Support NeoGAF

[Thick Thighs Save Lives]

The YouTuber and film-maker behind legendary Half-Life series Freeman’s Mind is planning a class-action lawsuit against Ubisoft over the shutdown of racing game The Crew. Ross Scott, also known by his channel name Accursed Farms, claims that the closure of The Crew’s servers, scheduled for Sunday March 31, represents a “gray area” in videogame consumer law that he would like to challenge. Scott’s contention centers on the fact that, since The Crew is only playable online, after the game’s servers are closed, it will no longer be accessible to anybody who owns it, whether digitally or via a physical copy. The Half-Life film-maker, who voices a parody version of in his long-running YouTube series, argues that Ubisoft rendered The Crew “unusable and deprived it of all value after the point of sale.”

The Crew was originally released in 2014, but last year, Ubisoft announced that online servers for the racing game would be closed down owing to “infrastructure and licensing constraints.” Although two sequels have since been released, in The Crew 2 and The Crew Motorfest, the original racer will be completely inaccessible as of April 2024. Other service games such as the first Overwatch and Counter-Strike Global Offensive have also been closed down in the last year, to be replaced by Overwatch 2 and Counter-Strike 2 respectively.

Scott, who began Freeman’s Mind in 2007 and has 330,000 subscribers on YouTube, shares plans for a class-action lawsuit against Ubisoft, claiming that the game-maker “took money” from purchasers of The Crew, in exchange for a “perpetual license.”

“I think the argument to make is that The Crew was sold under a perpetual license, not a subscription, so we were being sold a good, not a service,” Ross says in his latest video. “Then the seller rendered the game unusable and deprived it of all value after the point of sale. It’s possible that argument won’t hold up either, in which case I think there’s no possible way to stop this practice, at least in the United States. But to the best of my knowledge, this angle has never been tested in court and might actually have some teeth.

“This is a high-profile game that was sold in stores under a perpetual license, and the buyers are going to be left with nothing. This is about as perfect an opportunity as we’re going to get to challenge the system on this.”

Scott invites viewers who have paid for copies of The Crew to email him. His initial goal is to judge the amount of potential plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit before potentially establishing a fundraiser to cover legal costs. Scott says that while he does not necessarily expect a court to rule against Ubisoft, a legal case has the potential to turn a “gray area” of videogame consumer rights into a “black-and-white issue.”

“A decent analogy for games as a service is…you buy the car, but there’s a line in the fine print which says they can destroy the car whenever they want, but they won’t tell you when,” Ross argues. “Then some time, usually a few years down the line… they send a signal to your car that melts down the whole thing into a lump, so it’s completely unusable.

“One of the things that frustrates me about games as a service is that they’re a legal gray area. No-one can say for certain that destroying a game you paid for is legal, because it hasn’t been challenged. By challenging its legality, we could turn this into a black-and-white issue. If we lose, I want to lose hard. If there’s no chance of stopping this, I want a judge to say to our faces that when we buy videogames we have no consumer rights and no ownership over what we pay for.”

Ross also considers the possibility of Ubisoft proposing a no-fault settlement, whereby it would offer a monetary remedy to the lawsuit’s plaintiffs without admitting fault. Scott says he would resist accepting such a settlement.

“In that scenario, if I have any say in the matter, I will push to not accept any offer like that,” he explains. “The point is actually bigger than the game and bigger than Ubisoft. I’m trying to stop games people want to keep and pay money from being destroyed.

“There is one settlement that I’d accept, which is to patch The Crew to make it playable without further support from the company. If they go that route, which I bet they won’t, then we have a procedure established for how to sue a company over the next big game shutdown.”

The end-user license agreement (EULA) for The Crew outlines states that the game is “licensed” rather than sold, and stipulates that Ubisoft may alter the terms of the agreement at any time. Ubisoft grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicensed, non-commercial and personal license to install and/or use the product… for such time until either you or Ubisoft terminates this EULA,” the license says. “This product is licensed to you, not sold.”

After posting his initial video, Scott says that he has received a variety of responses offering advice about legal proceedings and sharing receipts for purchased copies of The Crew. The YouTuber also says that without assistance, he will not be able to proceed with the lawsuit.

“I’m getting a lot of multi-page emails about possible legal proceedings and dozens of people claiming they have receipts,” Ross says. “I do want to emphasize that if I don’t get the help I need, then there will be no fundraiser, there will be no lawsuit, and this practice will continue unchallenged, at least in the US.”

PCGamesN has contacted Ubisoft and will update this story with any further information or comment.

Legendary Half-Life YouTuber plans class-action lawsuit against Ubisoft for killing The Crew

Half-Life YouTube legend Ross ‘Accursed Farms’ Scott, of Freeman’s Mind, is planning a lawsuit against Ubisoft over The Crew’s shutdown.

www.pcgamesn.com

 

[GHG]

The biggest issue with all of this is not the servers being shut down, it's the fact that they are not patching the game to ensure it's still in a playable state for those who wish to continue (or start playing) in single player.

For a game with a lot of single player content this is such a dangerous precedent, it needs to be fought.

 

[Miles708]

The solution is simple:

1-patch the game to be fully experienced offline, or
2-refund.

Fuck this online crap.

 

[Guilty_AI]

 

[Paasei]

The solution is simple:

1-patch the game to be fully experienced offline, or
2-refund.

Fuck this online crap.

Good solutions. I would add 3rd party server support like the good old days.

 

[GHG]

Also this is why people are against always online DRM for their games.

This is the exact doomsday scenario playing out that advocates and evangelists for always online said people who were against it were just "fear-mongering" over.

Things never needed to get this far, there's no logical reason for it unless you work for the corporations involved and your bonus depends on people becoming complicit to this method of content delivery.

I don't understand why we have to do this every time. The "it's fine for now" or "it's not a big deal" attitude never wins in the long run. It's always fine, until suddenly it isn't and theres no going back.

 

[Denton]

Great news. Crew is awesome game and I played literally 100% of it completely solo, singleplayer. It is utter dogshit that it should be inaccessible for good just because they shut down servers. Provide offline patch ya morons.

 

[CeeJay]

I don't know the ins and outs of the law around this but surely it's similar to any other product that has an expected finite lifespan. The law is not going to side with the consumer on this case, a company cannot be expected to support every product they create in perpituity especially if there is no ongoing revenue from that product. This would set a really dangerous precedent rendering a lot of existing business models untenable.

Sure, it would be nice for them to patch the game to be accessible but they are not obligated to as laid out in the terms and conditions that YOU agree to when you start the game. If you don't like the T&Cs you are not forced to buy the product.

 

[FeralEcho]

Hey Ubisoft,companies should be comfortable getting sued to oblivion for the dumb anticonsumer decisions they make.

 

[Krappadizzle]

edit: I'll say I've enjoyed the Mind of Freeman series he did.

 

[tusharngf]

Fuck trash ubisoft. The game is dead. They should have patched it and gave people offline version. If its a licensing issue then they should have paid for it.

 

[Porticus]

Legendary? Wtf I never knew of this guy legendary half life series.

 

[Saber]

This is one of reasons I feel like people who defend this is either astrosturfing or just a person with mental issues.
No way they can advocate for pure digital and see their own favorite games gone forever once the server is down.

 

[FeralEcho]

---

I don't know the ins and outs of the law around this but surely it's similar to any other product that has an expected finite lifespan. The law is not going to side with the consumer on this case, a company cannot be expected to support every product they create in perpituity especially if there is no ongoing revenue from that product. This would set a really dangerous precedent rendering a lot of existing business models untenable.

So if you buy a couch,and the couch is perfectly fine after 10 years but some asshole from the company that sold you the couch comes and takes the couch away without a refund or any compensation should you just say oh well,the couch was old anyway and I've used it enough? Good on the guy for taking the couch away eh? Regardless if the fucking couch is fine or not if I was you I'd do everything in my power to make that guy pay for stealing my couch cuz yes that is stealing no matter how many mental gymnastics companies apply to this shit,just on principle alone I'd find him and break his legs if he doesn't have my couch! Who the fuck is Ubisoft to tell me when I can or can not play my bought game with my hard earned money?

 

[TommyCronin6969]

Imagine spending 80 beans on a Ubisoft game that's bad enough but then Ubisoft taking the servers down so you can't play it anymore which actually is good when I think about it

 

[ManaByte]

You know that EULA you don't read but agree to when you start the game?

It doesn't even guarantee you that the game actually exists.

 

[Guilty_AI]

I don't know the ins and outs of the law around this but surely it's similar to any other product that has an expected finite lifespan. The law is not going to side with the consumer on this case, a company cannot be expected to support every product they create in perpituity especially if there is no ongoing revenue from that product. This would set a really dangerous precedent rendering a lot of existing business models untenable.

Sure, it would be nice for them to patch the game to be accessible but they are not obligated to as laid out in the terms and conditions that YOU agree to when you start the game. If you don't like the T&Cs you are not forced to buy the product.

Its not about supporting every product they made forever, its about not sabotaging them from the start or make very clear how long you'll actually be able to access the game for.

 

[FeralEcho]

You know that EULA you don't read but agree to when you start the game?

It doesn't even guarantee you that the game actually exists.

It's still elligible for a lawsuit,because by that point I already paid game for it so if it doesn't exist then it's a scam.That should be on the back of the case or on the starter page of the digital purchase as a warning if they don't want lawsuits.

 

[TommyCronin6969]

It's still elligible for a lawsuit,because by that point I already paid game for it so if it doesn't exist then it's a scam.That should be on the back of the case or on the starter page of the digital purchase as a warning if they don't want lawsuits.

I think they mask that by saying Requires Internet on the front of the box to use so you should be well aware that if the servers go down randomly you won't be allowed to play the game. So if the servers do get shut down it's also an expected thing. I'm talking legal speak here how they skirt around the issue if it comes up in court.

 

[ManaByte]

It's still elligible for a lawsuit,because by that point I already paid game for it so if it doesn't exist then it's a scam.That should be on the back of the case or on the starter page of the digital purchase as a warning if they don't want lawsuits.

People have tried this in the past with MMOs that have shut down. Court threw it out because of the EULA people don't read but agree to.

 

[FeralEcho]

People have tried this in the past with MMOs that have shut down. Court threw it out because of the EULA people don't read but agree to.

But the idea is the EULA is AFTER I bought the game and let's say I don't agree with it.after I bought the game and read the EULA...what happens on PSN where there are no refunds? Isn't thatthe definition of a scam?

 

[Guilty_AI]

People have tried this in the past with MMOs that have shut down. Court threw it out because of the EULA people don't read but agree to.

Do you know or remember any specific cases? Could be useful here.

 

[winjer]

This is why Ubisoft was saying that they want gamers to get used to not own their games.

The reality s that these companies are selling a long time rental, as if it was a proper final sale.

 

[FeralEcho]

I think they mask that by saying Requires Internet on the front of the box to use so you should be well aware that if the servers go down randomly you won't be allowed to play the game. So if the servers do get shut down it's also an expected thing. I'm talking legal speak here how they skirt around the issue if it comes up in court.

I guess but it's just pretty wording for something that's much worse but since these companies like pretty wording I can also say in court "But judge I still have internet, it's the access and servers that dissapeared,maybe Ubisoft can give me access to them so I can find the servers for them " but I get what you mean...

 

[ManaByte]

But the idea is the EULA is AFTER I bought the game and let's say I don't agree with it.after I bought the game and read the EULA...what happens on PSN where there are no refunds? Isn't thatthe definition of a scam?

You'd have to take up no refunds with PSN. Other digital platforms allow returns.

 

[Ar¢tos]

After this instead of buying a license, we will buying timed licenses so publishers can get away from these lawsuits.
Watch for incoming TOS updates in the nearby future.

 

[Laptop1991]

I hope this succeeds , Ubisoft needs teaching a lesson, in 2022 they stopped all their games working on Windows 7 through Ubisoft Connect, even the games bought 10 years before so users couldn't play them, but at the same time they were selling them and advertising them to work on older OS, there was huge thread on their old forums of complaints with various posts removed, they reversed it in December 22 then not long after did it again, what a horrible company, there is still a workaround for older OS users but it isn't right.

 

[CeeJay]

---

So if you buy a couch,and the couch is perfectly fine after 10 years but some asshole from the company that sold you the couch comes and takes the couch away without a refund or any compensation should you just say oh well,the couch was old anyway and I've used it enough? Good on the guy for taking the couch away eh? Regardless if the fucking couch is fine or not if I was you I'd do everything in my power to make that guy pay for stealing my couch cuz yes that is stealing no matter how many mental gymnastics companies apply to this shit,just on principle alone I'd find him and break his legs if he doesn't have my couch! Who the fuck is Ubisoft to tell me when I can or can not play my bought game with my hard earned money?

Moral of the story, but a couch instead of the crew.

 

[ManaByte]

I hope this succeeds , Ubisoft needs teaching a lesson, in 2022 they stopped all their games working on Windows 7 through Ubisoft Connect even the games bought 10 years before so users couldn't play them, but at the same time they were selling them and advertising them to work on older OS, there was huge thread on their old forums of complaints with various posts removed, they reversed it in December 22 then not long after did it again, what a horrible company, there is still a workaround for older OS users but it isn't right.

Microsoft stopped providing support (SECURITY UPDATES) to Windows 7 in 2020:

What does it mean if Windows isn't supported? - Microsoft Support

Learn what it means if you have an older version of Windows that's no longer supported.

support.microsoft.com

That's why companies aren't updating their stuff to run on an OS that came out in 2009.

 

[BlackTron]

I don't understand why we have to do this every time. The "it's fine for now" or "it's not a big deal" attitude never wins in the long run. It's always fine, until suddenly it isn't and theres no going back.

People let wars start over that kind of hand-waving lack of foresight, as if they will give a shit about games.

 

[Laptop1991]

Microsoft stopped providing support (SECURITY UPDATES) to Windows 7 in 2020:

What does it mean if Windows isn't supported? - Microsoft Support

Learn what it means if you have an older version of Windows that's no longer supported.

support.microsoft.com

That's why companies aren't updating their stuff to run on an OS that came out in 2009.

Doesn't matter if MS dropped support, people should be able to play their games on their machines whether they are old or not, some people can't upgrade, Ubisoft should refund their money then. Microsoft don't sell or make the games.

 

[ManaByte]

some people can't upgrade

You can't upgrade from an OS released FIFTEEN YEARS AGO?

 

[Laptop1991]

You can't upgrade from an OS released FIFTEEN YEARS AGO?

I dual boot, i'm not talking about me, i'm talking about Ubisoft's bad practices or do you think it's ok to sell games advertised as win 7 or 8 but knowing they won't work on those OS because they stopped them from working on them, when they worked fine for years on older OS, people can use whatever OS they want on their PC's, they paid for them too.
you not seeing a future problem here!.

 

[SJRB]

Fight the power.

 

[BlackTron]

You can't upgrade from an OS released FIFTEEN YEARS AGO?

The actual daily use PC I use to do stuff like post on GAF is 7. I only toggle to Windows 11 PC to play a game. Because it pisses me off to actually use it for anything. But the way I compartmentalize all my computing like this I'm not really worried about security. At least I'm not fighting the UI

 

[Shane89]

I totally agree on that.

They MUST patch the game to works offline.

 

[rofif]

He is very big over games preservation. Especially so how player games that have mandatory online only component and cannot be ran offline

 

[xrnzaaas]

Good luck to him. The game should've definitely been patched to be playable offline. I've spent arounds 60-70 hours with The Crew 1 and during all that time I was playing alone and ignoring other players (and having lots of stuff to do solo).

 

[struggler_guts]

"YouTuber and film-maker behind legendary Half-Life series Freeman’s Mind"
"also known by his channel name Accursed Farms"
"The Half-Life film-maker, who voices a parody version of in his long-running YouTube series"
"Scott, who began Freeman’s Mind in 2007 and has 330,000 subscribers on YouTube"
"The YouTuber also says that without assistance, he will not be able to proceed with the lawsuit."

Did he write this article? Lol

 

[Mattyp]

You know that EULA you don't read but agree to when you start the game?

It doesn't even guarantee you that the game actually exists.

EULAs don't mean shit in the majority of the world.

Why we now have refunds on Steam after they backed down to the Australian government.

 

[Zathalus]

Games like this should be patched to be single player on shutdown of servers.

 

[stuminus3]

"YouTuber and film-maker behind legendary Half-Life series Freeman’s Mind"
"also known by his channel name Accursed Farms"
"The Half-Life film-maker, who voices a parody version of in his long-running YouTube series"
"Scott, who began Freeman’s Mind in 2007 and has 330,000 subscribers on YouTube"
"The YouTuber also says that without assistance, he will not be able to proceed with the lawsuit."

Did he write this article? Lol

This is what happens when you get ChatGPT to write your article, it’s super obvious too.

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

I was expecting some butthurt whiny take, but he's doing this for science, that's good.

 

[Clear]

Good solutions. I would add 3rd party server support like the good old days.

Good luck getting console vendors to be OK on opening up their systems indirectly via connection to unregulated traffic.

 

[StereoVsn]

You know that EULA you don't read but agree to when you start the game?

It doesn't even guarantee you that the game actually exists.

EULA is not law. Basically this is essentially challenging EULA as illegal.

Personally I suspect lawsuit would work better in EU vs US though.

 

[Miles708]

Also this is why people are against always online DRM for their games.

This is the exact doomsday scenario playing out that advocates and evangelists for always online said people who were against it were just "fear-mongering" over.

Things never needed to get this far, there's no logical reason for it unless you work for the corporations involved and your bonus depends on people becoming complicit to this method of content delivery.

I don't understand why we have to do this every time. The "it's fine for now" or "it's not a big deal" attitude never wins in the long run. It's always fine, until suddenly it isn't and theres no going back.

Precisely.

 

[BacklashWave534]

It would seem that Ubisoft is going for the award of most hated company of 2024.

 

[BacklashWave534]

EULA is not law. Basically this is essentially challenging EULA as illegal.

Personally I suspect lawsuit would work better in EU vs US though.

I would agree. You float one of our politicians a $50 and they will do whatever you want.

 

[Fake]

You either accept DRM or don't.

Stop pretending DRM is OK when shit happens to you.

 

[Arsic]

I don’t think he will win, but it would be nice if he did so devs have to make the game playable offline in the future.

However, more grey area becomes open:
-How soon after closure should a game have offline available?
-How much content to be deemed good to go?

I think any games currently should be allowed a free pass, but moving forward devs need an offline mode for the full sweep of content available in game or at least 80% of what it offers.