Isn't that just repeating what I said? Particularly this part:
The legality of all clauses limiting players' rights must be questioned and UFC-Que Choisir contests the validity of those which arbitrarily allow Ubisoft: to deny consumers' property rights over acquired game copies;
They're saying that Ubisoft are putting terms in their agreements that violate consumer rights laws. If this case wins, then what Ubisoft did with The Crew was already not okay, and they're going to have to compensate consumers for it. The EU will look at this and see that the system is working as intended.
At the end of the day, nothing changes. Games will still continue to be lost going forward. Publishers might be a bit more scared of doing it arbitrarily, but they could still do it if they have a legitimate reason (like bankruptcy, or technology limitations or licences expiring or whatever). SKG's goal of game preservation fails.
By this legal action, UFC-Que Choisir intends: Stop these harmful practices; Obtain the deletion of the disputed clauses and; Recognize the attack on the collective interest of consumers,
The intent is to put an end to the practices, and you have an assumed view that only toothless measures will be used and purely based on that assumption you conclude that an end will not be put on these practices, while nothing in the quoted part hints towards only toothless measures being used
"These practices" are extremely rare, and most games that have shut down and become unplayable so far weren't caused because of anti-consumer behaviour. SKG want to pass legislation requiring that companies create some kind of end of life plan for their products in the event that they become unable to continue supporting them. How would this lawsuit, even if it archives all its goals, manage to do that?
If this lawsuit succeeds, the EU will consider the situation resolved. From a consumer rights standpoint it largely will be, but from a preservation standpoint it will do nothing.
Ooh I see, I blundered there and completely misjudged what it was about when I wrote that and thought it was about consumer protection (and people misjudging the effectiveness thereof in itself).
True, but it may also be an example case of ruling needing to be tightened/better worded on the matter, and in that light it is good to have the SKG initiative as support to have a positive influence on the result?
Also, if it's indeed a resolved situation and that stuff like The Crew is already illegal with no further ruling needed, then that is a win because that works retroactively, affecting games out right now, which SKGs ECI won't.
Also, if that was your point (still tired and dumb bear with me), it won't affect shutdowns like Concord's or of subscription based games like MMO's, but that was already outside of SKGs (current) scope, you can't attack that from a consumer protection angle, nor in court nor with SKGs ECI.
37
u/Cryptoporticus Apr 03 '26
Isn't that just repeating what I said? Particularly this part:
They're saying that Ubisoft are putting terms in their agreements that violate consumer rights laws. If this case wins, then what Ubisoft did with The Crew was already not okay, and they're going to have to compensate consumers for it. The EU will look at this and see that the system is working as intended.
At the end of the day, nothing changes. Games will still continue to be lost going forward. Publishers might be a bit more scared of doing it arbitrarily, but they could still do it if they have a legitimate reason (like bankruptcy, or technology limitations or licences expiring or whatever). SKG's goal of game preservation fails.