this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2024
289 points (99.0% liked)

Gaming

3198 readers
13 users here now

!gaming is a community for gaming noobs through gaming aficionados. Unlike !games, we don’t take ourselves quite as serious. Shitposts and memes are welcome.

Our Rules:

1. Keep it civil.

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only.

2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry.

I should not need to explain this one.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month.

Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.

Logo uses joystick by liftarn

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
JonsJava@lemmy.world
onlinepersona@programming.dev
289
Ubisoft is being sued over The Crew in a lawsuit that compares the server shutdown to a bumperless pinball machine (www.rockpapershotgun.com)
submitted 2 days ago by ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net to c/gaming@lemmy.world
32 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

"Imagine you buy a pinball machine, and years later, you enter your den to go play it, only to discover that all the paddles are missing, the pinball and bumpers are gone, and the monitor that proudly displayed your unassailable high score is removed". As reported by Polygon, that's an argument put forth by a new lawsuit against Ubisoft, filed by two Californian players of The Crew. They're suing the company in a proposed class action lawsuit over shutting down the racing game's servers, rendering it unplayable.

Ubisoft pulled the ol’ snippy Johnson on The Crew’s server wires back in March, effectively killing the online-only game. The following month, it started disappearing from owner's Ubisoft Connect libraries. In response, YouTuber Ross Scott started a Stop Killing Games initiative, petitioning France's Directorate General For Competition, Consumer Affairs And Fraud Protection (DGCCRF) to investigate.

all 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] nek0d3r@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

I still fondly remember how Spellbreak just dropped the tools to run dedicated servers when they shut down. I don't think forcing companies to run servers forever is tenable, and slapping an expiration date on the games is less helpful than it seems. Would be nice to enforce distributing those tools on shutdown, but that seems like a difficult fight considering what right to repair looks like.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 day ago

The oldie judges need some analogies they can relate to, nothing wrong with that.

[–] penquin@lemm.ee 88 points 2 days ago (1 children)

At least let people run their own servers. What fucking scum bags, man.

[–] chryan@lemmy.world 58 points 2 days ago (2 children)

But how else will they sell you the same 'remastered' game 10 years from now?

Think of the corporations!

[–] scops@reddthat.com 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Now I'm picturing a video game version of the Disney Vault. "Play now through the end of the year for just $129.99* before GTA 9 goes back in the Vault for another decade! *Not including Microtransactions, Online Pass, BattlePass, Totally-Not-A-Lootboxes, or Megalodon Cards"

[–] EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If they could, they would. But a lot of the time, they don't even bother to keep the source code of the games that they make. It's estimated that more than 50% of all games are lost to history because the companies that made them never kept the source code or a copy.

I remember there being a little scandal a few years ago when a remaster of a game came out and it still had the cracker's logo in it from the pirated copy they used for the source code.

[–] dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 5 points 1 day ago

Piracy is preservation.

[–] brian@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago

I mean they essentially already released it with The Crew 2. How else would they sell copies to the people who played the first?

[–] RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world 82 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I hope Ubisoft loses.

[–] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 day ago

I always hope that Ubisoft loses.

[–] Kaiserschmarrn 42 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Stop Killing Games

[–] toynbee@lemmy.world 22 points 2 days ago (1 children)

First off, I support both this campaign and linking to it. More awareness is always good.

However, as Ross himself posted, the problem with this comparison is that the "Stop Killing Games" campaign is aiming to end the tradition of simply turning off game servers. This Californian lawsuit, though not a bad thing, is very likely to simply change the labeling of games, which doesn't help the end goal of Stop Killing Games.

I want both to succeed and am not attempting to attack your post, just provide clarity.

For more context: https://youtu.be/sitLQg02Mn4

[–] DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 15 points 2 days ago (2 children)

IMO if every such game came with a large "Playable until [Date]" sticker, a lot more people would care about preserving them. And just the market pressure may save a lot of games.

[–] OCATMBBL@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

I'd also probably care a lot less about buying them.

[–] toynbee@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago

That seems like an optimistic but reasonable take.

[–] positiveWHAT@lemmy.world 39 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I feel like Ubisoft is like a European EA. But somehow worse.

[–] Don_alForno 39 points 2 days ago

"Why is EA the most hated American game company? Because Ubisoft is based in France."

[–] murmelade@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Ubisoft pulled the ol’ snippy Johnson

They... Circumcised it?