a clearer statement to say "Within certain Services, We may offer You the possibility of obtaining products which, once added to your Account, can be used to enhance your experience within the game or within the application (“Virtual Content”). "?
And, also, since all of this is about IP, they shall protect their IP using appropriate means, else someone would says they abandoned it, and then it may fall into public domain.
But we will all be long dead before that matters. US Copyright Law does not recognize the concept of "abandonware". "For works made for hire and anonymous and pseudonymous works, the duration of copyright is 95 years from first publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter (unless the author’s identity is later revealed in Copyright Office records, in which case the term becomes the author’s life plus 70 years). "
then it would also mean that DLC are not even licensed to use by the gamer,
Terms of Sale exists. "When you purchase on the Ubisoft Stores, we grant you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicensed, non-commercial and personal license to use the Ubisoft Products."
It's covered by that.
And the service is a part of the Product in the EULA, thus terminating the services doesn't affect the whole Product. At least if we follow what is written.
Unfortunately, the TOU and services come out on top.
""12.2 Modification to Services and Access to Services. We may modify our Services and/or your access to them at any time for any reasons. In particular, We may deem it necessary to carry out updates, maintenance operations and/or resets to improve and/or optimize our Services. Such updates, maintenance operations and/or resets may affect our Services including without limitation (a) restricting your access to all or part of our Services and/or (b) deleting all or part of the Services, subject to applicable law. In addition, We reserve the right to modify the prices of specific Services including without limitation modifying a Service from a paid Service to a free to play Service at any time for any reason. PLEASE NOTE THAT WE MAY CANCEL ACCESS TO ONE OR MORE ONLINE FUNCTIONS CONNECTED TO ONE OR MORE SERVICE(S) AT ANY TIME AND FOR ANY REASON WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE TO YOU, ALL SUBJECT TO APPLICABLE LAW."
You don't want to be your own worst advocate !? Not an insane idea.
But what if nobody is siding with you and you're siding with your opponents ?
This conversation would have reached it's end long ago if I did the typical "ubisoft bad, grr" answer. I opened with the legality of pirating these products and stand by that from a personal moral standpoint. But everything else is "if Ubisoft can get away with this, then this is how"
they never wrote they terminate the license.
This is why I went with the TOU which is superior and they tell you outright they can shut off online services. If something offline requires the use of online services, it won't work.
You still have your license. If you stop paying your cell phone bill, you'll still have your phone too.
But both won't be able to use their full functionality.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, continuing my answer on the video part :
However, this is a 30 minute video. I don't watch random unsolicited 30 minute videos and am not expecting the same of you. My limit is like 5 minutes.
My limit is in fact 0, because I often need to read twice to think about what I read, and the video format does not allow that. I mean, understanding something is not about following the reasoning of someone, but about criticism of its reasoning, which in turn requires to pause the reading and to read again. Impossible with video and audio, it needs writing. Not being a native English speaker doesn't help.
And I don't need to watch it, the quotes you provided are enough. First video :
Valve : "ceasing to provide" is termination of a Service. They cannot be compelled to provide a service they don't want to provide. Basically like any worker since the end of slavery. So, as I'm always saying, the important part in that line of the agreement is it's about a Service.
AC Liberation EULA : the game runs on the user's own device, about which Ubisoft can do nothing, so it's not up to them to guarantee it will work. But there are legal requirements of conformity on this point : the product provided must be usually workable and conformant to the other requirements of the EULA, like about the DRM, that's a point about which you're avoiding to answer me.
Ubisoft promising nothing : again, the Services. And again, legal provisions of conformity does apply, whatever they promise, they cannot sell the wind itself.
Second video is where I mean that this youtuber is not what I call a good lawyer :
The reason it is written this way is that they are liable for the compliance (in the legal sense) of what they sell. Legally, one cannot cover himself from his own liability. If he's liable, then he is whatever he writes in a private agreement. At most, one may subscribe an insurance covering the corporeal part of the liability (case of the car insurance) when such an insurance exists.
This youtuber is deciphering the texts he reads, but forgets to tell there is laws into witch those texts must insert themselves, and those laws are voiding the idea of someone covering from its own liability by the mean of a private agreement.
30:22 (...)
This part is more interesting because more tricky. I've already answered to ALL he says in my previous messages. The guy is not making the difference between the Product and the Service, and applies the idea of granting a license only to the use the Service, when it's also about the use of the Product.
For example, if you buy the license to use a photo to print on the cover of your book, then you print and sell that book. Then you think the photographer who gives you that license may terminate it, but that's wrong. He may disallow you to print new books, but that doesn't imply the previously printed books shall be destroyed because at the time those previously printed and sold books where printed and sold, the license to use the photo on their covers was a valid license.
In that example, the photo itself is the Product, the license granted is the right to use the photo on your book, and the Service is when you download and receive the photo file.
About video games, if you cease to mix Products and Services in your mind, you'll start to understand what I'm repeating and repeating.
You are buying an amusement park ticket to go and see insert a game name here.
This is wrong, because the period of validity is written on the ticket. That's a temporary ticket because it's written on it.
When you purchase a game, it's not written. And you purchase a pack including both a Service and a Product.
When you subscribe to a game pass, that's a temporary license because it's written you purchased a renewable subscription. And you're subscribing to a pack including both a Service and a Product.
Same Product (same game), same Service (same download), but different license and different DRM to enforce the different license.
10:31 "because, especially in the US, the law and courts have a great deal of respect for private contracts the idea being that two parties that know exactly what they're getting into."
Well, it would mean every gamer had detailed cultural knowledge about game development and DRMs, and also about other possibilities, which is obviously wrong. Finally, that youtuber is not even what I would call an average lawyer...
14:50 (...) and that we as adults when we signed this kind of online contract we should be held liable for them as people that can rightfully negotiate contract, (...)
...and here I'm wondering if he is a lawyer after all ?
I was previously explaining you that about DRMs that shouldn't trigger after first launch (as written in the EULA), there is to my eyes no evidence of conformity of the Product provided to the agreement ! And conformity is required by law (at least here).
How come a lawyer would forget to leverage that point ??????????
(I mean, except if he's siding with the companies)
Instead you can consider changing state governments instead.
French people are used to say "we have the political class we deserve".
Changing people's minds and mindsets is the way to go, has always been in free democracies, and will always be (except in countries under dictatorship).
Comment has been collapsed.
And I don't need to watch it, the quotes you provided are enough
Problem with quotes is I did my best to be somewhat accurate but it's typed and there can be a word or something missing. Just as much as intonation can influence meaning of the same sentence. However, it's probably fine in this particular case. As I said, I'm not down for forcing people to watch things. You may be interested to know that the closed caption feature is not entirely terrible (when autotranslate isn't involved at least). I actually use it on many things. It may help you in the future, not now.
Ubisoft promising nothing : again, the Services
You'll catch up by the other reply I assume but going to still point out again that Services is defined as a particular set of things, which do include games.
applies the idea of granting a license only to the use the Service,
Because this is the TOU which defined everything as a service.
This youtuber is deciphering the texts he reads, but forgets to tell there is laws into witch those texts must insert themselves, and those laws are voiding the idea of someone covering from its own liability by the mean of a private agreement.
Yes the laws where shrinkwrap agreements are generally enforced.
When you purchase a game, it's not written.
Which part?
Where the terms of sale says "When you purchase on the Ubisoft Stores, we grant you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicensed, non-commercial and personal license to use the Ubisoft Products."
Where the Terms of Use says " As long as You comply with these Terms, We grant You a personal, non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited right to use our Services strictly as detailed herein. "
The part where they can modify access at any time?
You favor wanting things defined, which is great, but this isn't even an ubisoft thing. Terminate "at any time" is rather uniform.
Albion Online - "Subject to the special stipulations for Subscription, Sandbox Interactive may terminate this Agreement at any time without cause, giving fourteen (14) days’ notice in text form."
Bethesda - "Except as prohibited by applicable law and subject to the Statutory Obligations (as defined in Section 1), ZeniMax may restrict, suspend, or terminate Your access to and receipt, play or use of some or any Services at any time."
Blizzard - "Blizzard may revoke this license at any time."
Bungie - "Service Provided Content may be altered, removed, deleted, or discontinued by Bungie at any time (e.g., upon termination of this Agreement and/or cessation of online support for the Bungie Services), even if you have not “used” or “consumed” the Service Provided Content prior to alteration, removal, deletion, or discontinuation."
Jagex - " We grant valid Account holders a non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sub-licensable, personal, limited license, which can be revoked at any time, "
Nintendo - Nintendo may revoke this license at any time.
Playstation - "We may indefinitely suspend, or discontinue online access to content or data associated with your PSN Account at any time, including for service deprecations, maintenance services, or upgrades, without prior notice or liability. We may also discontinue offering certain PSN Content or features. "
SEGA -"SEGA reserves the right to stop offering or supporting online services (if any) related to the Product at any time. If this happens, any related account or data you have may be terminated and you may lose your ability to access some or all portions of the Product, earned or purchased Virtual Items, and User‑Generated Content."
Ubisoft - "These Terms may be terminated or suspended at any time, without notice, for any reason, including without limitation due to violations of the Code of Conduct. "
But hey while I can nitpick some other aspects of the Steam agreement, they actually limit their "at any time" to only two scenarios.
Well, it would mean every gamer had detailed cultural knowledge about game development and DRMs, and also about other possibilities, which is obviously wrong.
Great. So what are the examples (and I will expand this to software in general) where any US court can be cited as going against the EULAs or TOS? Some were discussed, but those were all cases where the license faced scrutiny for deception. (agree without being able to read, making a license for physical copy).
Why are all these companies with teams of brilliant lawyers, saying the same kind of terminology if that amount of ambiguity isn't legal?
I was previously explaining you that about DRMs that shouldn't trigger after first launch
Sure would be a shame if the TOU didn't override that with the requirement that it "may" require a persistent online connection to access or use services. And that they may cancel functions related to online services.
Changing people's minds and mindsets is the way to go, has always been in free democracies
Sure. Slavery was a thing here, and eventually it wasn't. I never once said it can't be changed. But I did laugh. Knowing what I've seen, I would never even remotely try to take this up in court myself.
Want to see more? What about a 16 year old (minor here) being held to the terms of service? It happened.. Now this is a bit of a nitpick since the father actually made the account but eh. And this is about arbitration. Ubisoft has an arbitration clause as well.
But let's hone in on some casetext
"Moreover, defendant's arbitration provision contains other user-friendly terms, including the opt-out right, choice of venue, defendant pays arbitration costs, and defendant waives the right to seek fees and costs. EULA § 12. The arbitration, delegation, and class waiver provisions are neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable."
Now this is no guarantee that the terms of service for Epic right now are equal to the ones back in the lawsuit. But surely they wouldn't replace language to make themselves lose a case.
Feel free to compare that to the Ubisoft terms(section 11). But while the language is more clumped together and a bit worse, they still are using "user friendly" terms about arbitration.
I can't sue as a class action. Not that I would really, but I can't.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, my 2 previous messages were... ahem... supposed to be read in the other order (first the video, then the rest). Sorry if they appeared in the wrong order (I hope this time I'll do it correctly.
This is 1/2 !
TOU is held > EULA.
No. NOWHERE. Except in case of conflicting situations.
But you're crafting conflicting situations where there is no conflict at all to support your point of view.
"The Terms govern your use of our games, downloadable content, season passes, game software (contained on disc, downloaded, or streamed), other software products, and online and mobile services including their online functions and other features, any updates/upgrades thereto, any related websites, UBISOFT platforms (including without limitation Uplay) and the UPLAY+ subscription service, and the servers, software and framework through which all the foregoing are provided to You (collectively, our "Services")."
That is one single sentence.
And you were bolding it wrongly. I bolded it correctly to underline the verb "to provide".
The Services are what is provided to you.
When you play a game on a streaming platform like GeForce Now, they provide you the service of running the game on their servers.
When you play an offline game on your own computer, they provide you no service at all because the game runs on your own computer.
That's also what the lawyer covered. Terms in bold like that are definitions.
Yes, definitions, but a Service is doing something for someone thus it defines a verb, not a list of nouns, even if there is "collectively" written before "Services".
And about the lawyer, as I said he forgets there are laws encompassing the texts... It makes his analysis incomplete.
Then by that idea, Ubisoft Products only applies to "Ubisoft collectibles such as figurines, toys, books, t-shirts and other accessories " and not games. Because games was covered several lines above.
No, a Product is a thing, not an action thus it defines the whole list of nouns because each of these nouns is a thing.
So either you understand that both things are very long run on definitions, or neither is.
LOL. I'm using right above the common meaning of the words to understand their definitions in the texts. That's not formal as you're saying.
If it was formal like you explain, then if would be possible to re-define words to have meanings contrary to common meaning, and that would be defining a whole new language. Like saying : "in this EULA, I define 'allowed' as meaning 'prohibited'". That's not right because the texts have to be written in an existing language, like English or French. Even if the author can define certains words in the context of the agreement, that definition shall not be a different language.
... But also merchandise. ...
Do you want an EULA to apply on merchandise ? Like in, if I terminate the EULA you must burn the overpriced hoodie I sold you ?
No way.
So again, they don't have to tell you what a product is, they tell you where to go to get products.
Wrong, as I wrote, they have to state what they sell. That's true for every person willing to sell something. Even if it's a surprise box, then the seller says he's selling a surprise box.
But you would still like to debate content, yes?
Not at all. The word is not defined, thus its common meaning applies. You successfully understand that about content, but not about Services / Products.
My concern about "content" is that this word shall not be used as a magic word to dodge an ambiguity : if there's something ambiguous, it shall be re-worded with the words defined (Services / Products) and not using a single one that may mean the first or the second or both.
But because they put 20 different things under the term "services", they have to tell you what they all are, because there is no standard definition of services that applies to everything under that blanket.
I've wrote it above, but I'm pasting it here again for completeness :
a Service is doing something for someone
That's an action, it defines a verb.
As discussed, so I won't make this long. They sell things other than games.
And I'm pasting again the definition I gave above :
a Product is a thing, not an action
They sell Products, including the merch. But the merch is not included in the EULA because the EULA does not govern anything about the merch.
Which would be nice if not for the TOU being superior in all cases where it defines games as a service
No. NOWHERE. Except in case of conflicting situations.
But you're crafting conflicting situations where there is no conflict at all to support your point of view.
As I explained a few messages before, the idea of "conflict" is not to be searched for in the texts, you shall apply "in mind" both texts separately as if they were alone, and then only look for an eventual conflict.
And I saw no conflict because each text is governing something different.
Sure they can when they have to be specific.
(...)
These definitions are used when they can apply to anything under that umbrella. But when it is very limited, there is no need.
By "using the correct word", I was meaning "not using an ambiguity to swap one for the other".
You can buy Helix points on the store. Virtual currency. That's a product.
Aaaaaaannnnnnnd... NO, just NOT AT ALL. That's a sad laugh.... In English and in French, no virtual currency can be a Product. LOL. "Virtual Currency" is not a thing but a numerical mean to count the value of something else. "Virtual Currency" is a number, in its abstract meaning. A thing cannot be abstract (even if it can be virtual).
And that's clearly written, because they wrote one can "obtain" that currency. Like exchanging a money for another. That's your own mistake to swap that verb with "to buy" in order to craft an argument which is void.
US Copyright Law does not recognize the concept of "abandonware".
Because there's no need to. Do you want an explanation of that ? (I can at least try)
Terms of Sale exists. (...) It's covered by that.
NO. Again, the seller must state what he sells. The single sentence in the Terms of Sale you quoted is not enough (because it doesn't define how you can obtain the Product after purchase).
Unfortunately, the TOU and services come out on top.
Nowhere I saw ; and not in what you quoted since it's about Services (remember? that's when someone does something for you, not when you do yourself something for yourself like running a game offline on your own device).
This conversation would have reached it's end long ago if I did the typical "ubisoft bad, grr" answer. I opened with the legality of pirating these products and stand by that from a personal moral standpoint. But everything else is "if Ubisoft can get away with this, then this is how"
Well, no, Ubisoft claims on their announcement there is an economic motivation, thus if they were challenged in courts they would be compelled to explain their announcement, at the very least.
But yes, "ubisoft bad, grr". I don't think they like their games, else they wouldn't do that...
If something offline requires the use of online services, it won't work.
It's a technical point-of-view. So "services" here is not the correct word. You swapped it for "servers". And this is crafting an ambiguity.
You still have your license. If you stop paying your cell phone bill, you'll still have your phone too.
But both won't be able to use their full functionality.
Good example, even online games are playable with a wifi connection, so the phone can still be used as a console, or a music player, or ....
Comment has been collapsed.
But you're crafting conflicting situations
TOU 5.5 & EULA 3.1:
The product, which is also a service, may be protected by DRM. The EULA says unlock once. The TOU says a permanent connection may be necessary. TOU > EULA.
And you were bolding it wrongly. I bolded it correctly to underline the verb "to provide".
Nah I bolded it just fine. Words do have multiple meanings. Surely you have opened task manager at some point to kill a process? Perhaps you don't use windows anyway. It may be hidden by default but there's also a tab for services. A majority of these services do not require any input from you and some do not connect to the internet.
But let's bring it back closer to this instance. You believe foregoing only applies to the bolded section. I say it applies to everything.
Let us return to epic games.
Space saving. "For clarity, the foregoing permissions are limited to the Services, and no rights are granted with respect to any servers, computers, or databases associated with the Services."
There is no sentence before that in this paragraph (a loose term in this case). But there are 3 paragraphs above that. Unless you somehow believe this is exclusively referring to "You must not reproduce, sell, or exploit for any commercial purposes any part of the Services, access to the Services or use of the Services or any services or materials available through the Services. Epic’s Fan Content Policy governs non-commercial use of such content."
In fact, it shouldn't refer to that at all since there are no permissions granted in paragraph 3. Paragraph 2, however, talks about permissions.
And about the lawyer, as I said he forgets there are laws encompassing the texts... It makes his analysis incomplete.
He never promised to analyze it in full. He's giving free analysis, how many hours do you expect him to give for "free" on a single subject(yes ad revenue is a thing). Also, feel free to find a better one. I made no claims either of them were the best, but that they are in a more qualified position than you or I.
Service can be a noun just as much as it can be a verb. Feel free to browse some example sentences under the noun section.
So what's a noun definition that can encompass "collectively" these services. Perhaps "Access to resources such as hotel rooms and web-based videos without transfer of the resources' ownership."
Every single service in that section, you don't own, and are allowed access to. It's about picking the right definition to the right context. You can still debate context and argue it is "An act of being of assistance to someone." But we will get nowhere on that as order doesn't determine priority.
"The funeral service was touching."
Service which means neither of our definitions in this context.
Speaking of funerals.
"Description of Cemetery.com Services.
Welcome to Cemetery. The services Cemetery provides include, but may not be limited to, educational material, appointment & scheduling tools, directory services, referral and sales services, newsletters and emails with special offers and updates, content and applications offered from time to time by Cemetery in connection with Cemetery (collectively, the “Cemetery Services”)."
So is educational material not a service they provide under the term "Cemetery Services"?
Supercell - "This Privacy Policy applies to Supercell's games, store, sites and related services, which we here collectively call the Service." So do you think the store doesn't apply to service? Then if it does, games are a service here, yes? There is nothing in between them to differentiate otherwise.
Fall Guys - "By selecting "I Agree" or purchasing, downloading or using the game "Fall Guys: Ultimate Knockout" or its related services (the game and services, collectively, our "Services"),"
They make it easy for you.
If it was formal like you explain, then if would be possible to re-define words to have meanings contrary to common meaning, and that would be defining a whole new language.
Except this is still in plain English. Everything in that definition can be defined as a service.
Did you review the Steam subscriber agreement? No, not just the bit about license.
"the rights to access and/or use any Content and Services accessible through Steam are referred to in this Agreement as "Subscriptions"
You don't own games on steam (which you still don't anyway but that's another topic), you have "subscriptions"
"9C Termination by Valve”
Any particular subscription = games. Can also naturally apply to anything else such as movies, music, etc, but limiting it to games here. Who calls a game a subscription?
Do you want an EULA to apply on merchandise ? Like in, if I terminate the EULA you must burn the overpriced hoodie I sold you ?
It's not about what I want. It's there in the agreement. You may of course,debate them on their inclusion of that line. But it wouldn't really matter. It would probably get voided by the first sale doctrine. But it is an interesting line should they decide to come after someone for reselling their merchandise.
In English and in French, no virtual currency can be a Product.
Terms of sale. In game currency defined as "ubisoft products".
The single sentence in the Terms of Sale you quoted is not enough (because it doesn't define how you can obtain the Product after purchase).
Why would I quote the entire Terms of Sale? "Once your payment has been processed, you will receive a purchase confirmation email and the corresponding Ubisoft Product will be delivered or made available to you (as further detailed in Section 3), in accordance with your order."
Nowhere I saw ; and not in what you quoted since it's about Services (remember? that's when someone does something for you, not when you do yourself something for yourself like running a game offline on your own device).
Notwithstanding that services covers games as they defined. Do recognize that services on your computer do run offline. Feel free to launch steam in offline mode and see "Steam Client Service" in your task manager. It is active regardless of you running a game or not. However, services do not have to remain continuously.
How any given app connects to and uses services is beyond the realm of my knowledge.
So again, how an application chooses to connect to another service is an implementation concern. It is on that which the basis for saying whether it fit the terms or not.
And if, as per their terms, it was connected to an online service. It dies.
It's a technical point-of-view. So "services" here is not the correct word. You swapped it for "servers". And this is crafting an ambiguity.
A server is a service.
A game is a service. A game however, does not necessarily depend on online services. Or it may.
Good example, even online games are playable with a wifi connection, so the phone can still be used as a console, or a music player, or .
Which require a cell phone to be designed with wifi capabilities. Old cell phones without those exist. And as such, if this game was not implemented with an alternative. You can't get to your DLC. Implementation questions may be directed to Ubisoft.
Nintendo provides no guarantee about the duration of the license. It still means the game must be conformant to what the consumer expects when buying.
"Nintendo reserves the right to modify, update or discontinue our Services, or any features or portions thereof, without prior notice. You agree that we can suspend or terminate your right to access our Services at any time for any reason without notice, obligation or liability to you."
Ubisoft "12.2 Modification to Services and Access to Services. "
Nintendo closes Wii shop. You can't download your games.
Ubisoft closes online services. You can't download your dlc.
And knowing Ubisoft is keeping offline functionality for decommissioned games as shown in the link I gave.
Implementation. "You will be unable to play multiplayer, link Ubisoft accounts in-game or use online features. Additionally, the installation and access to DLC will be unavailable." Your access to DLC is dependent on online services. Not the base game. It didn't say singleplayer or multiplayer. It said your access to DLC.
Furthermore, in the expanded historical link, DLC is not mentioned, but ULC is.
"If you have previously redeemed ULC while playing on PC, it will no longer be available."
So you have two interpretations. Either DLC does = ULC or it doesn't. Simple right?
If DLC = ULC, then it is no longer available as per the second article.
If DLC =/= ULC, then it won't be available as per the first article.
If you still believe it doesn't apply to single player DLC in spite of this evidence, please kindly head over to any steam page for any of the affected games. Have The Forgotten Sands as an example. If there is still ambiguity for you, there's this topic answered by support. DLC = dead. Soundtrack safe because it is a separate entry.
So these users will lose 2 skins and a nap. Not the biggest loss but still a loss.
Far Cry 3 – implementation hint
Can not happen here in France.
This is America. Fight them where you are though. I cheer for you :)
Comment has been collapsed.
This is 2/2 !
You may be interested to know that the closed caption feature is not entirely terrible
Using it extensively. But only two lines on youtube... that's.... SHORT !
Because this is the TOU which defined everything as a service.
everything ==> Every provided thing.
Gotcha!
Add this missing word there and your understanding shall be better.
Even better :
everything ==> "the action of providing things sold"
When you purchase a game, it's not written.
Which part?
The duration, like on the ticket.
Consumer rights apply : if duration is intended to be limited, it must be stated clearly. If nothing states the duration is intended to be limited, then it is unlimited.
Your quotes are different agreements, albeit similar. I'll discuss one thing about the Nintendo one because it's the shorter and clearer one :
Nintendo - Nintendo may revoke this license at any time.
This is not stating clearly that Nintendo intend to limit the duration of the license, it only says that it may happen. So it's unlimited in time.
A company may fire an employee at any time. (at least here and now in France)
It doesn't mean they cannot be sentenced if they use that right in an abusive way (they need a reason to fire the employee). And they're regularly sued and sentenced. Sometimes even to the point the employee get his job back (like if he wasn't fired in the first place).
By writing this line in the agreement, Nintendo is not intending to use it in an abusive way, and this is strongly limiting the "at any time" part of the sentence.
Think about this sentence the opposite way : Nintendo provides no guarantee about the duration of the license. It still means the game must be conformant to what the consumer expects when buying.
Back about Ubisoft, it drives us again to the DRM issue (lock on first launch or install) : deciding to terminate does not make for a valid reason by itself. And offline playing costs them nothing. And so on and so on and so on...
So what are the examples where any US court can be cited as going against the EULAs or TOS?
What do you mean by "going against" ?
You probably know that to file a case, it's not enough to show evidence of a flouted right ; the plaintiff also needs to show evidence of something like a prejudice. This can be difficult with games 10 years old... quite difficult.
Why are all these companies with teams of brilliant lawyers, saying the same kind of terminology if that amount of ambiguity isn't legal?
Taking into account what I wrote right above, are you able to imagine a situation where they may be challenged about the ambiguity itself ? (asking because I'm not)
About the "same kind of terminology", that's a trap. Similar terminology does not make similar situations (in right).
Sure would be a shame if the TOU didn't override that with the requirement that it "may" require a persistent online connection to access or use services. And that they may cancel functions related to online services.
"online services" vs. "online servers" again. The offline game needs "online servers" (NOT services) for its DRM to work (also not a service). But it's possible that this technology is not conformant to the EULA stating "DRMs only on first launch and/or install".
And knowing Ubisoft is keeping offline functionality for decommissioned games as shown in the link I gave.
For me it seems like my reading is closer to reality than yours.
What about a 16 year old (minor here) being held to the terms of service? It happened..
Can not happen here in France. First, debit card fraud is not subject to private individual arbitration. Second, our banks are liable 100%, nowadays we even need to input a code from the phone when using the card to pay on internet.
USA is very different than us on the topic of arbitration (and also class-actions). I never heard of an arbitration clause that can be enforced here when it's about something else than agreements between two or more companies (and it's unusual), those clauses are even removed from the agreements most of the time.
But while the language is more clumped together and a bit worse, they still are using "user friendly" terms about arbitration.
Those issues you quoted are about payment frauds (or possible frauds) in online games, that's quite far from what we were discussing.
I can't help with that.
Comment has been collapsed.
Answering here to make things back in chronological order.
(Part 1/2)
TOU 5.5 & EULA 3.1:
The product, which is also a service, may be protected by DRM. The EULA says unlock once. The TOU says a permanent connection may be necessary. TOU > EULA.
NO. You're reading it correctly, but that's not how a "conflict" is to be evaluated. I already explained it, but here is a very simple and very clear practical example :
Imagine two persons, Eula & Tom. They are coliving. Eula can't listen to Jazz ; and Tom can't listen to Metal. Is there any conflict between them ?
YOU CANNOT TELL because you don't know if they are in the same room, you don't know if they use speakers or headphones, and maybe even one lives the night and the other the day so they never meet even if they live in the same house.
To know if there is a conflict between them, you need first to describe the typical day of each of the two independently, then look if they meet at any moment of the day, then check if one of the two is listening to music with speakers at the moment they meet.
YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG. Because you assume their different tastes in music implies a conflict, which is most probably false because they are coliving.
Do you understand better why you are wrong on the whole "conflict" topic ?
Surely you have opened task manager at some point to kill a process? Perhaps you don't use windows anyway. It may be hidden by default but there's also a tab for services.
Wait... What ? Those are services in another meaning. Looking at a French dictionary I'm finding dozens of meanings.
In that dictionary (which is a serious one with a lot of details), the first group of meanings "I." is "Action de servir; résultat de cette action." (EN: "Action to serve; result of this action."), which in turn is what I said : a Service is providing something to someone".
The exact line corresponding to the type of Services we're discussing is I B 1 a -> "Prestation de service" (EN: "Provision of service") which sends us to the word "prestation" in II B 2 b. :
FR: Prestation (de service). Action de fournir avec ou sans rétribution, un produit qui n'est pas un bien matériel mais qui satisfait l'usage d'une personne ou d'un groupe de personnes.
EN: Provision (of service). Action of providing, with or without compensation, a product which is not a material good but which satisfies the use of a person or a group of people.
As I was saying the verb "to provide" is essential to the meaning of a Service. That verb is both in the dictionary and in the TOU. And funny enough, the dictionary says explicitly that the thing provided is... a Product.
You believe foregoing only applies to the bolded section. I say it applies to everything.
Here that's not about believing but about reading a good dictionary.
Let us return to epic games.
But no, why would I ? I'm correctly describing what are Products and Services since the beginning. The EULA and TOU and ... are written in a language (French or English), and those 2 words are easy to translate.
Service can be a noun just as much as it can be a verb.
It's clearly not a verb in the TOU (because it's written "the Services" : you can't put "the" before a verb). In French the corresponding verb is "servir" (EN: "to serve"), so it's a second way of making sure it's not a verb.
So what's a noun definition that can encompass "collectively" these services. Perhaps "Access to resources such as hotel rooms and web-based videos without transfer of the resources' ownership."
NO. The correct definition is above.
If you're not confident yourself about the definition, then it's certainly a good idea to discard it and look into another, hopefully better, dictionary.
The closest I found is this suggestion from the Oxford Learner's Dictionaries : in first section "providing something" : "2 [countable] an organization or a company that provides something for the public or does something for the government".
That's only a suggestion, not exactly the correct definition because here it defines the company itself as being a "service", so it's only close.
We found and read the 3 entities "to provide", "product" and "service" both in the definition (from the French dictionary) and in the TOU : then it is the correct definition. The English dictionary shown us that this definition is truly fitting into the semantic field of the word in English also (even if it's not exactly the correct definition) : then it is the correct definition.
"The funeral service was touching."
They make it easy for you.
I never had it hard about Product vs. Service. See above.
Did you review the Steam subscriber agreement?
Oh man! Did you review Starfleet Rules and Regulations ?
We were discussing about Ubisoft, maybe things are different elsewhere, maybe not ; maybe only the words are different, maybe not.
Any particular subscription = games. (...) Who calls a game a subscription?
Ubisoft owns the IP of the games sold on Uplay/Ubisoft Connect/Ubisoft Store.
Valve doesn't own the IP of the games sold on Steam store.
Valve acts as a 'proxy' transferring the license to use to the gamer.
IRL, there are other situations where things are called a 'subscription' as soon as an entity acts as a 'proxy' in-between a rights owner and a buyer.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
Maybe things are different elsewhere, maybe not ; maybe only the words are different, maybe not.
That's a whole other story...
It's not about what I want. It's there in the agreement.
The idea of conflict is there also, but you misunderstand it.
You also misunderstand the difference between Product and Service to the point you're even opening the discussion to related topics that are different situations (like other game stores not owning the IP themselves : obviously that's an important difference).
But it is an interesting line should they decide to come after someone for reselling their merchandise.
They cannot.
I already explained that and illustrated it with the example the photo printed on the cover of the book.
Comment has been collapsed.
(Part 2/2)
In English and in French, no virtual currency can be a Product.
Terms of sale. In game currency defined as "ubisoft products".
Again, you're bolding the wrong words. Look :
... (the "Terms of Sale") shall govern all purchases of software products (...), including without limitation, videogames (...), in game currency, (...) (altogether the "Ubisoft Products")
"software product" + "in game currency" = "altogether the Ubisoft Products"
The currency by itself cannot be a product. The fact it's "in game" means there is "some sort of market" with buyable items using the currency. The Product is that market, those items, etc. altogether with the main "software product".
The single sentence in the Terms of Sale you quoted is not enough (because it doesn't define how you can obtain the Product after purchase).
Why would I quote the entire Terms of Sale? "Once your payment has been processed, you will receive a purchase confirmation email and the corresponding Ubisoft Product will be delivered or made available to you (as further detailed in Section 3), in accordance with your order."
Yeah, and this is precisely not defining how, as I said.
"Section 3" is only about the Order itself, not about how delivering anything.
Notwithstanding that services covers games as they defined. Do recognize that services on your computer do run offline. Feel free to launch steam in offline mode and see "Steam Client Service" in your task manager. It is active regardless of you running a game or not. However, services do not have to remain continuously.
Still playing with words and crafting ambiguous things... Windows "services" are "pieces of software", and they (Microsoft) called those pieces of software "services" because they technically serve something to other pieces of software running on the operating system. This has nothing to do with the "Services" in the TOU/EULA, even if it's the same word, that's a different meaning.
When you buy a car, you want a car. I mean, real size, not reduced model. Do you ask the car seller to write that in the contract ? Usually, that's the opposite : people selling reduced models are surely writing it's not real size cars. So, depending which car you're buying (real size or reduced model), you'll have it written or not.
Thus "not having it written" or "having something else written somewhere else" are not facts implying a change in a meaning of a word.
And if, as per their terms, it was connected to an online service. It dies.
"connected" is technical (factual). "online service" is NOT technical in the texts (and very ambiguous if you meant a Windows service, which can OR cannot be "online" in the meaning of "connected" depending on the service). "online server" would be technical (but still imprecise because it can be hardware OR software). And last but not least "it" is not defined in the context of your sentence.
You don't have an argument there. Maybe try using multiple sentences ?
A server is a service.
That's a non-reciproqual assumption, you cannot logically invert it :
Like in saying : "All services are servers". It is wrong.
Also, that's an ambiguous wording, you cannot make it plural :
Like in saying : "All servers are services". It is also wrong (see about DRMs servers, and remember about the comparison with the cops checking a driving license).
So, what are you intending to mean with that short sentence ? I don't know. But anyway, the "servers" are at most a technical mean to achieve some task. The question was : is this task conformant to the EULA about the limits of use of the DRMs ?
I don't really know what are the provisions about conformity in laws in the USA, but it looks like Ubisoft is serving the same product in every country (except maybe for translations ?). It should be a good economic choice to minimize the maintenance costs (compared to serving each country a different product if it's not required). As a consequence, EU and French laws about conformity should apply to the product in that situation, and for the whole world.
Which require a cell phone to be designed with wifi capabilities. Old cell phones without those exist. And as such, if this game was not implemented with an alternative. You can't get to your DLC. Implementation questions may be directed to Ubisoft.
I won't ask them to disclose how their DRM works (not even partially). They can ignore such a request so easily...
Moreover, it needs to wait until after September 1st to see what they'll really do. Like written on the other page, about offline functionality still available.
Nintendo closes Wii shop. You can't download your games.
Ubisoft closes online services. You can't download your dlc.
The part you're not answering there was about the termination of the license, not the termination of the service.
For the record, if a company A granted a license to use its software to a person B and then A goes bankrupt, then ... do you agree the license is not terminated ?
Your access to DLC is dependent on online services.
Locking or allowing access is necessarily managing a digital right, DRM.
The EULA does allow such a lock only on installation and/or on first launch, not after.
Your sentence is only a re-wording of their announcement : where in the EULA / TOU / TOS / other text are you reading it is allowed ?
Either DLC does = ULC or it doesn't. Simple right?
Technically it does not, ULC is for "unlockable" and it indicates that the content is already always downloaded, and then the user can or may unlock it.
But that's again only a technical point of view, whereas as a consumer I care about the conformity. When I buy a single-player "software thing" (whatever the thing is called), then I do not expect it to become unavailable to play at any date in the future (providing I still own a device able to run it, and providing I have kept the files because I can of course understand they're not willing to provide me the download for eternity) unless if it's clearly stated before I'm purchasing it.
If you still believe it doesn't apply to single player DLC in spite of this evidence, ...
Which evidence ?
Do you mean that confusing a DRM with an "online service" is evidence of something ?
Moreover, you didn't answered me about the fact they never announced explicitly any termination of the licenses to play!
That should for sure be a strong evidence : why would they forget to tell it if it was their intent ?
This is America. Fight them where you are though. I cheer for you :)
LOL. It would give them way too much importance.
And it may last so many years...
And I have way much more important things to "fight" in my life.
And there is sooooooo many other game editors.... sooooooo many....
Comment has been collapsed.
NO. You're reading it correctly, but that's not how a "conflict" is to be evaluated. ...
That's exactly how the conflict is to be evaluated in these terms. If the EULA says one thing, and the TOU says another, the TOU wins the determination. The TOU says a persistent online connection may be required. This leaves it where unlocking once can be where it ends, but it is equally valid for it to require a persistent online connection.
It's clearly not a verb in the TOU (because it's written "the Services" : you can't put "the" before a verb).
meanwhile, previously
a Service is doing something for someone
That's an action, it defines a verb.
Regardless, waste of lines as both the definitions that were supplied come from the noun "service"
The closest I found is this suggestion from the Oxford Learner's Dictionaries ...
This is the English TOU. You have the freedom to discuss any French version but I do not. Translations are also subject to localization, see any time a Japanese game comes up and fans got used to things being called a certain way. Even within the same language. Say "I ate some chips" to a British person versus an American. I will break my own advice near the end though. I discovered something and I strongly recommend you read that fully before coming back to this section. CTL+F [a7eZ]
Moving on, from the same Oxford Learner dictionary.
3) a business whose work involves doing something for customers but not producing goods; the work that such a business does
As said before, definitions can be chosen as necessary to fit the context. You own none of the things in services.
Example sentence #3 "Smith's Catering Services (= a company) offers the best value."
What happens with catering? Some company shows up at your event, cooks and/or brings food, maybe even serves it to you. Yet despite that, it fits the definition for "not producing goods".
Ubisoft cooks makes games, but they are only offering you the service allowing you to use them.
We were discussing about Ubisoft, ...
I am choosing things that are from similarly represented entities. Meaning they were drafted to be handled in our current reality. Additionally, I have no guarantees as to whether you own a version of the game on Epic, Steam, or Ubisoft itself. Those varying agreements also apply if through that platform.
But it's ok. Helps shorten things. I like keeping it to one reply.
Valve doesn't own the IP of the games sold on Steam store.
Valve does own IP of some things on the store, like their games that don't as of yet make it to the number 3.
Similarly, Ubisoft does not own IP of some things on their store. South Park, Uno, Monopoly, Star Trek Bridge Crew. They had/have licenses to make games of those IP.
But Ubisoft most definitely does sell you a license to access those games.
The currency by itself cannot be a product.
You deleted a lot of words in between, which is fine to save space, but less fine if you are removing it from the rest of the context. See unlike the rest of the debatable things like services, "in game currency" is flat in the middle of this statement surrounded by terms that don't face scrutiny.
- videogames
- subscription services
- in game currency
- additional or downloadable content such as..
- Ubisoft collectables such as...
Furthermore, if you try to define the dependency of in game currency on the existence of a software product, then that similarly means the existence of downloadable content, which depends on the existence of a software product, is also not a product.
On the store, "Helix credits" are given their own tab under DLC. If you go on the store in general and search "Helix", there is a selector for "DLC" which they all show up under.
You may, however, argue with how there is no separation between the "including without limitation" part which can cause Ubisoft Collectibles to be seen as "software product and digital content".
As a further bonus, I've been using "en-INTL" Terms of Sale because it comes up in search, which while not technically invalid, I'd imagine en-US is more valid. A cursory skim shows them as being mostly identical and I won't make that differentiation for the previous parts.
However, as long as I remember, they shall be referred to from here. One such thing is Ubisoft+ gets its own section and is removed from the definition of "Ubisoft Products".
But the big one is an entire section 8.1 which reminds us that software products are licensed and not sold.
[a7eZ]
But this realization made me humor the earlier idea of visiting the French Terms of Use. which again, translation is not ideal. But it is a western language so there are fewer difficulties with this for a machine even if context may be lost.
So as per the French EULA format original->translated google
"Si vous êtes titulaire d’un Compte UBISOFT sur http://www.ubi.com (« Compte »), le présent CLUF coexiste avec les Conditions d’utilisation et ne les remplacent pas. Dans la mesure où les termes du présent Contrat seraient contraires aux termes des Conditions d’utilisation, les termes des Conditions d’utilisation feraient foi." ->If you are the holder of a UBISOFT Account on http://www.ubi.com (“Account”), this EULA coexists with the Terms of Use and does not replace them. To the extent that the terms of this Agreement conflict with the terms of the Terms of Use, the terms of the Terms of Use shall prevail.
So these lines are identical which leads to the TOU being superior again. So let's head over to the French TOU. The debate over services. And here's the big surprise.
"1.1 Les Services Ubisoft (les « Services ») comprennent les jeux, contenus téléchargeables, season pass et autres logiciels de jeu (fournis sur disque ou sur d’autres supports physiques, téléchargés ou diffusés en streaming), ainsi que d’autres produits logiciels et services en ligne et mobiles, y compris leurs fonctions en ligne et autres caractéristiques, de même que toutes leurs mises à jour et mises à niveau, les sites Internet associés, la plateforme Uplay et toute autre plateforme Ubisoft, le service d’abonnement Uplay+, les évènements que nous organisons, les serveurs, les logiciels et le cadre dans lequel tous ces éléments vous sont fournis à l’heure actuelle ou vous seront fournis dans le futur par UBISOFT ENTERTAINMENT S.A. ou par l’une quelconque de ses filiales ou sociétés affiliées, notamment UBISOFT EMEA SAS et UBISOFT France (ci-après collectivement dénommées « Ubisoft » ou « nous »)."->1.1 The Ubisoft Services (the “ Services ") include games, downloadable content, season passes and other game software (provided on disc or other physical media, downloaded or streamed), as well as other online and mobile software products and services, including including their online functions and other features, as well as all their updates and upgrades, associated websites, the Uplay platform and any other Ubisoft platform, the Uplay+ subscription service, the events we organize, the servers, software and the framework in which all these elements are provided to you at the present time or will be provided to you in the future by UBISOFT ENTERTAINMENT SA or by any of its subsidiaries or affiliates, in particular UBISOFT EMEA SAS and UBISOFT France (hereinafter collectively referred to as " Ubisoft ” or “ we ”).
This isn't even a debate in your own language. Which is amazing. You guys even define content in 1.3.
So tell me how does "Les Services Ubisoft (les « Services ») comprennent les jeux, contenus téléchargeables," not say games and DLC are included in the definition of services? This is your language. But similar to English, the order is nearly identical and all references to servers are at the end.
then ... do you agree the license is not terminated ?
Online services =/= your license. Those people on the Wii shop still have licenses, but not access to the content.
Technically it does not, ULC is ...
Yes, and technically some ubisoft games, including some (perhaps all) of the ones in the decommissioning list actually include the "DLC" in the initial download. You paid to unlock content that was shipped with the game.
Which evidence ?
The part where "Additionally, the installation and access to downloadable content (DLC) will be unavailable." is very clearly written and later confirmed by 3 different support examples. The FC3 being the most important reply.
"Thank you also for your question Hardy, any extra content in the game such as DLC or ULC that you redeemed a code for, will no longer be accessible in the game after September 1st, as it requires a connection to the server to be activated/authorized. As these servers are being shut down, unfortunately, players will not be able to access content from DLC or ULC even if they have previously installed this. I apologize for any disappointment caused by this announcement."
Your sentence is only a re-wording of their announcement : where in the EULA / TOU / TOS / other text are you reading it is allowed ?
French TOU 3.6, 4.1, 4.3c, 16.4c
Now back to English that I can read.
Access to a service does not qualify as DRM on it's own. If Facebook bans you, there's no DRM, they disallowed you access. If Cloudflare goes down, you are denied access to any service that depends on it.
So once more, if a game you bought relies on an online service, it dies when the service dies.
Comment has been collapsed.
Again two parts. Sigh.
Post 1/2
NO. You're reading it correctly, but that's not how a "conflict" is to be evaluated. ...
That's exactly how the conflict is to be evaluated in these terms.
NO, that would be a contradiction, not a conflict. Different words with different meanings, again.
I'll come back to that later, but in the meantime look into politics for example : it's very common people with contradictory objectives are not in conflict.
The TOU says a persistent online connection may be required.
You cut the sentence to fit your purpose, but in fact it's only for online services.
I'm reading the sentence in full to explain it does not mean what you say.
It's clearly not a verb in the TOU (because it's written "the Services" : you can't put "the" before a verb).
meanwhile, previously
a Service is doing something for someone
That's an action, it defines a verb.Regardless, waste of lines as both the definitions that were supplied come from the noun "service"
An action is a noun. It correctly fits what I explained about the meanings of Service (action) and Product (thing).
When you launch (action) the game (thing) on your computer, you're running (action) a thing. Hence why I'm repeating it's not a service but a product.
This is the English TOU. You have the freedom to discuss any French version but I do not.
Old English was partly made from Old French a long time ago (lot of vocabulary taken from us). Thus many similarities, and even things that are identical.
Moving on, from the same Oxford Learner dictionary.
(...)
As said before, definitions can be chosen as necessary to fit the context.
NO. I've explained you why the definition I showed you is the correct one : because of the meaning of the definition, which is the same than in the texts. The common words used both in the dictionary and in the texts are showing that the author of the text did paraphrase the dictionary to make his text more explicit.
By using another definition that fits your purpose without showing validity of that definition (like I did again right above), you're only crafting a void argument.
Ubisoft makes games, but they are only offering you the service allowing you to use them.
NO. That's a license to use, not a service to use, not a service of a license to use. The user is granted a license to use, she is not serviced the license to use. And that would be impossible because the license is abstract, and I already explained you it would need to wrap the license into a token to be able to make it a serviceable product, but this is not the case with videogames !
Not using the correct meaning of words and not using the correct definitions leads you to say pure bullshit : as I wrote above, when the user launch the game on her own device, there is no service from any external company, unless when an online service is involved, which is not the case about a single-player offline game.
I am choosing things that are from similarly represented entities. Meaning they were drafted to be handled in our current reality.
But similarities are misleading you. For example I have multiple copies of the same games from different stores. And there are differences (each store with different TOU/EULA/TOS/etc.). I even own three times the same game on the same store (yep, three times the same game on the same store, it's possible, and I bought it only two times).
Valve doesn't own the IP of the games sold on Steam store.
Valve does own IP of some things on the store, like their games that don't as of yet make it to the number 3.
This was about the use of the word "subscription" which made you uncomfortable. I can't really be 100% affirmative about the USA, but here in France this word is commonly used in similar situations, like I explained.
Again that word "similar" : I'm not meaning those similar situation has anything to do with videogames, for example it can be financial products, and that's not comparable to videogames. But they also use that word "subscription" in a similar situation where a company acts as a sort of "proxy" offering a client to buy something from another company.
Similarly, Ubisoft does not own IP of some things on their store. South Park, Uno, Monopoly, Star Trek Bridge Crew. They had/have licenses to make games of those IP.
You're contradicting yourself : if they made games, then they own the IP of the games they made, unless they sold it (even if they do not own the full IP of all the content they used). And that's a good illustration of the difference between a contradiction and a conflict.
Don't you see that I'm not even trying to fool you ?
The currency by itself cannot be a product.
You deleted a lot of words in between, which is fine to save space, but less fine if you are removing it from the rest of the context.
LOL. In this whole discussion, I deleted far less words than you from my posts.
And I had to re-contextualise things for you probably in each and every of my posts, and multiple times in many of them.
Let's move on something else than saving space : answering you needs more than the 10k characters limit, and I do my best to shorten things.
Comment has been collapsed.
Post 2/2
See unlike the rest of the debatable things like services, "in game currency" is flat in the middle of this statement surrounded by terms that don't face scrutiny.
A currency is "1 [countable, uncountable] the system of money that a country uses".
It is not a product : possibly, that "system" may be a product, but not the currency. Hence what I explained with the "software", the "market" and the "altogether".
But this realization made me humor the earlier idea of visiting the French Terms of Use.
You really should not if you're not already used to read an write French.
So these lines are identical which leads to the TOU being superior again.
Again, you cut the sentence to fit your purpose, but in fact the translation reads " To the extent that the terms of this Agreement conflict with the terms of the Terms of Use, the terms of the Terms of Use shall prevail."
Take a close look at the start of the sentence and you'll see that before even thinking about a "conflict", one shall measure the "extent" of the situation to evaluate if there's a "conflict".
Like I'm repeating : contradictory wording between texts is not enough to assume there is a conflict making one text "superior" above the other.
The debate over services. And here's the big surprise.
(...)
This isn't even a debate in your own language. Which is amazing.
Again, you'll have to look at the start of the sentence, where it's said : "The Ubisoft Services include games".
They used the verb "to include", and this means that "a part of their Services is offering the games to the end-user".
In no way this can be reversed to mean "Games ARE a Service". That would be a misinterpretation, because the two verbs "to include" and "to be" are not synonyms. I don't want to re-explain all of this again.
But anyway this lead us back to what I was saying earlier about the lack of clarity. Other companies are making things easier to understand by making better, clearer definitions.
You guys even define content in 1.3.
NO. § 1.3 does not define what content is.
So tell me how does "Les Services Ubisoft (les « Services ») comprennent les jeux, contenus téléchargeables," not say games and DLC are included in the definition of services?
They are included in Services, and defined as Products in the EULA. They are both and there is no conflict about that.
This is your language. But similar to English, the order is nearly identical and all references to servers are at the end.
But online servers are not defined as Products in the EULA, so they're only services. "online services". Like I'm saying since ages...
Online services =/= your license. Those people on the Wii shop still have licenses, but not access to the content.
Whoa ! So we're nearly good to go. Only remaining topic is this matter of "access to ".
Which evidence ?
The part where "Additionally, the installation and access to downloadable content (DLC) will be unavailable."
And on the other page it's written "Please note that the offline features of the games are unaffected and remain available to you."
Is a single-player offline DLC included in a game ? Hmmm... Maybe. At best it's unclear.
Is a single-player offline DLC included in "the offline features of the games" ? Hmmm... We can certainly say that a game features a few DLC. And it's offline. It looks like it's included, isn't it ?
Thus we have no evidence of anything, only contradictory statements, one saying it will become unavailable, the other saying such features remains available.
... As these servers are being shut down, unfortunately, players will not be able to access content from ...
That's like when you take the plane : before landing, the pilot says "As we empty cargo bays in flight, unfortunately, passengers will not be able to collect their luggage on arrival"
Of course that's not legit at all. But the pilot may do it, and state it. That would still not be an evidence of doing something legit.
French TOU 3.6, 4.1, 4.3c, 16.4c
No, really, you think throwing a bunch of numbers can be an answer to all what I explained before ?
Access to a service does not qualify as DRM on it's own. If Facebook bans you, there's no DRM, they disallowed you access. If Cloudflare goes down, you are denied access to any service that depends on it.
You're confusing the "DRM software thing" with the "DRM".
Reading again EULA § 3.1, I'm seeing :
(iv) during the installation and/or the first launch of the product, an online connection may be required to unlock the product through the drm software.
The "online connection required to unlock" is an online mean to manage a "right to unlock" through the distant use of a DRM software piece.
And it's not written that this "online connection" is in any way an "online service" about which the TOU says so many things you want to apply to the "online connection", but I'm saying again that your reading is a wrong reading and I saw nothing to support it. But I'm still curious about that : how come a policeman checking a driving license would be offering a service to the driver ??? (and of course nowadays, the policeman does use an "online connection" to check the validity of the license) Where such a thing is validly asserted in the texts ???
So once more, if a game you bought relies on an online service, it dies when the service dies.
So once more, that's generally not right to deprive someone from something rightfully obtained with only a technical explanation. Like in, if I cut your arm, you'll only have one left. You have the right to keep your two arms, and I don't have the right to cut one. But technically, I may be able to cut one. It does not give me the right to really cut it.
Isn't that easy to understand ?
Comment has been collapsed.
Final reply. You are free to reply again I have no issues reading whatever, but I have no points to address. 1 week is long enough. And it is devolving from I'm not a lawyer to I'm not an English professor.
NO, that would be a contradiction, not a conflict.
Conflict #3"a situation in which there are ideas, opinions, feelings or wishes that are opposed to each other; a situation in which it is difficult to choose"
Example sentence. " in conflict with something - Many of these ideas appear to be in conflict with each other."
Or more accurately, the verb - "if two ideas, beliefs, stories, etc. conflict, it is not possible for them to exist together or for them both to be true"
Example: "Reports conflicted on how much of the aid was reaching the famine victims."
Original EULA en-us. "To the extent that the provisions of this Agreement conflict with the provisions of the Terms of Use, the conflicting provisions in the Terms of Use shall govern."
If something stated one way in EULA and another in TOU, TOU > EULA.
Contradict#2 - "contradict something contradict each other (of statements or pieces of evidence) to be so different from each other that one of them must be wrong"
Neither statement can be proven to be wrong individually.
EULA = An online connection may be required to unlock product. = True.
TOU = A permanent connection may be required to access services using DRM. = True.
For there to be a contradiction, a key would have to be activated more than once through DRM.
When you launch (action) the game (thing) on your computer, you're running (action) a thing. Hence why I'm repeating it's not a service but a product.
Unfortunately, you have a misunderstanding of what a verb is. Especially in choosing "launch" and "running" for your example.
That's not a noun. That's a verb.
Noun: "I go for a run every morning."
Verb: "She can run really fast."
Noun: "They are preparing for the launch of the new campaign next month."
Verb: "You can launch programs and documents from your keyboard."
You may also use this service if it shall help you in understanding. I make no claims as to the accuracy of this service. But feel free to google any similar service and put in your example sentence (without things like "(action)" of course) and see if any of them tell you otherwise.
By using another definition that fits your purpose without showing validity of that definition (like I did again right above), you're only crafting a void argument.
And I've explained otherwise. And your usage above was wrong.
Additionally, you wish to debate definition #2 vs #3 when both are under "providing something". You are aware there are examples below each, yes?
D #2 "the prison service, the BBC World Service, the Foreign Service"
#3 "We are working hard to improve the services that we provide., We offer clients a broad range of services."
If prison service or world service sound closer to what Ubisoft does, then I'm not sure what to tell you.
unless when an online service is involved, which is not the case about a single-player offline game.
This is the part about implementation that you don't seem to get. You are fighting for what it should be. I agree with what it should be.
But this game was not implemented to work with DLC+ULC because it calls to an online service (in this case, online authentication servers as quoted by support). They don't give you any guarantee that a game cannot be dependent upon an online service for authentication. They can apply it to as much or as little as they want as long as they have the lines about
In fact, I'll frame it again. This is but one possibility, but there can be several combinations to replace terms and still upon similar blocks in access.
[AC Whatever]--->[Ubisoft Connect 1 Time activate DRM]--->[Online Authentication Server(OAS)]--->[Resource server - DLC]
AC whatever is the game. You want to launch it. So you click. It calls out to Ubisoft Connect.
Ubisoft Connect(UC) has a record license (whether delivered from store or entered somewhere in game).
UC hits online activation server. OAS checks its database. Matches your record. Unlocks DLC(whether on disc or not)..
You enjoy your DLC.
But if the OAS dies, it can't verify your license.Therefore, you can't connect to the resource server.
Your feeling is that because you activated it in UC, you should be able to go straight to DLC. But they didn't design it that way. They told you a permanent connection may be required to use services in the TOU(and yes in this instance, it is OAS]. But if the OAS isn't connected, you can't make a permanent connection to it. They also made no guarantee of the Services.
They put out a notice DLC will not be available. You have been linked to answers from support, previous games that have been decommissioned, players who share 100% saves to unlock on disk DLC after shutdowns, you can install a game yourself right now and turn on offline mode to simulate it, and so on.
"Please note that the offline features of the games are unaffected and remain available to you."
Implementation. Single player does not automatically grant the status of "offline." Just as much as "multiplayer" doesn't automatically grant the status of "online".
You can say I am making assumptions for how they implemented it. I sure am. But it is also an assumption that single player = offline.
if they made games, then they own the IP of the games they made, unless they sold it (even if they do not own the full IP of all the content they used).
Casually starting to slip in an swear does not make me enthusiastic for your reply.
You are aware games get delisted from Steam? Granted there are many reasons, but one such is because the developer only was allowed a license to use content for X amount of years. Alan Wake
Not limited to only real world things. Smurfs 2?| Ubisoft Marvel Avengers. Feel free to browse the site for more. Not everything gets confirmation, but it's enough for you to have the general idea.
There's no contradiction with myself.
"Similarly, Ubisoft does not own IP of some things on their store. South Park, Uno, Monopoly, Star Trek Bridge Crew. They had/have licenses to make games of those IP."
#1 - statement that implied ubisoft does not own IP of "some" things on their store. = true
#2 - examples of external IP related games = true
#3 - confirmation of which meaning of IP "make games of those IP" = true. I never wrote Ubisoft does not own code (also IP). "Of those IP" cannot be referring to the game code because that would mean "make games of those codes."
Also because it's a thing to look for the most niche singular example, Sundered Eldritch Edition is not developed, owned, published by Ubisoft. So there's a game that suits your interpretation as well.
It is not a product : possibly, that "system" may be a product, but not the currency.
" a thing that is grown, produced or created, usually for sale". You buy virtual currency.
Do note, as usual, an example provided below it "The bank offers a whole range of financial products and services."
investor.gov defines "financial product" - Examples of financial products include but are not limited to the following: stocks, bonds, derivatives, and currencies.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission - "The CFTC first found that Bitcoin and other virtual currencies are properly defined as commodities in 2015."
IRS.gov in direct reference to games. - "Transacting in virtual currencies as part of a game that do not leave the game environment (virtual currencies that are not convertible) would not require a taxpayer to indicate this on their tax return." Forbes article covering the change
So a financial product can be a currency. Virtual currencies are defined as commodities. IRS won't come after me for missing Helix points on my tax returns because I can't make money off it, unlike bitcoin..
LOL. In this whole discussion, I deleted far less words than you from my posts.
That would be a misinterpretation, because the two verbs "to include" and "to be" are not synonyms.
No, really, you think throwing a bunch of numbers can be an answer to all what I explained before ?
You're right man!
NO. § 1.3 does not define what content is.
Ah yes 1.2 does. Which would have been easier for you to correct my mistake. And this is an example of a contradiction.
I claimed 1.3. You claimed that was incorrect.
And you were correct, therefore my statement was false :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Sir, I'm not your enemy, even if I'm methodically tiresome.
Nothing of this is about learning English (or French), but about being right.
Here, a dictionary may fail to correctly explain legal concepts... like the "conflicting clauses" (simply because that's two words, and a dictionary only defines words one by one).
You're doing it wrong about conflicts. If courts were to follow you, then any evil person would be able to write contracts containing clauses saying things opposite to other clauses, making the whole contracts an unreadable and incomprehensible messy soup of words (that's sometimes done in movies). That's not right to do so in the USA, in France, and in many countries : the authors of the contract have to write it with the intent of being clear enough. This really mean they must not deliberately create conflicting clauses in the terms (that would be an abusive wording of the contracts). But you're saying they made one, and I think that is wrong, as I illustrated with the example of the two persons with different musical tastes, there is no conflicting clauses by themselves, and there is no "TOU > EULA" thing in the contracts terms themselves allowing to say a Game is preferably a Service than a Product with the intent to discard some provision about the Products (the one limiting DRMs). I showed (and repeated) a reading of those terms that avoids any and all conflict, and I'm still unaware of any provision going against that reading (if existing).
Unfortunately, you have a misunderstanding of what a verb is.
That's impossible : you talked with me during so many days, thus I necessarily understand what a verb is.
Anyway, the verb finder page you gave a link to highlights as verbs what I tagged as (action). That problem is typically English, a language in which nouns can easily become verbs, but we're not doing that in French : in our language verbs stays verbs and nouns stays nouns. In case of doubt I always can think about the idea in French, and I will find the verb with no error.
... you wish to debate definition #2 vs #3 when both are under "providing something" ...
No, I won't "debate the dictionary".
I took the correct definition in a French dictionary, which is detailed enough, then only tried to find a complete English dictionary.
You're overlooking that part of what I explained, and that's again to fit your purpose : for example that definition #3 is clearly too vague because it does not say which type of service is provided, it even says "a broad range". It may be a religious or spiritual service, which has nothing to do with the topic. Hence it's invalid, and it's common with tote words like "service". In turn those words needs a very detailed dictionary, and I only know about one in French (but maybe it also exists in English).
unless when an online service is involved, which is not the case about a single-player offline game.
This is the part about implementation that you don't seem to get. You are fighting for what it should be. I agree with what it should be.
Of course I am fighting for what it should be, you correctly got that :)
But you overlooked why !
Laws here are enforcing at least two warranties, which are not written in the EULA/TOU/TOS (there is no requirement to write it).
The first warranty is the warranty of conformity/compliance.
The second warranty is the warranty against hidden defects.
That's why I'm not listening to your explanations about the way they designed it : here there is a question to ask first : "was this design compliant with the contract ?". If not, then their design would be faulty and couldn't be used to justify a decision (here we're back to decision vs. reason) : a faulty design would be their sole liability.
In the agreement the DRMs shall trigger only once, and not each time. Then the game design shall follow that rule, and any other design is non-conformant. Even if they wrote they're providing no warranty about anything, they are still required to provide the legal warranties.
But here, you're involving the "online services", you're involving the "game is a service", you're involving "the TOU > EULA", all of that to void my reading of the game being a product (at least for all offline parts) only subject to DRM checks and no other connectivity issues as per the agreement.
The matter is you never explained the validity of any of those assertion by the texts. You're each time falling back to technical explanations : event if that's real, laws here are requiring conformity, not the opposite.
If there's no provision in the agreements requiring an "online service" to play a single-player game, then whatever they did technically requiring a connection to a server is not conformant.
There are games requiring a permanent connection to a server (an "online service") to play, and even to play alone (which is quite close to "single-player offline" in terms of player experience) ; but if we were to compare the agreements they would look different, stating it clearly is required.
So, to answer more precisely some of your points :
But if the OAS dies, it can't verify your license. Therefore, you can't connect to the resource server.
If there was an OAS, then they would had wrote it in the agreement. They didn't, what is written is DRM, and I don't remember reading something telling the "online services" are about allowing the right to play.
But they didn't design it that way.
Are you able to show that the way it was designed is conformant to the agreement provisions ?
It's very comfortable to say there's an OAS, that's an "online service", it needs a permanent online connection, etc.
But at first, I've not seen where the player agreed to the existence of this OAS. For me what is written is only a DRM check once and for all.
They also made no guarantee of the Services.
Legal provisions applies (warranty of conformity at first).
"Please note that the offline features of the games are unaffected and remain available to you."
Implementation. Single player does not automatically grant the status of "offline." Just as much as "multiplayer" doesn't automatically grant the status of "online".
You're your own worst advocate here : that's their task to state clearly what they sell, and make you knowing it before you pay. For example, in a tetris game, most players will never reach a good world ranking (because of the mathematical averaging of the ranks in a Gaussian-like curve as new players comes), so requiring an online connection to the online service managing world ranks may be a bad design choice : the player should be able to choose if and when he wants to be ranked, no?
Anyway, they can't add a required "online service" without a purpose to a game that may work well without this "online service". This is mainly why people are often expecting to be able to play single-player games offline, and it's possibly a valid expectation in terms of conformity (law requirement).
And also, thinking globally, those online servers are using electricity, and it burns the Earth which is already warm enough. We're in 2022, I expect them to be smart about the energy consumption when they design the requirements of the game.
Casually starting to slip in an swear does not make me enthusiastic for your reply.
Well, what? 🤐
" a thing that is grown, produced or created, usually for sale". You buy virtual currency.
Hmm... NO, but interesting references on that topic.
A better explanation :
When a currency is marketable in an exchange, people may want to buy an amount of it for itself because of its market quotation. And that amount of a currency can be made a product (a quoted thing). But not the currency itself, which is abstract. 😜
Look again at your references, you'll see the idea of amount is essential to what they say, sell, etc.
About ingame virtual currencies, they're not marketable, it's only a mean to do a two-handshake trade : first handshake, you pay an amount of real-world currency for an amount of virtual currency ; second handshake, you buy some ingame item with an amount of virtual currency. You never buy the virtual currency itself, you only pay for an amount of it.
To say it the other way : the trade is complete on the second handshake, and the first one is not a complete transaction but only a mean to express your intent to buy. You can't buy your own intent, but you may pay to show it.
So a financial product can be a currency. Virtual currencies are defined as commodities.
NO, here the financial product is the account holding the amount of currency you own. Like for other "units" (stocks, bonds, derivatives, .... virtual currencies). This is lining up well with the altogether in "altogether the Ubisoft Products" in the TOS.
Ah yes 1.2 does. [define what content is]
§ 1.2 shows a more interesting line, and also in the English version [cutting the French one out to stay below 10k characters] :
EN: In addition, when using particular Service(s), You shall be subject to any posted guidelines or policies and/or other terms ", including without limitation the terms of sale (“Terms of Sale”), the End User License Agreement (“EULA”) and other "game rules" applicable to such Service(s).
Which in turn leads back to ... "conflicts", but adding something interesting with "when using particular Service(s)" : it indicates that when the TOU encompasses something also particularly defined in the EULA, then the fact the TOU encompasses it is not meaning the EULA cease to apply, which is ruling out the interpretation of the DRM being "online services" : DRM are instead one of the particularities of the Products, only defined in the EULA.
Another way of saying again the same thing.
At least it's how I'm reading it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
By the bye, have a nice one...
Comment has been collapsed.
Sir, I'm not your enemy, even if I'm methodically tiresome.
Only thing that needs a reply. No enemies were made. I respect your points and was simply giving you the opportunity to make the final statements as I moved on. I may encounter you in another topic down the line and think no less of you :)
Comment has been collapsed.
it doesnt matter anyway what such corporations writes in their EULA if you from Europe, as that not overwrites local law here.
Comment has been collapsed.
I know that for the most part. I was not only thinking about myself.
If you wonder where my interest on this topic comes from, that's because of my work IRL. Like people working for gaming companies, my job makes me create content that would qualify for copyright protections. Like them, I don't own that IP, the company is. But here stops the comparison. Then for me the company doesn't use IP laws at all to sell to the clients, because that's not sold to consumers but to other companies (and made specifically for them). It ends to be very different, when at the beginning it looked very similar. So I'm curious, that's all.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah. I think it's a disgusting, lazy practice to keep activation for offline (or should-be-offline) games/DLC tied to an online service for so long - and especially after deciding to shut down the relevant service.
Comment has been collapsed.
Totally agree. Plus I don't understand why it would be so costly to keep just the activation servers up: I don't even get why this isn't on the same servers for all games at once :s
Either terrible programming on their part, or incredible laziness :x
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not against the copy or for the company, but I do think that they deciding to leave Steam was a shitty move. I really liked all my AC games in one place and I'm sad to see them just there. Valhalla would have been awesome on Steam.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think I'd not leave any for anybody. I love cake. What type is your preferred one? Used to like chocolate as a kid, but now I kinda fancy more the fruit cakes. They are a lot more easy and refreshing.
Comment has been collapsed.
Haha, i prefer fruit ones as well. Mainly ones that have jelly or some kind of cream filling. Chocolate tends to be too sweet imo :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Used to love it so much I could eat a whole cake. Now I agree, that it's too sweet. It's either homemade is more tolerable or I'm getting old and fussy. 😅
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm actually impressed those still have some kind of multi..
Comment has been collapsed.
So if you're an achievement hunter, you may want to get on them if they're DLC or multiplayer related.
I checked the store pages and none of those games have achievements.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thank you for the double check. I just kind of wrote it as a general warning since this covers all platforms where this is a possibility, not just Steam itself. And I can see Far Cry 3 has co-op achievements on Uplay at least. However, to better present information, I should update to reflect that.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, I guess they have it on Uplay to win the gold coins thingy that you can trade for %off your purchase (I don't remember exactly that thing, I didn't use Uplay for years and never bought anything on it)
Comment has been collapsed.
no worries. I never used that system myself. They only finally got money from me with the semi recent "Legendary" sale, which I believe didn't allow you to combine with anything else anyway haha.
Comment has been collapsed.
Some companies like their games, and keep them running for the long term (or sometimes even opens them to allow other people to take care of it).
Other companies do not.
Being curious, I did some stats with the release dates :
Anno 2070 : 2011-11-17
Assassin's Creed II : 2009-11-17
Assassin's Creed 3 : 2012-10-30
Assassin's Creed Brotherhood : 2010-11-16
Assassin's Creed Liberation HD : 2013-01-14
Assassin's Creed Revelations : 2011-11-15
Driver San Francisco : 2011-09-01
Far Cry 3 : 2012-11-29
Ghost Recon Future Soldier : 2012-05-22
Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands : 2010-05-18
Rayman Legends : 2013-08-29
Silent Hunter 5 : 2010-03-02
Space Junkies : 2019-03-26
Splinter Cell: Blacklist : 2013-08-20
ZombiU : 2012-11-18
Oldest of those games (Assassin's Creed II) lasted 12,8 years.
Youngest (Space Junkies) only 3,5 years.
On average those games lasted 10,2 years.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks for pulling the dates. And yeah 10 years of support on average is solid. I just don't love that some DLC is going to die with this, not so much for these games but the fact it can continue moving forwards. People might lose significant single player content like that.
Comment has been collapsed.
I have games from the 90s installed on my computer. How come you think 10 years is solid ? Even CDs are lasting longer, and vinyls even longer... 😲
Comment has been collapsed.
Because multi requires people.. What's the point to keep up a server that you can't find a game to enter as you are alone?
Comment has been collapsed.
I have Assassin's Creed 3 in my backlog since a very very very long time -- started it, played a few hours, then played something else and so on. It's still installed.
...and there's a decent single player story in this game, of course 😁
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah multiplayer games losing support after 10 years isn't uncommon to me, in fact, I'd say that's probably better than average. If they did things like some older games where people could host their own servers, then these things could be like your old games on CDs and live forever. But unfortunately, that's not the case here.
However, at least the single player portions will live. But I know there's single player games with always online kinda functionality as well, and while they may be outside the scope of this thread, I imagine several games like that have or will also face similar issues.
Comment has been collapsed.
Shame that they're shutting down servers for probably the most memorable games. I'm sure that a lot of people had fun playing the Assassin's Creed games up to Liberation. Far Cry 3 is an absolute banger , same with Driver San Francisco. The Anno franchise? I don't know or remember a single person who ever played it, so no opinion on it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't know anyone for Anno either, but it's a franchise so there must be a fairly sizable community for it.
That said, most of the AC games will be fine as the majority of content is in the base game/single player. But I can't speak on which DLC in them that's not just multiplayer things that may also be lost. And while Black Flag isn't on the list, I read a few comments that said the multiplayer on there isn't totally dead so there's still an opportunity until it comes up on the list in a few years too.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, some of these games still have active communities but it's just not cost efficient to support these games and they also need server space for upcoming games like Tom Clancy's XDefiant, which is from what I understand a battle royale game.
Comment has been collapsed.
ah another battle royale in the current environment? I don't see that lasting too long. But best of luck to them.
Comment has been collapsed.
I played some Anno quite a bit... Never Assassin's Creed though, that's for younger people :D
Comment has been collapsed.
Ah it's shame they're shutting down Assassin's Creed multiplayer, it was really fun and unique.
Comment has been collapsed.
At least multiplayer for revelations and black flag is gonna live more time.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh yea you're right Revelations only gets shutdown on PS3 and xbox 360, not on pc. Which is kind of weird since AC3 is getting shut down too which is an even newer game than Revelations
Comment has been collapsed.
They should / MUST repair the dlc part of that dilemma. Everyone who have these games purchased do not deserve to lose access to some dlcs. Losing a part of a DLC that sometimes explains a bit of the story of the game is not well, and even worse when one paid for them to play.
Very different is the problem of the multiplayer of very old games.
Comment has been collapsed.
We'll see if they do anything but doubtful since the article links to other games that have undergone this process in the past. (I barely remembered "OnLive" being a thing).
But man I look at this like, in 10 years, what if they pull the AC Valhalla DLC too? No I probably won't personally care about it, but that's a pretty big game with a lot of extra content to miss out on.
Comment has been collapsed.
I can fully understand pulling servers for multiplayer for old games, as long as there no longer is a big playerbase. If there still is a big playerbase on a daily basis for old games, servers should be kept running.
Pulling access to DLC content you have bought is straight up illegal here in Europe and totally violates European consumer laws and rights. They can not take away your bought DLCs without handing out full refunds.
But, it will be as always: No one sues and no fine will be imposed on Ubisoft.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah nothing will really change. Ubisoft was even founded in France, I believe, so they should know European laws better than most.
But at least some people can get advance notice about it now.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah I believe the argument would be that they are giving you access to a license to use the software, not actual ownership. But I thought I had heard in the EU that doesn't fly.
Comment has been collapsed.
Let`s face it: we ONLY buying license to use program (yep game is program) even if is on physical media. And EU politician is easy to buy a "opinion"
Comment has been collapsed.
Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell Blacklist: Homeland DLC is SP and Co-op DLC activation need serwer connection! (but not mention on article)
Comment has been collapsed.
Ubisoft is a small company and I'm sure if they had the resources they would have done everything in their power to make sure we would have access to our purchased content. Sorry to those who are affected. I recommend contacting Ubisoft and voicing your concerns, not making future purchases from their company if they don't change their ways, and maybe even taking legal action against them individually or by joining a class action lawsuit. Don't let them do this to you without a fight, or things will only continue down this path.
Comment has been collapsed.
I always love those calls to legal action where nothing comes out of it as gamers are notoriously apathetic. It would suffice to complain at your local consumer rights organization. For Ubisoft customers in EU this would be BEUC: https://www.beuc.eu/contact
As we have seen recently with Diablo: Immortal member countries like Belgium and the Netherlands are well aware of the shenanigans of the game industry and have the power and will to put an end to it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Americans are more litigious than most, if not all, other countries. I don't know if it's strictly cultural or because it's more effective. Contacting a local consumer protection agency is a good idea as well. The best way to get compensation will vary based on where you live.
Comment has been collapsed.
How is the Ubisoft a small company? They have over twenty thousand employees and earning hundreds of millions each year.
Comment has been collapsed.
The first sentence was pure sarcasm. Sorry to those who are affected. I recommend contacting me and voicing your concerns, not reading future comments from me if I don't change my ways, and maybe even taking legal action against me individually or by joining a class action lawsuit. Don't let me do this to you without a fight, or things will only continue down this path.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's my bad, I didn't paid attention enough. Now I can see the irony after reading again.
Comment has been collapsed.
Most of my Ubisoft library consists of old games like this they gave away to entice players to their platform.
Removing multiplayer isn't a big thing for me since I usually avoid multiplayer for most games and with time you have to cut the cord for server costs, but the preventing use and purchase of single player DLC is grimey.
Which sort of highlights a problem with a lot of companies and platforms who force you to log in to experience single player game play.
You technically don't own your games you paid a one time fee to access it from their servers.
I'll admit I never launched a game on their platform yet. Some of the games have been on my "to play" list for ages. A common issue when companies started leaving Steam to make their own launchers and services.
A lot of them pulled the "I'm Going To Build My Own Theme Park With Blackjack and Hookers!" gimmick and weren't sure if people would follow.
But it is what it is.
Would be nice if they put out some type of multiplayer kit for fans to start their own multiplayer servers but if wishes were fishes.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah I just posted this to share the story a bit. Despite them leaving Steam, they do still have versions of the game on the platform that would be affected by this.
I won't lie, I'm also the same way about most multiplayer games. I would have kept scrolling if it just said killing multiplayer, but when they put DLC on there I had to pause. Honestly makes me wonder about their single player base games down the line, as I recently purchased AC Revelations in Ubisoft Connect itself, I noticed that every time I launch it for the first time, I have to enter my password. It's a minor annoyance, but still an annoyance, and means it's doing a validation check to some server that they could decide to shut down eventually too.
But that's not the problem for today so I won't complain about that.
Comment has been collapsed.
So they're finally killing off Driver San Francisco for good.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is why I buy Ubisoft games only at huge discounts. Their silly always online model means most of their games will stop working at some point.
Comment has been collapsed.
I believe this is a good way anyway. If you don't want to play it immediately or feel like a multiplayer component of a game is important, there's no real rush to experience it.
Comment has been collapsed.
And is it not about dlc to multi? Character skins and additional maps?
As someone has rightly pointed out: taking the purchased dlc to the single mode would be simply a theft under European law.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry, I don't own most of the games in this list much less with DLC. I know most of it is multiplayer DLC related, but in quick skimming, there's things like the Deluxe Pack of Far Cry 3 that clearly say single player missions. So based on the page, a person should be losing access to that content.
Comment has been collapsed.
I have already written to the support to clarify this issue.
I am also going to inform the consumer ombudsman about the case.
Ubisoft has no right to deprive me of dlc to single player mode. If they have a problem, let them add the dlc content to the base version, or let them send out millions of DVDs / pendrives with installers.
Comment has been collapsed.
I just started playing Driver:SF, and its server is already down lol.
Comment has been collapsed.
https://store.steampowered.com/app/647590/Space_Junkies/
Basically a scam level, selling game that stops working in ~2 months on big discount without any notice on store page...
Comment has been collapsed.
yeah that's kinda low there. An argument can be made for most other games in the decommission notice since their core functionality will still exist, but Space Junkies is multiplayer and flat out won't work based on their notice.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nice to see it's getting a little coverage. Not quite big, but it's something.
However, far more interesting to me is learning the Anno 2070 devs are actually trying to fix this problem themselves. They may not be able to, but that's quite the honorable stance they've taken.
Comment has been collapsed.
Absolutely ridiculous that players can't access DLC any longer after this...
Anyone know if the affected Assassin's Creeds have any story DLC or is it just cosmetics for those?
Comment has been collapsed.
Assassin's creed 3 has Tyranny of King Washington (DLC)
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not the Assassin's Creed expert so my knowledge will be basically googling at best.
But AC: Brotherhood with "The Da Vinci Disappearance", whether or not that's included in the base game for download purposes, I'm not sure. Several games also include things that are Ubisoft club content including things like ammunition pouch increases, which is QoL but if that's also cut out by this, may be an additional annoyance that shouldn't exist.
Comment has been collapsed.
When servers were shut down years ago, h.a.w.x 2 started to get problems, we could no more play, Ubisoft didn't care.
Once i asked them what would happen to Steep when servers would be turned off, they answered me that it's a game as a service, no more server no more game, the end. So when we buy a solo game with online connection, we don't buy a perpetual game, just a time-limited service.
It's disappointing for single player games and similarly, i wonder what will happen to Hitman (not ubisoft, but a single player game with online connection required) when servers will be off.
Comment has been collapsed.
Very unfortunate there and doesn't bode well for future games.
As far as Hitman goes, I'd say keep a watch on it. If you recall a few months back, GOG the famously DRM free store tried to release Hitman on their platform but ultimately it still used too much online connection stuff and they pulled it. However, they did say they were still in talks with IO Interactive so perhaps they will resolve it down the line.
EDIT: Person below covered it better.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well i just hope that one day devs will give us an offline version if they shut down servers.
Comment has been collapsed.
Friendly reminder that, whenever we buy a game, we always buy a time-limited license to play it.
Except that the "time limit" is usually unlimited... for normal companies selling normal games, that is.
About HITMAN, quoting the article on PCGamingWiki
The game requires a constant internet connection for some features to work properly (Elusive targets, Contracts mode, Level progression, Weapon unlocking, and Challenge progression).
There also used to be a DRM-free version on GOG, which was quickly pulled due to outrage about (optional) online requirements.
How it works should be a pretty good preview of what will happen after the eventual server shutdown:
Offline mode has very limited functionality; only the six basic levels with no progression or unlocking options, as well as other caveats listed at the top of the page, are available for offline "DRM-Free" mode.
HITMAN 2 lists the same limitations as 1, minus Level progression and Weapon unlocking, while HITMAN 3 just mentions Contracts mode and Challenge progression as requiring a constant internet connection.
Hitman: Absolution also provides a rather egregious example, with the Contracts mode, and all related achievements, being effectively dead since the "temporary" server shutdown in May 2018... at least the game itself still works just fine.
Comment has been collapsed.
So, a theft in progress I see. Nice. All these "always online" games are set up for this. First, they screw over legitimate customers with their "always online" services when we have a bad internet connection (Oh yeah, please, Ubisoft, disturb my gameplay in the middle of the session to tell me in a message that covers the whole screen that I have been disconnected from the servers, or just outright KICK ME OUT OF MY SINGLE-PLAYER GAME). And then second they screw us over a second time when they decide the cash cow is done and the game is left to die. I hate modern gaming practices so much. All of this is so anti-consumer that it's nauseating. 20 DLCs for every single new game that comes out that are more or less essential to enjoy the game, always online features, spying software required upon installation (even in single-player games!!!). Truly the golden age of gaming was when you would buy them on physical CD/DVD and keep all the content forever, as long as you had the CD with you. Also, no coming back to a game in 2 years and finding that half the licensed soundtrack is gone because it was not profitable to renew the licenses anymore. Sickening.
Comment has been collapsed.
I wouldn't call it a theft in progress (but a half-theft for sure), more like an announced disaster, or planned obsolescence.
Because they did know it would happen. We can consider ourselves lucky if at least the base games keep working.
Yeah, I totally agree, I miss the golden ages of gaming where you could just stick a floppy, CD, or DVD inside the relevant drive, install the game, and then it just worked out of the box.
No internet requirements. No signing in for accounts. No installing crappy launchers.
No content cut from the base game to be sold as DLC. No yearly season passes. No microtransactions.
No multiple different DRM schemes 'cause hurr durr pirates here, pirates there, pirates everywhere, pirates stole our sweet rolls.
And most importantly, no games as a service, and no shutting down anything - there was NOTHING to shut down to begin with.
At the absolute worst you'll just have to do some background work to make older games work, no more, no less.
Modern kids won't even know what floppies, CD, or DVDs look like, let alone how things worked before it all went down the drain in the name of profits. Pretty frightening when you think things are only gonna get worse from now on.
Comment has been collapsed.
I tried to reinstall some games on cd/dvd recently out of curiosity, surprisingly the support was not as solid as i thought, it looks intact and without scratches but they are now unreadable.
Comment has been collapsed.
And then these scummy publishers cry when we pirate their games instead of buying them. Pirating gives you better performance in games, all the content, and it's yours forever. Unlike these online services which are basically a scam. You can't even buy discs anymore because all they give you is a code. Even if there is a disc, half of the content is not on it or the game needs tons of patches because it's broken on day 1.
What happened to 2005 when we buy a disc and all the content is on it? You play and you unlock stuff and everything just works?
Comment has been collapsed.
A curse of many companies aiming to create bigger spectacles with bigger budgets. It works to a certain extent, but many have strict expectations on release dates, so it's about getting it out the door on time whenever possible as opposed to as complete as possible. It's not every game that releases like this even now, but it is admittedly the popular release strategy now.
But I do accept that to a certain extent, even back in the day, some games that couldn't be patched probably needed to be. So there are benefits to the modern strategy of post release support.
But pulling paid content after release is a headstratcher for me.
Comment has been collapsed.
I have a Prince of Persia game on disc. I doubt they bothered to playtest it. The amount of game breaking bugs and graphical issues is nuts. I literally had to use a hack to get through a door that wouldn't open when the trigger should have opened it.
That was the first and only time I had ever played a game that was so broken upon full disc release. There were no updates or patches ever made. Ubisoft has always been a disappointment of a company.
Comment has been collapsed.
August 31, 2022 Update invalidates a lot of this original topic. New information.
Basic summary. Shutdown moved to October 1, 2022. DLC access not revoked but needs to be activated before October
Original topic and updates below:
These are older games but some are on sale right now, so some people may have picked them up for one reason or another. So if you're an achievement hunter**, you may want to get on them if they're DLC or multiplayer related. I can't offer any advice as I don't know the details of most of these games.
**These games don't have Steam achievements but may have them on other platforms you might own them like Ubisoft Connect or PS/Xbox.
Selective summary:
Full information
EDIT: Another SteamGifts thread has revealed at least two games will be inaccessible, but that statement was later retracted. However, that has no bearing on the decommissioning itself which is this thread and still occurring.
EDIT2: If you are in the EU or a country that has similar laws, perhaps you can make use of this example letter written by AmanoTC
Comment has been collapsed.