In November 2024, Ubisoft’s lawyers started contending with a class-action lawsuit raised following the shutting down of The Crew, an MMO-based, live-service racing game, taking it offline for one and all.
The lawsuit alleged that Ubisoft had ‘duped’ players into believing they were buying a game with permanent ownership. Ubisoft retorted that they were only ever buying a ‘license to play’ the game. In the latest update in the case, Ubisoft’s legal team has doubled down on that concept, and the plaintiffs have fired back with amendments.
It’s Not ‘Unfettered Ownership’
In a document dug up by Polygon (and helpfully transcribed), it was revealed that Ubisoft’s tenacious legal team filed to have the case thrown out of the California court. The team claimed – or rather, reiterated – that ‘customers received the benefit of their bargain and were explicitly notified, at the time of purchase, that they were purchasing a license.’
Per the original claim from the plaintiffs:
‘Ubisoft Inc. allegedly misled purchasers of its video game The Crew into believing they were purchasing unfettered ownershiprights in the game, rather than a limited license to access the game.’
The recent amendments to the class-action suit saw the claimants leaning on the law surrounding gift certification sales in California. The hope is that they can stress that they were ‘robbed’ of digital currency, as in California, gift cards aren’t allowed to expire – but any in-game credits players had when The Crew was shut down did just that: they disappeared.
In January 2024, Ubisoft’s Director of Subscriptions, Philippe Tremblay, went on record speaking about the transformation of gaming from a physical to a digital world. He suggested that players should ‘get comfortable’ with not owning their games and instead acquiring limited licenses to play them.
Gamers have never forgotten these comments, and even today, folks on social media platforms worldwide will jibe Ubisoft fans with comments about them ‘renting their games.’
With the latest amendments having been made to the class-action lawsuit, Ubisoft has been given a new window in which to respond. We’ll have the latest on this case by April 29, which is the deadline.
Do you think Ubisoft is right, or are you on the side of the plaintiffs in complaining that digital ownership should also be permanent ownership? Let me know in the comments or on the Insider Gaming forum.
For more Insider Gaming coverage, check out the news that Naoe’s actor has spoken out about the destruction of shrines in Shadows
Comments