this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2025
383 points (99.0% liked)

Games

18555 readers
415 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. 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:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works
383
Ubisoft holds firm in The Crew lawsuit: You don’t own your video games (www.polygon.com)
submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by misk@sopuli.xyz to c/games@sh.itjust.works
77 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Archive: https://archive.is/2025.04.09-191645/https://www.polygon.com/gaming/555469/ubisoft-holds-firm-in-the-crew-lawsuit-you-dont-own-your-video-games

Ubisoft responded to California gamers’ The Crew shutdown lawsuit in late February, filing to dismiss the case. The company’s lawyers argued in that filing, reviewed by Polygon, that there was no reason for players to believe they were purchasing “unfettered ownership rights in the game.” Ubisoft has made it clear, lawyers claimed, that when you buy a copy of The Crew, you’re merely buying a limited access license.

“Frustrated with Ubisoft’s recent decision to retire the game following a notice period delineated on the product’s packaging, Plaintiffs apply a kitchen sink approach on behalf of a putative class of nationwide customers, alleging eight causes of action including violations of California’s False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, as well as common law fraud and breach of warranty claims,” Ubisoft’s lawyers wrote.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Alk@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (22 children)

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.

[–] PolarKraken@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

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?"

[–] DesolateMood@lemm.ee 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] PolarKraken@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago

Oh, yeah that makes sense too. Bad premise all around I guess.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (19 replies)