Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ubisoft deleted account with hundreds of dollars’ worth of games for inactivity

mmos.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 543 posts

Re: Ubisoft deleted account with hundreds of dollars’ worth of games for inactivity

#471

Post by danaris »

endisneigh wrote: post #15

This article is a great example of why we need legislation around ownership of digital items. I generally hate getting the government involved in things, but if you're paying money for goods, there needs to be a way to be credited or receive your digital goods in a way that still works without your "account". Personally I always get kind of nervous around buying things on PSN, Xbox, Stadia, Steam, Oculus, etc. If the…

Unfortunately, there's a pretty straightforward way around legislation that requires that people have access to games they've bought, and companies are already moving in that direction: Just make every game have an online component, and make it not run if it can't properly authenticate with the server.

Banning this type of practice gets into much thornier ground, because plenty of games legitimately do run only online (MMOs of all types, for instance), and for plenty of others, there's a legitimate reason for them to at least have an online component...and just how deeply embedded in the game that online component has to be is rarely going to be a simple matter to determine.

I don't really see a good solution to this at the moment, sadly.

Re: Ubisoft deleted account with hundreds of dollars’ worth of games for inactivity

#472

Post by acdha »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #454
Lazare wrote: post #290

I feel a bit disappointed by the number of people suggesting that an NFT would somehow help here. An NFT is just a fancy signed receipt. I can mint an NFT saying the OP owns a bunch of Ubisoft games and give it to him, but his account will still be closed. Ubisoft could mint an NFT saying he owns a bunch of games and give it to him, but his account will still be closed . (He probably still has the receipts from when…

A correctly implemented NFT would mean that he could still sell the game to someone else, he should still be able to take the NFT of his games with him and make a new account theoretically. If they provide no way for him to auto export his NFTs then nobody should bother buying NFTs of games since as you're suggesting, it's pointless.

How does your correct implementation force Ubisoft to do something against their will? If they want to block someone, opening another account will work only to the extent that they don't really care — otherwise their terms of service would be meaningless since everyone could just crank out sock puppets.

Re: Ubisoft deleted account with hundreds of dollars’ worth of games for inactivity

#473

Post by dragonwriter »

danaris wrote: post #471
endisneigh wrote: post #15

This article is a great example of why we need legislation around ownership of digital items. I generally hate getting the government involved in things, but if you're paying money for goods, there needs to be a way to be credited or receive your digital goods in a way that still works without your "account". Personally I always get kind of nervous around buying things on PSN, Xbox, Stadia, Steam, Oculus, etc. If the…

Unfortunately, there's a pretty straightforward way around legislation that requires that people have access to games they've bought, and companies are already moving in that direction: Just make every game have an online component, and make it not run if it can't properly authenticate with the server. Banning this type of practice gets into much thornier ground, because plenty of games legitimately do run only onlin…

> I don't really see a good solution to this at the moment, sadly.

Preferring games that don't do the bad thing and being willing to pay a premium for (or accept lower production values from) them is the market solution. I think you’ve outline why there isn't a legislative solution that doesn't adversely impact lots of genres of games where online is fundamental to the game and not an abusive control methods with no other purpose.

Re: Ubisoft deleted account with hundreds of dollars’ worth of games for inactivity

#474

Post by acdha »

throwawaycities wrote: post #385
cedilla wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How exactly would the embedded program force Ubisoft to act?

Self-executing programs on EVM would entirely remove the need to force anything, which is OPs “solution”. We have seen it time and again with centralized services right? Just take any one of the horror stories where PayPal has shutdown/frozen accounts. People have been frozen for months/years/indefinitely with funds they need to live and feed their families. You don’t need to force PayPal to unlock you account/funds…

Is the game distributed and executing on the blockchain? If not, you're close to understanding how NFTs very expensively do not solve this problem: the blockchain state doesn't remove Ubisoft's control of their software and servers. What would help is a legal contract with user-friendly terms (which they could offer now if they wanted to, but they don't) or consumer protection regulation (which has no need for a blockchain).

Re: Ubisoft deleted account with hundreds of dollars’ worth of games for inactivity

#475

Post by acdha »

cinntaile wrote: post #457
user-the-name wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ubisoft is under no obligation to honour your transfer of ownership of the NFT. They can just stop accepting it as valid any time they like.

This is true. The assumption I make is that we would be living in a scenario where they would honour the ownership transfer. I'm just saying it's possible for NFTs to work like this, not that this will actually happen.

That's the problem, though: if they wanted to allow this, it's easy to do — for example, GOG has a Steam import feature but relatively few publishers allow their content to be used that way. Spending an enormous amount of money switching to NFTs would just be a distraction from the business reasons why those publishers are blocking that capability.

Re: Ubisoft deleted account with hundreds of dollars’ worth of games for inactivity

#476

Post by danaris »

dragonwriter wrote: post #473
danaris wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, there's a pretty straightforward way around legislation that requires that people have access to games they've bought, and companies are already moving in that direction: Just make every game have an online component, and make it not run if it can't properly authenticate with the server. Banning this type of practice gets into much thornier ground, because plenty of games legitimately do run only onlin…

> I don't really see a good solution to this at the moment, sadly. Preferring games that don't do the bad thing and being willing to pay a premium for (or accept lower production values from) them is the market solution. I think you’ve outline why there isn't a legislative solution that doesn't adversely impact lots of genres of games where online is fundamental to the game and not an abusive control methods with no…

Well, yes, but on the whole, that one doesn't seem to be working: there are still plenty of people more than willing to plop down their $60+ for the latest and greatest AAA games...with loot boxes, microtransactions, always-online requirements for single-player modes, and extremely dodgy privacy policies.

Re: Ubisoft deleted account with hundreds of dollars’ worth of games for inactivity

#477

Post by lostcolony »

toper-centage wrote: post #249
lostcolony wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't. Even discounting day 1 patches, every console assumes an internet connection. You're at the mercy of the game devs, and unless you are checking for "internet connection required" (and believing the lack of such on the box means you really don't need one), you can still end up with something that will refuse to boot unless it phones home.

> every console Except the Switch.

Well, they're all -functional- without one. They also all have games that are only sold digitally, check in the background for patches for both the system and the games, and may refuse to start if you're running a version of the OS that is older than what is known to exist at the time of printing a physical copy. The Switch is no different there.

Re: Ubisoft deleted account with hundreds of dollars’ worth of games for inactivity

#478

Post by jonathankoren »

techsupporter wrote: post #100
jonathankoren wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s because you never actually bought the item. You got a license to run it on someone else’s server. Let’s say you bought a bunch of things for The Matrix Online, do you expect that server to run forever? It won’t. It didn’t. Why should someone else maintain it forever? Are you getting a refund? Why? You already extracted the useful life of it. If there’s government regulation it’s around the deceptive use of the…

> That’s because you never actually bought the item. You got a license to run it on someone else’s server. Don't mean to sound too cranky but this "you just bought a license" crap has been a thing since software began being software. It was no more fair back then than it is now. No one is arguing, at least I don't think they are, that a company has an obligation to keep servers running in perpetuity. But to tell me I…

Actually “we” don’t call it “purchased”, they do. It’s a deceptive marketing practice for rentals.

Take for instance Amazon. They say they sell you a digital video, but they actually can’t, because in reality they have a revocable license, which does get revoked, thus all your “purchases” disappear. If you owned physical media, this couldn’t happen.

https://www.slashfilm.com/574053/amazon-sued-purchased-movie...

Re: Ubisoft deleted account with hundreds of dollars’ worth of games for inactivity

#479

Post by dragonwriter »

danaris wrote: post #476
dragonwriter wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't really see a good solution to this at the moment, sadly. Preferring games that don't do the bad thing and being willing to pay a premium for (or accept lower production values from) them is the market solution. I think you’ve outline why there isn't a legislative solution that doesn't adversely impact lots of genres of games where online is fundamental to the game and not an abusive control methods with no…

Well, yes, but on the whole, that one doesn't seem to be working: there are still plenty of people more than willing to plop down their $60+ for the latest and greatest AAA games...with loot boxes, microtransactions, always-online requirements for single-player modes, and extremely dodgy privacy policies.

> extremely dodgy privacy policies.

You might not be able to ban always-online requirements without unacceptable collateral damage, but you can legislatively address “extremely dodgy privacy policies” by simply having decent privacy laws and not leaving the issue up to corporate policy.

Re: Ubisoft deleted account with hundreds of dollars’ worth of games for inactivity

#480

Post by tragictrash »

acdha wrote: post #472
giancarlostoro wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A correctly implemented NFT would mean that he could still sell the game to someone else, he should still be able to take the NFT of his games with him and make a new account theoretically. If they provide no way for him to auto export his NFTs then nobody should bother buying NFTs of games since as you're suggesting, it's pointless.

How does your correct implementation force Ubisoft to do something against their will? If they want to block someone, opening another account will work only to the extent that they don't really care — otherwise their terms of service would be meaningless since everyone could just crank out sock puppets.

That's the whole point, the producer doesn't have control and therefore you own what you bought, instead of renting it.
Post reply on HN