- Joined
- Aug 17, 2024
Ubisoft Sellout - Bankruptcy Speedrun Any% Thread
- Thread starter Sparky Lurker
- Start date
-
🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
regalterry
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2024
Imagine being in the precarious position Ubisoft is in and still going out of your way to antagonize and alienate customers, and casting doubt about the long-term viability of your online store.
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2021
So your evidence is another KF user saying the same thing as you (but about an entirely different metric) while providing zero sources? That's just silly.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2017
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2019
A certain moldy individual is gonna be very unhappy.
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2021
They aren't doing anything scummy in a legal sense... In the US. This issue is already firmly established by the courts pretty much universally throughout the States. The fact is you really don't own software you buy, ever. Full stop whether you like it or not this is just a fact at this point. The case law supports businesses being able to do pretty much whatever they want with regard to these software licenses, including taking them away at a totally random time that they don't even announce to you. The only way this can possibly be changed here is by legislation, which might never happen.
Ross is trying to get this practice changed globally by petitioning the courts and consumer rights groups throughout the world, like in Europe and Australia, where the issue of purposefully disabling software like this isn't settled. Obviously this won't affect the US law directly, but if a sizable portion of the global market demands that consumer rights be protected, it encourages the big companies who have a stake in it to change their ways, which indirectly benefits everyone. Kind of like how Steam getting sued overseas led to a better refund policy, including in the US.
I've been following this issue for a while because I'm concerned about the lack of protection against intentionally designing self-obsoleting/always-online software to turn your customers into serfs who have to pay rent just to use their computers (and other hardware) in any basic fashion, which is becoming the norm. They use this to drastically drive up profits without actually needing to compete in a sane and healthy way, which leads to a lack of innovation and shitty software maintained by an army of incompetent jeets, which the consumer never has reliable access to even if they're paying continuous fees like a good goy. They also do shit like Apple and abuse market share to bully all other software developers into complying with their standards and paying them rent to have the privilege of being compatible with their shit, just because most consumers are using it already.
Ross is primarily concerned with game preservation, which is also a casualty in this war against exploitative digital business practices. Games (especially online ones) are killed constantly because consumers simply don't have the right to preserve them from obliteration. Even preservation efforts with the most honest intentions that do absolutely nothing to harm the bottom line of a business are stopped merely because of the vague suggestion of an opportunity cost being infringed upon. Ross is trying to establish some kind of minimum legal standard of an "End of Life Plan" where a company that terminates support for a game is expected to leave it in a reasonably playable (offline) state for those that purchased it, thus securing game preservation.
Sorry for the long post, idk if people in this thread are familiar with Stop Killing Games, but this particular game The Crew and its legal case is very relevant. AFAIK Ross is still seeking signatures for petitions in various countries to get his initiative off the ground.
He already gave up on the US when he realized how fully established the issue was in the courts. There's no fighting it, you literally own nothing in the US unless a law is passed in congress.
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2022
Holy shit nigger, how retarded can Ubisoft be? After the fucking disaster that was Shadows, you'd think they would be clawing at any opportunities for good PR, but instead they are literally doing the "You will own nothing and be happy" meme
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2024
They're French, the French way to respond to criticism is to act snotty and blow smoke in your critic's faces.
The French have enormous egos for a culture with no accomplishments other than losing wars, shitty food, and even shittier movies.
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2014
This is interesting because in most lawsuits (from my limited understanding) you do want to push for dismissal right away because it's the easy thing to do, but in this case they had to make the decision to risk some pretty hefty reputational damage to use this particular reasoning. Sort of a catch22 for them. I'm sure someone who knows more than me would have a better insight though.
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2023
Seems like Ubisoft is trying to speedrun getting the business equivalent of the Darwin Awards.
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2020
In the future, you will own nothing Ubisoft games, and you will be happy.
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2023
They're not going to stop, people are still going to want to play Ubisoft games and until there's a reliable way to crack them (they put the most extensive spyware shit) then people are always going to want to play them and therefore buy them.
- Joined
- May 27, 2017
I already don't own Ubisoft games and I feel pretty happy.
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2019
They've already started clearing
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2022
Whoever decided games should always be online, regardless of whether they're single player, should be sodomized with piloncillos and be made to sit naked on a fire ant hill.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2022
"Ho hooo, silly little Puritans! We love getting our asses raped by Hajji and Jamal! Wee wee ho hoooo!"
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2021
In the future, Ubisoft will own nothing, and you will be happy because they will go out of business or be sold off.
Tanner Glass
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2016
They've already stopped.
Like sure, there's not a world where everybody stops - but enough of Ubi's games have sold poorly enough that the studio's entire future is uncertain (and there have already been satellite studio closures). It's very likely they're going to downsize to three studios that are at least 25% owned by Tencent and just make Assassin's Creed, Far Cry, and Tom Clancy/R6 games.
Even for a "big 3" it might not be enough. Assassin's Creed is in decline (and no idea how they manage a new setting after using most of the good ones), Far Cry 6 was not well received and came out 4 years ago and FC7 hasn't been even announced or shown yet, and has the same problem of Assassin's Creed of "what do we even do in a sequel besides just make the same game in a new place". I don't know enough about Rainbow Six to know how it's doing but Siege seems to get openly mocked for having increasingly silly operators added to the game.
The reality is that Ubisoft might already be dead and not know it yet - the few extra steps a chicken can take after it's own decapation.
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2016