6d ago

Ubisoft EULA demanding consumers destroy delisted games adds fuel to Stop Killing Games movement

www.notebookcheck.net Ubisoft EULA demanding consumers destroy delisted games adds fuel to Stop Killing Games movement

The EULA that accompanies delisted Ubisoft games requires players to destroy their purchases. Stop Killing Games is fighting to keep titles working after companies abandon them. A major representative for EU publishers opposes solutions like support for third-party servers.

You're viewing a single thread.

50 comments

IANAL but wasn't that text just some "standard" legalese relating to the way they license software and it was basically unenforceable anyway? I know it's cool to pick on ubisoft for being a shit company, but BG3 had a similar requirement in the game's EULA:

Same for GOG iirc, but I'm too lazy to search.
- Gog doesn't have this. They specifically market it that you get to download a binary install and keep the game forever.
  
  yes but there’s still a EULA you agree to about redistribution and how you’re allowed to use the software etc…even FOSS software has licenses. if there’s terms in there about being able to back out of the agreement, i’d imagine there would be a clause about destroying copies of the software
  that all seems very reasonable
- It’s why no legitimate site is reporting this, because it’s nonsense rage bait.
- This being "standard legalese" sounds fine to you?
- That's saying that if YOU stop the agreement, you have to delete the game though.
  
  I read it the same way you did. If you want to terminate the EULA, then they request you remove your copies of the game. In that snippet it says nothing about them arbitrary demand you delete all your copies.
  
  They both are. Both agreements can be terminated for any reason. Larion's says nothing that would prevent them from terminating the agreement, it only clarifies that the signer can. There's no real difference here.
  
  Exactly this. And it's kind of logical actually, when you go crazy like writing Larian "fuck this shit I hate the game, you can shove it up your ass" it's no surprise you're fed up with the game and don't want to have it anymore. It's like when you literally destroyed diskette/CD/DVD back then in a rage (or fighting addiction).
  
  That's one way to tell everyone that you didn't understand the comment.
  
  Care to explain then?
  I didn't want to dig out the EULA for more context of that snippet.
- I can't find it on GOG's but I wouldn't be surprised if it's in most EULAs. I've seen emails saying "confidential, if you are not the intended recipient of this email you must delete it." There's no way to enforce that. Ubisoft isn't coming to your house to review the contents of your drives. I'm guessing it's to stop some loophole like "you said I can't resell your game so instead I sold my hard drive (that has the game installed on it)".
- Yep I believe that's what this is. I've seen clauses like this in other stuff too. Pretty boiler plate. Not like they can actually enforce it.
  
  Then why the fuck did they write it?
  
  Because a good lawyer looks for any sort of far reaching authority they can legally get away with, and will continues to push boundaries as legally far as they can until they get challenged. All in the name of protecting their clients from liability.
  I don't like it, but I get it. And these things can fall apart when challenged in court or public opinion.
  Makes me think of the guy who died from an allergy at Disney land and Disney tried to say he couldn't sue because of his Disney plus agreement.
  Lawyers put in all kinds of legal clauses specifically to try and avoid any and all liability on anything imaginable or unimaginable. Most times it's beyond what anyone would call reasonable. But we aren't dealing with reasonable people.
  Say I broke a game disk that they told me I had to destroy and I cut myself on it, deep enough to need medical attention. I wonder if I could sue them for the costs, since they specifically told me I had to break my game.
- It seems like the relevant section in the Ubisoft EULA says
  "Upon termination for any reason, You must immediately uninstall the Product and destroy all copies of the Product in Your possession."
  I read this wording of this to be stricter than the BG3 example you shared, because the BG3 one seems to be saying "if you don't agree to this EULA (or if you agree, but later terminate that agreement), then you must uninstall the game". Whereas the Ubisoft one seems to include Ubisoft terminating the agreement, rather than just the user. That's just my interpretation of these snippets though, as someone who is not a lawyer. It's possible that the BG3 EULA also includes other parts that would mean similar to what people are unhappy about on the Ubisoft EULA
  
  afaik both are unenforceable since you can only read them after paying for the product.
- Isn’t the conditions quite different, from your screenshot, you get to devices if you want to terminate. But in the other case, they decide.
- Nice observation. Nonetheless it is wrong in any circumstance.

50 comments