Ubisoft cannot complain if I pirate their games, because they never actually sold them. And I’m not deceiving them with my intention of never, ever, give them a dime.
You are right you can’t steal something that is not ownable, but paying for the game is what allows you to play so playing without stealing is still breaking their rules. Instead of buy to own they made it pay to play. But that sucks so fuck them anyway
Playing devil’s advocate here: both lines are consistent with them owning the games. We just rent them for a while, and own nothing. But pirating is taking what they own without paying - i.e. stealing.
Every AAA game company’s have been for 30 years and still currently are arguing this in courts all the time.
The actual public facing employees don’t have to, but sometimes still do, though usually in an unofficial capacity these days.
AA / indie devs are more of a mixed bag. A few will openly say ‘fuck it, pirate it if you can’t afford it, idgaf’, but the majority will denounce piracy if its relevant or if prompted.
copyright infringent is commonly also referred to as IP theft, theft of intellectual property.
unauthorized use, sale, or distribution of ip is ip theft.
when it comes to software, basically , unless your software is distributed under some kind MIT or GPL or other copyleft liscense… all of the software legally is ip, and using it in an unauthorized manner is copyright infringement… which is also referred to as ip theft.
so yes, ip theft is a form of theft, and gaming companies and lawyers and other lawyers have been successfully suing other people and other companies into oblivion over this basically since the industry began.
I’ve always heard it referred to as infringement, in a legal context. I’m sure game publishers (and music, film, etc.) would like to equate it in the public mind with common theft of physical goods, but it’s all just propaganda.
We’re just playing games with words at this point. The law is pretty clear, that distributing a copyrighted work such as a copy of a video game is illegal. I don’t know why people like to repeat this line, that “if buying a game isn’t owning then piracy isn’t theft.” Maybe it is a moral/ethical argument? It’s not going to help you in court.
The entire original comment chain that lead to what I replied to … was all about playing word games with slogans, progoganda, public relations.
The law may be ‘clear’, but it is clearly bullshit.
It is absurdly deferential toward the rights of megacorps and hostile to the rights of consumers.
Laws are supposed to reflect and codify morals and ethics, arise from them… not determine them.
But, as we slip more and more into a cyberpunk dystopia of hypercapitalist megacorps being able to basically just buy legislators, judges and laws, it will become more evident that the government is just entirely a facade directed by them.
This whole article is about a lawsuit in America, you know, the land of the fee, home of the early and very expensive grave?
The place with the ongoing fascist coup that’s dismantling all the government agencies that regulate corporations, after the richest man in the world just bought an election, and more recently openly tried to buy a state judge, and though he didn’t succeed, will likely face no penalty for doing that very obviously illegal thing?
Also, as far as at least acquring a pirated game?
Its not that hard.
Now hosting them? Sharing them?
Yep, you’re right, that’s a bit more difficult… but hey, be clever enough to not get caught, and thats the same as being rich enough to write your own laws.
copyright is a type of intellectual property, an area of law distinct from that which covers robbery or theft, offenses related only to tangible property.
I mean, I can be as much of a pedant as you and post an unsourced definition of ‘ip theft’ … or maybe you could just admit you’d never heard of the term ‘ip theft’, or are unaware of its use.
Its a pretty commonly used term, especially amongst government regulatory and business organizations, as well as academics who study policy, in the US.
The term itself, its phrasing, is intentionally constructed to frame copyright infringement as a form of theft, stealing something that doesn’t belong to you.
The psychological framing of the term is meant to frame losses from someone committing copyright infringement against you as equivalent to losses from being robbed.
The entire point of the usage of this term is to mold public perception.
Here’s some examples where very prominent US institutions/organizations use some construction or variation of ‘ip theft’ as an umbrella term to refer to all kinds of copyright, trademark and/or patent infringement:
And finally, literally IPTheft.org, which basically functions as an all-in-one training/resource hub that connects business people to all kinds of resources to report when they have suffered… IP theft.
Anno 1800 was an Epic exclusive (and Ubisoft’s Uplay) for a year on release. It was available for pre order on Steam. I believe people that bought it on Steam prior to the one year exclusivity deal still got it. It was a whole thing though. Definitely would call it a controversy.
Nah, they are published by Ubisoft, so they go on regular ubisoft style sales. They are pretty good games though. I haven’t played the second one yet, but first one was really well made and polished game.
To think this is the same company that has to use mythic quest show to promote its propaganda as good PR, guessing it’s partiall Rob’s machelennys fault for being so thirsty to stay in Hollywood spotlight he had to approach something like ubisoft.
Having watched all of Mythic Quest, I had no idea what you meant and looked it up - I didn’t realize there was any connection. How does the show promote Ubisoft?
My friend loves quoting a line from that show where HyperScape was uttered in the same breath as games like Call of Duty as a “mega franchise” to try to will its success into existence. That episode is only a few years old, but HyperScape is already shut down forever.
That’s why I boycott video games from Ubisoft. I loved and am nostalgic of their previous outstanding games from when it was great - think of Beyond Good and Evil, the original 3 Prince of Persia games and the assassin’s creed games until odyssey(I’m hesitant to include Valhalla, but I’m at witt’s end here as Einar Selvik sang and composed the ost of the game for goodness’ sake). I even paid a (🤮) connect+ subscription that they threatened at some point that some accounts may be lost as per a number of days of innactivity.
But enough is enough, Ubisoft be better prepared to not own a company and be manned by Tencent. As much as I hate even the latter, Ubisoft is a scummy company and needs to be properly grouped in the scummy companies even by allegiance.
I hope the European Citizen’s innitiative for video games passes, in the end. The source code/maintenance of discontinued/stopped projects ought to be maintained by the players and its community.
I didn’t play the new Prince of Persia because they wanted you to be logged in to play. It looked good, but there are just too many options for me to put up with shit like Ubisoft.
Ubi used to have some neat stuff but post far cry 3 it is just the most generic, worst gameplay slop possible. And avarage person just loves repetetive slop.
Oh boy. If you look at Ubisoft’s stock prices, it’s way down.
Like high 80s in 2018. And now it’s 8, roughly 1/10th if it’s value.
They aren’t going to survive another few years at this rate without some bangers. How stupid their leadership has been, with NFTs, with their sexual harassment lawsuits, with bonehead anti-consumer practices is just accelerating this downfall.
See, boycotts do in fact work. They may not work instantly, but they do work if it’s your actual customer base doing the boycott. The Bud Light boycott also worked. The Target boycott currently has their stock in a tailspin, regardless of what they are claiming are the company’s actual issues.
Let’s compare with Destiny 2’s back cover, a game that is a MMO and thus “cannot be owned” by the players. Hey, a “Online Play (Required)*” sticker that is not present on The Crew! The fine print has a bit that states that “Activision makes no guarantee of regarding availability of online play or features, and may modify or discontinue online services at its discretion without notice.”
FF14 . It clearly states on the rectangular bit above the T Rating: “Users are granted only a limited, revocable license and do not own any intellectual property in the game or game data”
You deceived consumers, Ubisoft. “Online Play Required” is not there, so the game should remain playable offline.
I did and have read about it and disagree. I dont think anyone was tricked and thought they’d have the crew forever. This all seems very self entitled in my opinion. Point out any technicalities that you want to, people should have expected the game to be sunset eventually, and that it would be gone after that, just like every other online only game.
Which was a deception in the first place, because it clearly distinguishes between ‘1 player’ where it doesn’t say anything about needing a network connection, and 2-8 player where it says network and playstation plus required. It also says network features can be removed at any time, but nowhere does it say 1 player is a network feature. It specifically does not say that.
Why weren’t people upset when they first bought the game and realized they needed to be online to play it then? Why did it only become a talking point after the fact? You could argue it was shitty to make it a network only game and I might agree, but to say people were deceived and didnt realize it couldn’t be played offline until the servers were shutdown is absurd.
They probably were upset, but not upset enough to do anything about it because they still wanted to play it. I personally would have refunded it right away, and lots of people probably also did that.
EU cutizens can sign European Citizens’ Initiative that aims to prevent publishers using killswitches to permanently disable games. If it gets 1M signatures, it will be discussed in European Comission.
We should all start a boycot and stop buying anything ubisoft, then release a statement when they go down saying: “cannot complain” and weren’t “deceived” by the lack of “access to our decade-old money”.
What I love about being a broke bitch retro gamer is that I own my games. I have a Tetris cartridge that is older than I am and still works. The batteries on some of my GB and GBA carts have died, but that’s something I can fix. No one can send a stealth update to my Sega Genesis that forces me to create on an account to play or even bricks it somehow. There’s no room for human shit behavior, just a war against the realities of mechanical decay. (And it’s easy to rip ROMs in case of the inevitable.)
Older generations of gaming are well preserved. I don’t think the past ten years or the future will be. “Games as a service” is too big a draw - the goal is to turn everything into a subscription model because why make money once when you can make it forever?
believe it or not, it’s possible for 2 things to be true at the same time. ACS is cool even though Ubisoft is evil. what you call virtue signaling is just people having interests
gamesradar.com
Najstarsze