this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2025
1101 points (98.7% liked)

Games

37571 readers
1528 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here and here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Full title: Ubisoft says you "cannot complain" it shut down The Crew because you never actually owned it, and you weren't "deceived" by the lack of an offline version "to access a decade-old, discontinued video game"

Ubisoft's lawyers have responded to a class action lawsuit over the shutdown of The Crew, arguing that it was always clear that you didn't own the game and calling for a dismissal of the case outright.

The class action was filed in November 2024, and Ubisoft's response came in February 2025, though it's only come to the public's attention now courtesy of Polygon. The full response from Ubisoft attorney Steven A. Marenberg picks apart the claims of plaintiffs Matthew Cassell and Alan Liu piece by piece, but the most common refrain is that The Crew's box made clear both that the game required an internet connection and that Ubisoft retained the right to revoke access "to one or more specific online features" with a 30-day notice at its own discretion.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 35 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

"Nobody reads those EULAs, and the Defendant knows that. Therefore, the Defendant cannot hide behind the EULA as a shield because the Prosecution, having clicked Agree without being required to confirm that they read through the terms, could not have possibly known what they were agreeing to."

"If you are what you agree to, your Honor, then my clients are an unknown spaghetti of legal mumbo jumbo."

"No further remarks, your Honor."

[–] [email protected] 33 points 4 days ago (2 children)

I would relish a lawsuit against EULAs where the defendant somehow sends the prosecutor a EULA in a software package that declares that they automatically lose the lawsuit by clicking Agree.

It would really hammer in the point that fucking NOBODY reads this shit.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 4 days ago

I think someone calculated the time it would take to read every single one you're expected to agree with in normal every day life, and it worked out to needing 76 work days to read everything you "agree" to in a typical year.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 4 days ago (1 children)

There was a video game store that once, for April Fools Day, included in its sale terms:

By placing an order via this Web site on the first day of the fourth month of the year 2010 Anno Domini, you agree to grant Us a non transferable option to claim, for now and for ever more, your immortal soul. Should We wish to exercise this option, you agree to surrender your immortal soul, and any claim you may have on it, within 5 (five) working days of receiving written notification from gamesation.co.uk or one of its duly authorized minions.

Only 12% of people that purchased that day responded, essentially confirming only 12% of people actually read the terms.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

12% is honestly way higher than I thought it would be. That number might be inflated by people looking for funny stuff on April 1st though

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 days ago

We are not accounting for the percentage of people who read it but are still cool with forfeiting their soul.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago

I think one could successfully argue in a court of law that people tend to be hyper aware on April 1st, and so may have read the terms suspecting something amiss when they otherwise would not have.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days ago

The judge would tell you you're an idiot who said nothing worthwhile and that ignorance of the things you agree to doesn't make them void when they're used against you.