1072
Ubisoft reportedly deleting customer accounts with purchased games if they have been inactive for too long (twitter.com)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/games@lemmy.world
232 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Michael @LegacyKillaHD

This is just horrifying.

Ubisoft CONFIRMS they will delete your account & purchased games if you go inactive for too long!!!

Ubisoft.. WTF?! Another example of why I'm becoming more & more concerned with the death of physical games.

https://twitter.com/LegacyKillaHD/status/1682653876418224129

Ubisoft Support @UbisoftSupport

Hey there. We just wanted to chime in that you can avoid the account closure by logging into your account within the 30 days (since receiving the email pictured) and selecting the Cancel Account Closure link contained in the email. We certainly do not want you to lose access to your games or account so if you have any difficulties logging in then please create a support case with us. >> ubisoft.com/help

https://twitter.com/UbisoftSupport/status/1682046437834784768

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 54 points 3 years ago (2 children)

I've not been buying Ubisoft games since the sexual harassment scandal back in 2020, and this only reaffirms my choice not to buy anything from them. It's not just scummy, it's pointlessly scummy.

Admittedly, physical copies of games don't resolve this issue either: legally speaking when you own a physical disk, all you own is the disk itself- not the contents. The only way to actually fix this issue is better consumer protection laws.

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

    Yep. We need a law that says "a person owns any item or service they buy for a one time fee. No 'licensing' them out of ownership" or legalese for the same thing. Only loophole should be if it's outright advertised as a subscription service.

    Then another law that guarantees access to schematics and repair parts for reasonable fees. No loopholes. Schematics or die, that's how I roll.

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

    Schematics or die

    Surely if we get the schematics, we would need a die of some kind as well, right?

    Jokes aside, what do you expect is the alternative to licenses? You don't "legally own it" because it's an endlessly duplicatable infinitely durable item. There's literally no way to enforce ownership the same way with actual physical objects outside of keeping track of who owns what (and unsurprisingly, that's what a license is).

    You're attacking the wrong thing here, licenses aren't the problem. It's the revocation of them that is.

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

    Those are my thoughts as well. Like it or not, licenses are the way software has been sold since the very beginning of the industry. The problem is that most licenses can be revoked at any time for any reason; and the solution for that is passing a law that prohibits that.

    If firms want to be able to revoke a license, they should have to clearly and prominently outline the conditions for that to happen- preferably before you even press the "buy" button.

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

    I'm not completely against licensing, especially software. I'm against companies licensing buyers away from being able to use what they bought.

    So if a license states "You own this as long as you don't make and distribute copies to other users. Also some lingo allowing for reasonable backup copies." 100% good in my opinion.

    But a license that states "You paid for it but we can take it away for no good reason, such as a few months of inactivity." BS IMO.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent