You will own nothing, eat bugs, and be happy.
this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2025
382 points (99.2% liked)
Games
18607 readers
526 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Ubisoft: 'You don’t own your games.' Me: 'Cool, so when I uninstall The Crew, I’ll send you an invoice for storage fees since it’s technically YOUR property.'"
Also, The Crew was supposed to last until 2099? Bro, Ubisoft can’t even keep their servers alive for a weekend, let alone 76 years.
load more comments
(1 replies)
If you don't want to loose access to games and you are European you can sign the following petition https://eci.ec.europa.eu/045/public/#/screen/home . If 1 million Europeans sign that the European commission has to deal with this practice
load more comments
(1 replies)
I would be more open to the “you don’t actually own your games” thing if I wasn’t being sold a digital thing that will definitely get pulled out of my hands at some point, for more than the cost of the physical copies we used to get ($70 minimum now, vs $40-50). And even in the case of The Crew, you got fucked regardless of having a physical copy or not.
I pay for GamePass knowing that I don’t own the games on there. It’s a subscription just like the Sega Channel was.
Online services going away is fine. That’s been a thing that’s happened for years with other games. But the game should still remain playable in some fashion. If it becomes fully inaccessible at the end of life, customers have a legitimate reason to be upset.
Online services going away is fine. That’s been a thing that’s happened for years with other games. But the game should still remain playable in some fashion. If it becomes fully inaccessible at the end of life, customers have a legitimate reason to be upset.
It's not even just that. Society at large has an even more legitimate reason to be upset, because the whole social contract by which we agreed to even grant the publisher copyright in the first place was predicated on the work eventually entering the Public Domain. Destroying the work to prevent that from happening is more truly "theft" than "pirating" copies of it could ever be!
The server component of online games ought to be required by law to be submitted to the Library of Congress for eventual release to the public.
load more comments
(7 replies)
So I actually read the article, even though there are huge outstanding questions on the nature of ownership, that’s actually not what the court argument is about:
Replying to Ubisoft’s argument that the statute of limitations is up, the plaintiffs responded with their own photos of The Crew’s packaging, which states that the activation code for the game doesn’t expire until 2099; that’s an example of how Ubisoft “implied that [The Crew] would remain playable during this time and long thereafter,”
Well yeah… software as a service is a thing but Ubisoft is straight up lying…
My two cents: no one is expecting online services to be up forever, so imo the correct solution is open source the game after the company meets their 10 (or 20) year obligation which should be clearly pointed out during the initial rental agreement (shouldn’t call it purchase)
If a company decides to stop hosting it's online service they should be required to open it up for third party hosting. By ending their support they are admitting the profit capture is over so if another company wants to host it for profit so be it.
load more comments
(5 replies)
there are huge outstanding questions on the nature of ownership
There really aren't, though. There is only the well-established and correct understanding of it as embodied by things like the Uniform Commercial Code, and lying criminals trying to gaslight us into letting them steal our property rights.
Fine but if I give money for games it will only be to indie studios, otherwise I'll sail the seven cyberseas.
Oh cool then piracy isn't theft.
I agree with the sentiment, but what exactly is the explanation for this? If you're allowed to lease or rent or purchase a license, isn't stealing that thing for free still theft?
Chill with the downvotes - I'm not disagreeing. I'm just trying to understand where the line is.
I mean, are you taking your definition of "theft" from the law? Or from your own internal set of ethics for right and wrong? Is it theft if no one is deprived of anything, because bits copy, and because you'd never trade dollars for the privilege of maintaining an exploitative relationship with a company but that is all they've made available?
If you're hung up on whether the legal system thinks it's theft - I dunno what to tell ya, it obviously does.
Edit: uh, maybe you're literally asking for how the logic in that statement works, which I read as just "if it can't be owned, how can it be stolen?"
Yeah, I am just confused on the logic. Like what is the relation between us not owning it (which is bad) and piracy not being theft? I wholeheartedly agree that pirating things is okay if a license gets revoked, and it is 100% okay to pirate something you bought even if you still have the license and it hasn't been revoked. It's yours. You paid money for it. But from my understanding, this statement doesn't just cover people who bought it, but everyone, regardless of if they bought it.
load more comments
(1 replies)
As someone else pointed out when this article was posted yesterday, the legal system doesn't consider it theft, it's considered copyright infringement, though I suspect this doesn't change anyone's opinion on it
Oh, yeah that makes sense too. Bad premise all around I guess.
I couldn't possibly care less about what a megacorp tries telling me what I may or may not do with information that can be copied perfectly and infinitely at 0 cost.
load more comments
(10 replies)
For me the difference would be the pricing model.
One time purchase? It's mine.
F2P/subscription model? I know the service will die some day.
Do you feel the same way about, for example, a video rental store?
Chill with the downvotes - I'm not disagreeing. I'm just trying to understand where the line is.
Indeed. If I buy a video rental store, I expect it to be mine until it goes bankrupt.
You're specifically paying for an agreed upon amount of time with the product. The negotiated price reflects this limited access to the product.
'Licensing' something with no stated time frame that one side can arbitrarily choose to end at any time makes little sense and they know it. They were perfectly happy with leveraging the assumption that you owned a copy of the product up until it became inconvenient to them.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(11 replies)
I mean... yeah, we don't. And we know it. That's kind of the whole issue. But it's obviously more nuanced or we wouldn't have a problem with the system. We kind of want ownership, or more of it. More say in what we can do with the things we buy.
Licence is a separate category from ownership. Clear distinction in marketing, sales, and operation would help a lot with these conflicts. Selling them with the same techniques, channels, and methods gives players a false sense of permanence even if they're labelled as services.
Not sure what that distinction would look like. But it should look more honest.
Not sure what that distinction would look like. But it should look more honest.
Just look at all MMOs. Everybody knows the game will only last as long as the servers are alive and that all you're downloading is a game client. Even if it's a one time purchase and no subscription (e.g. Elder Scrolls Online), its very clear you're only buying access to the game (usually part of the game content, other parts cost extra), not the game itself.
Honestly, that's probably where GOG fits in. They grant you a license to download the full game without DRM. I don't know if they already do this, but if a game is planned to be delisted, they could warn players and allow them to download a final copy that should work whether the listing exists or not.
In that way, you have a coexisting license and ownership of what you pay for.
load more comments
(2 replies)
It wasn't like they were gonna go "oh sorry, our bad, have your game back".
Well, I stopped paying ubisoft long ago.
Certainly doesn't help that their launcher is significantly worse than even EA's. That's a feat.