• myster0n@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    106
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Oh I’m very comfortable with it. In fact I haven’t owned a Ubisoft game in many, many years, and I wasn’t about to change that.

  • Weslee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    106
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    If paying full price and obtaining a digital copy isn’t ownership, then taking that digital copy without paying can’t be stealing can it?

    • DacoTaco@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      11 months ago

      I legit wonder what would happen if this argument is used ( in a professional way by a professional lawyer ) in a court of law. Like, could this legit be argued to be the same?

      • DebatableRaccoon@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        11 months ago

        I don’t see it going well but I’d love to see it happen. “One rule for ye, another for me” and all that

          • Spiralvortexisalie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            11 months ago

            NAL but technically speaking Ubisoft would lose because they would be unable to prove that they were deprived of anything or anything was appropriated from them with their current stance. Realistically they would just pivot and find some other nonsense to try, like claiming a theft of their computer server’s processing power everytime a pirated game accessed their lobby or some other nonsense that would barely fly, but fly none the less.

        • hightrix@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          No. It is not. If you’d like a crime to compare it to, forgery would be more accurate.

          • phillaholic@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Forgery usually involves submitting what you faked to some other entity in order to do something. Maybe if you illegally copied and sold that music. Regardless the penalties are similar anyway.

        • mlg@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          the unauthorized use of another’s production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright

          Piracy can often invovle legally obtained items or even bypassing item bans.

          You pirate a movie by taking a real copy and sharing it with others over the internet by making more copies or by making it copyable.

          Stealing a movie would be taking the real copy without paying for it.

          You could both steal and pirate the movie, but in the context of modern media, the source material is usually obtained legally.

          That’s why most torrents usually have the source in the title to show what it was taken from (DVD, BluRay, WEBRiP, WEB-DL, etc).

        • onlooker@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Incorrect. Last I checked, theft is depriving the original owner of their product or service. When it comes down to it, piracy is essentially making an illegal copy, meaning the original is still there.

    • Katana314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      I’m not sure how you drew this conclusion, since most people I know consider paying full price to obtain a digital copy to be extremely close to ownership.

      I liked Telltale’s Law and Order series. They can’t sell it anymore, but I can still download my digital copy because I bought it full price.

      The whole argument in the article is about monthly subscription rentals.

      • nfh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        When a contract ending almost caused Sony to remove all Discovery content from users last year, including digital copies of things people had paid full price for, the cracks between buying a digital license and actually owning something that can’t be taken away became more visible to a chunk of people. It’s something, but it’s not ownership, and it can be taken away based on agreements you may have no way of gaining insight into.

        • Seudo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Audible is open about it. Well, if you dig through the fine print. Easy enough to rip copies but I’d say most people only realise they need to when they loose access. Maybe not, but $30 for an audiobook seems like pretty shity value if you’re only renting it untill you cancel your subscription.

          E: I might be misinformed/ outdated.

    • Transporter Room 3@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      11 months ago

      The developers that come out and tell people “pirate our game and if you like it consider buying when you can” will always get my money.

      Developers who tell us we own nothing and should be pleased about it can get my steel and cannonballs, cause this ship is ready to set sail.

    • Flaky@iusearchlinux.fyi
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      They actually used cracked versions of their games years ago. Rockstar were also caught red-handed using cracked EXEs.

  • janonymous@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    If your games are on steam, you’re already not owning them. The only difference seems to be that steam doesn’t demand a monthly subscription cost, yet

    We already have game pass so it’s not like this is something completely new either.

    If this makes money, other big publishers will join and in 10 years it’s the norm.

    Personally, I’ll try my best to keep buying on GOG and itch.io where I get to actually own my games.

    • ogeist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      11 months ago

      Agree, I own a lot of games in Steam but most come from bundles or were not bought a full price. I do buy full price games on GOG because I can have a backup offline.

    • SendMeYourInk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      11 months ago

      The only difference is a huge difference though. Pay once for a game that you can access anytime versus paying continuously for the rest of your life to keep access to a game.

      Some games are not worth keeping access to and subscription may end up being cheaper, but it is trading one benefit for another.

    • Wodge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      The only difference seems to be that steam doesn’t demand a monthly subscription cost, yet

      Which Ubisoft isn’t doing either. This is just Ubisoft’s gamepass style subscription, which has been available for a few years now, it’s just getting a 2 tier pricing model.

    • Flaky@iusearchlinux.fyi
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      I’m not enough of a Linux user to inconvenience myself so I’m just using Steam. The cloud sync is the killer feature for me - if GOG had something like it even if I have to pay extra, I’d so use it.

    • GeneralEmergency@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      11 months ago

      If your games are on steam, you’re already not owning them

      Almost as if all the “evil” in the game’s industry Valve started.

  • banazir@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    11 months ago

    Oh, fear not Ubisoft, I’m perfectly comfortable never owning any of your games again. Ever. Eat shit.

  • Yerbouti@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    We already don’t own our games, because we can’t sell them. We used to be able to sell and exchange games, but with digital platforms like steam, we don’t have the right to sell them anymore, meaning we only bought the right to play the game, not owning it.

  • JoeKrogan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Well I’m comfortable not buying any of theirs. They’re in my steam ignore list along with EA 🖕🖕

    Ubisoft disable multiplayer in games like splinter cell and then have the nerve to charge you 20 ducats for a 10 year old game with only half the gameplay requiring a shitty launcher and with glaring bugs that they just didn’t bother to address.

    As for the future. There is still emulation. So stock up 😉

    • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      11 months ago

      Buying a CD/DVD was never ownership of the media that’s on it. It’s ownership of a piece of plastic and a license to play to the content on the plastic within certain limitations. If it was ownership, you would be allowed to project the DVD on a wall and charge patrons to view it, but legally you can’t, because you don’t own anything but the plastic. Buying a CD/DVD was always just a more convenient version of buying a ticket to a concert/theater to see the same thing. You’re paying for the experience of viewing their artwork.

      So, as long as you also agree that sneaking into a concert/theater to view a show without paying also isn’t theft in any way, then I can’t argue.

      • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Blah blah blah. Shove that copyright-maximalist take. You own things, god dammit. Even if you only own your copy of a book, it’s not somehow an ink-and-paper license to a copy, it is your copy. That’s what ownership means.

        If you don’t know the difference between individual property and intellectual property, stop spitting at people who do.

        • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          Just want to highlight how unnecessarily antagonistic your response was. Not sure if that was your intention, but I don’t care to engage with it. Cheers.

            • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              If you think I’ve been antagonistic, please let me know how. I’m here to have a productive discussion, but so far I’m here by myself.

              • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                You could start by actually making an attempt at good faith discussion, instead of pedantic attempts to hide from the point.

                But we both know you dont want to do that, because youre not actually here for productive discussion.

                • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  I respectfully disagreed with the top level post, and stated facts about why. If that was interpreted as not in good faith, I’m sorry, and I’m open to any counter arguments. So far, two people have pointed out that physical media can’t remotely have their licenses revoked, and I agree, that is relevant to the discussion. If you have anything relevant you’d like to contribute, I’m all ears.

          • YeetPics@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            antagonistic

            You’re replying to everyone in this thread with half-assed insults and underhanded comments and then playing victim and complaining about how “nobody wants to discuss this in good faith”.

              • YeetPics@mander.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                I think you’re a passive aggressive blowhard. I don’t think you’re being antagonistic although I could picture you wanting to be if that makes sense.

                • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  although I could picture you wanting to be if that makes sense.

                  From my perspective, it sounds like you’re reading my posts with an unwarranted intention behind them. I have to assume this stems from you disagreeing with what I am saying, but to my knowledge, nothing I’ve said is incorrect. If you could point to something I’ve said that’s incorrect, I’d be glad to discuss it. Also, if you could refrain from the namecalling, that would also be appreciated.

        • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          I think his point in this case is you own the physical item but not the information on it. If not then I could buy some musician’s cd then I could say “Now I own their music” and start selling copies of their cd, publishing it, stealing their rights to it, etc. I think we can all agree that would be bad.

          • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            11 months ago

            ‘No, see, he meant exactly what you thought he meant.’

            Again: I know the difference between individual property and intellectual property. I am condemning the corporate word-games that would deny one of those exists, and the the tutting of people who take that for granted. I don’t need a fucking primer.

          • CallumWells@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            Yes, you own the information on it. You don’t own the rights to distribute it to others, but you bought the information and the right to personally use it. When you buy a painting, do you only have a licence to view it?

            • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              When you buy a painting, do you only have a license to view it?

              That’s a good question. My guess is that the rights to create prints of the painting usually remain with the artist. You own that painting, you probably even own the right to display it for an entry fee, but unless the artist has granted you a license to the artwork, I don’t think you can freely create copies.

              • CallumWells@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                Indeed, the right to make copies are often licenced (although you can also sell that right) because it is explicitly written in some conventions (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention?useskin=vector) that the copyright resides with the creator to begin with. I don’t think the Berne Convention deals with the option of transferring intellectual property and the copyright to them, but I’m assuming it’s mostly defined well enough in some contract law or other.

          • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            I think we can all agree that would be bad.

            You’d be surprised. There seem to be vanishingly few people here willing to honestly discuss the legal questions around piracy and copyright. The vast majority are just here to circle jerk about how much corporations suck, completely forgetting about the rights of artists they’re defending in the anti-AI circle jerk one thread over. I honestly think they spend more time flaming anything they disagree with than actually putting any thought into the matter. The dogmatism rivals that of conservative forums.

      • haui@lemmy.giftedmc.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        We found the record company shill.

        I‘m all for sneaking into concerts and everything else since ticketmaster is trying to wring every penny out of customers.

        All those leeches can die in a hole.

        • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          I‘m all for sneaking into concerts and everything else

          Then as I said, I can’t argue.

          But you should keep this in mind when you go to the next thread and join the anti-AI circle jerk, pretending to defend artists for upvotes.

      • phillaholic@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        The record company can’t disable my physical CD from working if they choose to. That’s 99% of the point.

        • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          That’s a fair distinction. Congrats, I’m finding there are very few people willing to engage in productive discussion on here.

            • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              If I’ve said something false, let me know. As far as I’m aware, what I’ve said is how the law works (at least in the US). I understand if you don’t like those laws, but that doesn’t make them not exist, nor does it make them irrelevant when someone makes a reductive statement like “if buying isn’t ownership, then piracy isn’t stealing”. The fact is, in some cases, it is.

      • YeetPics@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        So how many plays do I get with the media license that comes with a CD?

        Worried they’ll revoke my license on my blues traveler CD that’s been stuck in my car since '99.

        • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Yep, this is a valid point. The volatility of access seems to be a convenient side effect of modern streaming technology. I agree that there needs to be regulation around this as it’s currently too easy for a company to suddenly say “we’re pulling access to the thing you paid for right now, sorrynotsorry”.

          It’s not reasonable to expect that they have to have servers available serving the content 24/7 indefinitely, but either govts need to force companies to clearly label access to digital media as some sort of “rental agreement” similarly to how renting a video on youtube or amazon works, and making it clear that the user will only be able to access the stream for a minimum of some specified amount of time, and/or they should be required to offer a download of the media for a certain amount of time.

          • YeetPics@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            “volatility of access” implies a lack of intent.

            This isn’t a side effect of streaming technology, they could let me download content on my NAS and burn my own discs but they don’t because their goal is profiteering and NOT serving the best content in an open technological environments.

            “Corporate enshittification and commodity fraud” is a more apt term.

            • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              “Fraud” would imply a crime. I’m always happy when some european country has a law on the book that enables people to hold a company accountable for their shitty behavior, but in the US, we have some work to do there.

              “Enshittification” is a…surface-level description of what is happening. I’m more interested in the “how we got here” and “what needs to happen to prevent it”. Because no company has “make the experience objectively shittier” on their list of new features. Blaming “enshittification” holds as much weight to me as blaming “the deep state”. It’s not a real thing, it’s just how you perceive the emergent result of a system with certain rules and incentives. The real question is, which rules and incentives should we prioritize, and how can those changes most effectively be implemented.

              • YeetPics@mander.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                I’m not blaming “enshittification”. This IS enshittification.

                I blame shareholders and greedy C level executives. You know, the ones who make these types of decisions to milk customers for the bottom line.

                Just move on if you want to debate, these are facts and I don’t have time to defend reality from your contrarian garbage.

                • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  I think we agree and could learn from each other, but I agree, I don’t think that’s in the cards here. Have a good one.

  • golden_zealot@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    11 months ago

    They already fucked me on this years ago. One day I logged into Uplay and Battlefield 3 and my 2 other games were just fucking gone. Haven’t touched them with a 10 foot pole since.

  • Toneswirly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    11 months ago

    What Ubi wants means fuck all to me. Yall wanted us to buy NFT guns too, see how that worked out…

  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    It’s rather amusing how everything people fear happening under communism comes to pass under capitalism in one way or another. Turns out that it is the capitalists who aim to strip individuals of their personal property by transforming everything into a rental service. You see, you no longer possess your media, books, computer, phone, or any other device; they’ve all been transformed into internet-connected subscriptions. The moment you cease paying or when the company decides to discontinue its services, you find yourself in quite an unfortunate predicament.

  • thoro@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    11 months ago

    This is the direction the big companies are looking to move in. This is the direction Microsoft is banking on, too. Even if you like one service more, the end result may be the same. It’s a matter of time before we see subscription exclusives.

    GamePass subscribers are the pre-orderers and mtx consumers of yesteryear, normalizing the industry to practices harmful to general consumers.

  • stardust@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    11 months ago

    Piracy is a very noble endeavor to keep alive. Thank you Ubisoft for keeping us on our toes instead of being complacent with trusting digital platforms. Piracy is the true preservation and ownership.