320
Ubisoft Can Delete Inactive Accounts, Making Users Lose Access to Their Games (gamerant.com)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/gaming@beehaw.org
114 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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
[–] 5 points 3 years ago (1 child)

Eventually, they're going to stop supporting that, and we all kind of accept and agree to that.

The hell we do. I've stopped buying games that disappear when some server somewhere goes offline.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    You accept it by participating. You don't participate, therefore the comment wasn't referring to you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I was simultaneously saying that we don't "all" participate, as well as encouraging others to do the one thing we can to stop the practice.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    The comment was referring to people who do participate though. If I make a comment about Australians Americans aren't supposed to comment their disagreement

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    That's retroactively deciding your audience. Once again, I'm highlighting that it's not our only option to endorse the practice, whereas the language of the comment I replied to implied that it is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    No, it's not. The original comment was specifically referring to it being a risk you accept when buying off steam etc. You accept that by participating. You can protest outside the system but your comment is entirely wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    Not every game on Steam has DRM, let alone a server dependency.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (2 children)

    Steam is naturally a DRM. Offline mode works for I think a month before you're locked out of your games.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Not all. Steam has DRM that developers don't have to use. Once the game is downloaded, it may not even check with Steam again to see if you own the game, even letting you launch the game when Steam is closed or uninstalled. It's not inherent to all Steam games.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    Not all. Steam has DRM that developers don't have to use. Once the game is downloaded, it may not even check with Steam again to see if you own the game, even letting you launch the game when Steam is closed or uninstalled. It's not inherent to all Steam games.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent