In a press release to Gamepur, Ubisoft has revealed minimum as well as recommended PC system requirements of their upcoming open world racing title, The Crew.
Plaintiffs bring up a new claim, too, in amended complaint.
***Replying to Ubisoft’s argument that the statute of limitations is up, the plaintiffs responded with their own photos of The Crew’s packaging, which states that the activation code for the game doesn’t expire until 2099; that’s an example of how Ubisoft “implied that [The Crew] would remain playable during this time and long thereafter,” per the amended complaint.***
I really hope this resonates with the judge on the two-sided talk Ubisoft has going on here. You can't have your cake and eat it as well, IMHO.
A few of more mishaps and Ubisoft won’t be around anymore anyway.
Assassin’s Creed and FarCry are keeping them alive right now, and it’s a shame. Tom Clancy games are at a minimum now, The Division had its run, Watch Dogs has come and gone, For Honor was something new-ish, their lacking in New IP, and their older franchises just aren’t getting the right love.
I hope the judge favors the consumers because it really sucks what thees companies are doing. I am sure these companies will simply change their user agreements to add these new "we don't own the games clauses"
Good thing i haven't bought a Ubisoft game since ac origins, and even that was a mistake 😆
Ubisoft faces a class action lawsuit over The Crew shutdown, raising key questions about digital game ownership.
The Outerhaven writes: With the closure of The Crew's online servers, Ubisoft has started removing access to the game from anyone who owns it on Ubisoft Connect.
Wait. I don't get it. I reported on something that I recently noticed. I did mention in my article that I wouldn't have noticed if I hadn't gone to play The Division 2. That said, if this was nearly a week ago, I wouldn't know, as NO ONE REPORTED ON IT! Not IGN. Not Gamespot. Not Kotaku. No one.
You got people here complaining that there are any real gaming journalists and game journalism sucks, but when someone is acting, doing something to make something known to the public about what a company is doing. What do you do? You poke fun at it. What is it that people want? Do you want to complain for the sake of it? Or do you actually want people to do something to make those who aren't in the know aware of the shady stuff that's happening and to sound the alarm?
It's the "oh well" setting in on digital users. They don't care they don't own their stuff for some odd reason. 🤷🏽.
Good for you! People sometimes just feel the need to show how little they actually have to say. Very respectful dressing down, btw, which is another thing we need more of.
I appreciate your article,
- "If this isn’t considered both a “WTF” moment and setting a dangerous precedent, I don’t know what else it would be"
- "it could also signal other publishers that removing games from our accounts would be okay"
- "Maybe those firmly against this digital future have a point after all"
- "This. Is. Fucked. Up."
As someone against an only-digital/streaming future for entertainment content (movies/TV shows/games/books), it feels like talking into a void about the points above on this website, or on Twitter, or with my friends, etc. People don't get it. I'm strongly contemplating whether this will be my last generation of PlayStation & Xbox consoles (I'm confident enough that Nintendo's next system will still support physical media and that their 1st-party games won't have online-required installation or usage restrictions).
He is one of the long running trolls of this site, he never says anything positive. Every single one of his posts are either incorrect or flat out stupid. Pay him no mind.
Replies(1)I see they're trying their best to surpass Activision Blizzard for being the most hated gaming company. Keep at it, Ubisoft, I believe!
I am so disappointed I didn't get a beta key :(