this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2023
318 points (100.0% liked)

Gaming

30419 readers
327 users here now

From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!

Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.

See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In a response to a post from the AntiDRM Twitter account, Ubisoft Support has clarified that users who don’t sign in to their account can potentially lose access to Ubisoft games they’ve purchased. The initial post from AntiDRM featured a snippet of an e-mail sent to a user from Ubisoft notifying them that their account had been temporarily suspended due to inactivity and warning that it would be closed permanently in 30 days. Responding to the ominous e-mail, the Ubisoft Support Twitter account stated “We certainly do not want you to lose access to your games or account” and noted that account closure could be avoided by signing in to the account again.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 81 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (20 children)

Unless they also refund the price paid for the game, this is theft (or fraud), and should be punished as such.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (10 children)

It's not. You don't own the game you lease it with the clause that the storefront can ban/delete/deactivate your account for any reason. This is true for Steam, GOG, Itch, Epic, EA, Microsoft, etc.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The law is written by capitalists for capitalists and shouldn't he taken into consideration. EULAs are essentially privately-owned laws. It is theft, plain and simple.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Sure, "laws are threats made by the dominant socioeconomic-ethnic group in a given nation. It’s just the promise of violence that’s enacted and the police are basically an occupying army."

I was simply talking about the current legal definition. It's hard to call it theft or fraud when the terms are made clear before the sale. An example of this to a lesser degree would be game studios making multiplayer games. Is it theft if a studio puts a game out on Steam with the clause "We can only support multiplayer for as long as our budget allows us." and then goes under a few years later? A lot of these multiplayer services are things someone would have to pay for like Playfab or Gamelift. Not something easily open-sourceable. You could argue "Well don't write your game like that" but then you are essentially killing the multiplayer game service industry without consideration of its existence or benefits.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)