Buying a Video Game is misleading - It shouldn't be.
As an always-online game, The Crew requires a server to function, even for parts that are technically single-player. Ubisoft revoking the license means that you don't own the game anymore. The issue is that, legally, you never owned the game in the first place.
What is happening?
An article by PC Gamer draws attention to the fact that Ubisoft has apparently begun to strip licenses for its game The Crew from people's libraries.
This is after the game servers had gone offline at the end of March 2024. As an always-online game, The Crew requires a server to function, even for parts that are technically single-player. Revoking the license means that you effectively don't own the game anymore.
The issue is that, legally, you never owned the game in the first place.
The Ownership Issue
When consumers buy a game, they think they are buying a game - my own language here betrays how we think about these things. We think of buying a game the same way we think of buying a book, a thing we own.
This did hold true to some extent back in the day, when we bought cartridges for our NESs, N64s and so on, when the entire game was on the cartridge and there was no online connection whatsoever. Even then, however, we never really owned the game, we were granted a licensed copy.
What is a purchase?
In general terms, a purchase is an agreement whereby ownership of a good is transferred from the individual offering it, to the person purchasing it (usually in exchange for money).
Ownership, meanwhile, means that the owner is free to do with their acquired good as they please.
They may use it for its intended purpose. They may use it for a different purpose. They may modify it, lend it to a different person, sell it, even destroy it.
The former owner has no way of complaining about what the current owner chooses to do with the good.
That is not what's happening with a licence agreement.
A Look at Ubisoft's EULA
This is where the EULA comes in. The End User Licence Agreement, the bit of Legalese everyone skips excitedly on their way to playing that new game they just "bought". Let's take a look at Ubisoft's EULA as of 14.04.2024.
1. GRANT OF LICENSE.
1.1 UBISOFT (or its licensors) grants You a non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicensed, non-commercial and personal license to install and/or use the Product (in whole or in part) and any Product (the “License”), for such time until either You or UBISOFT terminates this EULA.
To make sense of the initial part:
Ubisoft is granting you a license to use the product, but that license is:
a) non-exclusive: This license is not just granted to you, but to everyone entering this agreement.
b) non-transferable: You cannot give this license to your uncle, only you may benefit from it.
c) non-sublicensed: You yourself cannot grant the right to this license to another person, i.e. You cannot give someone else a copy of the game to play, only UBISOFT has that right.
d) non-commercial: You may not sell the product under license or any part of it, or otherwise use it commercially.
e) personal: This is a license granted to you, the person entering this agreement, and only you. Other users need their own license to play the game.
You must in no event use, nor allow others to use, the Product or this License for commercial purposes without obtaining a licence to do so from UBISOFT. Updates, upgrades, patches and modifications may be necessary in order to be able to continue to use the Product on certain hardware. THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED TO YOU, NOT SOLD.
The final line of this article states quite clearly that this is not a purchase, it is a licence. Article 2 of the EULA elaborates on this by talking about what this means for ownership:
2. OWNERSHIP.
All title, ownership rights and intellectual property rights in and to the Product [...] and any and all copies thereof are owned by UBISOFT or its licensors. [...]
This License confers no title or ownership in the Product and should not be construed as a sale of any rights in the Product.
Consumers do not own these games, they own a license to play them. Ownership of the product remains with whoever is granting them the license.
Think about it this way: If you owned The Crew, you would have access to all of its source code, assets, server architecture etc. You could modify the game, lend it, resell it, destroy it, as per our earlier definition of ownership.
It wouldn't make a lot of sense if Ubisoft allowed you to do this, would it? This is why they offer a license instead, and that's what they mean when they say "not [...] a sale of any rights in the Product". You're not buying any of the rights associated with ownership in the way laypeople think about it.
With a license, UBISOFT retain ownership of the product, while they allow you to play a copy of the game in the way they intended.
Now let's talk about the end to this agreement:
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.
This states that the this licence agreement is in effect the moment "you purchase or download the product", and that it can be terminated "at any time, for any reason" by either party.
This means that, legally, Ubisoft are well within their rights to revoke these licenses, even if it feels wrong to consumers. Unless the terms of the EULA are fought in a court of law and found lacking, there is little pressure for UBISOFT or other companies to change these terms. This is especially true since they have been established practice for quite some time.
It is a state of things that feels very dissatisfying to consumers. Even if few people may have been actively playing The Crew at the moment, someone might want to play more at some point, go back for a pang of nostalgia.
People replay games all the time, just as they re-watch shows and re-read books.
It is a shame that this is often impossible with video games, precisely because of examples like this, where servers are taken offline.
I understand it from a business perspective, and I understand the current legality of it, but I also very much understand the frustration on the consumers part.
Like I said in my previous piece on the issue:
Imagine you bought a book at a bookstore, and after nearly 10 years, the Publisher came into your house, said: “Sorry, we’re not printing these anymore”, and took your book away from you – you wouldn’t accept that.
Ross Scott's "Stop Killing Games"
Everything I have said assumes that the EULA as outlined by Ubisoft would hold up against a country's general laws. While EULAs like the above are standard practice for the U.S., other countries might differ in this regard.
Youtuber Ross Scott, who has been arguing against "Games as a Service" for years, has launched an initiative called "Stop Killing Games" to raise awareness and show people how they can make a difference:
"The videogame "The Crew", published by Ubisoft, was recently destroyed for all players and had a playerbase of at least 12 million people. Due to the game's size and France's strong consumer protection laws, this represents one of the best opportunities to hold a publisher accountable for this action. If we are successful in charges being pressed against Ubisoft, this can have a ripple effect on the videogames industry to prevent publishers from destroying more games."
Official government petitions have been introduced to prohibit the practice of intentionally rendering commercial videogames inoperable when support ends. Currently, petitions for the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia have been launched and will soon be open for signing. Plans are also underway for the European Union, but will unfortunately be delayed due to processing times. Further government petitions may be started later with enough assistance.
-- https://www.stopkillinggames.com/
This campaign should not be impacted by Ubisoft's revocation of licenses, as proofs of purchase should still be available in your account history.
To my knowledge, a EULA like the above has never been tested in court. That's quite understandable, since it would need an individual or a group of people to take Ubisoft or other publishers to court over the contents of their EULA, which is a daunting prospect.
These petitions are a step in that direction, a call to action for governments to examine these EULAs and determine whether their contents adhere to the law in these countries.
Taking this issue to legislative bodies around the world might be the best chance we have at changing the status quo, so take part if you can.
And to all publishers: Stop killing games.
