Ubisoft deletes "inactive" accounts!

[chrcoluk]

I installed uplay (now called something else) last week, and I reinstalled windows back in January, so we talking 11 months, luckily my account is still active.

 

[Ruru]

It's even unlawful in the US, though you'd have to fight for your rights.

Is it? TBH I'm not sure about US laws but on EU, that shit is so fucked

EU sucks IMO but at least they protect consumer's rights more than everything.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Is it? TBH I'm not sure about US laws but on EU, that shit is so fucked

EU sucks IMO but at least they protect consumer's rights more than everything.

Contract law in the US is very complicated(to say the least), but at the end of the day, the law and the courts generally side with the consumer so long as they are willing to fight to protect their rights. Therein we find the difficulty, it can be very expensive and time consuming to fight for ones rights.

It's a little sad and pathetic that the EU stands stronger for consumer rights than the US does...

 

[chrcoluk]

Contract law in the US is very complicated(to say the least), but at the end of the day, the law and the courts generally side with the consumer so long as they are willing to fight to protect their rights. Therein we find the difficulty, it can be very expensive and time consuming to fight for ones rights.

It's a little sad and pathetic that the EU stands stronger for consumer rights than the US does...

In the UK we have started to move back in the US direction after brexit, e.g. standard warranty is now back down to 1 year from 2 years.

 

[bonehead123]

TOS isn't the impenetrable defense some of you seem to think it is.

I never said it was an "impenetrable defense", but it IS a starting point for the description/explanation of both yours and the company's legal rights & responsibilities concerning account access and other matters....

Everyone, when presented with a TOS (or any other legally binding document), has (at least) 3 choices:

1) Read it, understand it (or ask for clarification) agree to it, and be happy
2) Don't read it, blindly accept it, then suffer the consequences for your ignorance/lack of patience/negligence/inability to comprehend...
3) Don't agree to it and move on to something that you feel moar comfortable with....

And as for the shoot me in the head clause, do you really think these TOS's are written without the advice of lawyers ? They know what they can & can NOT put in these things, and they don't get paid for writing shit that will get the company into an ass load of trouble or that conflicts with what most people & courts would consider as reasonable & customary by any normal standards.

IMHO, it's largely about common sense, personal responsibility & accountability.... if you don't have any of these, then who's fault is that ??

 

[lexluthermiester]

Everyone, when presented with a TOS (or any other legally binding document), has (at least) 3 choices

It should be noted that companies often put unenforceable terms in their contracts hoping the public will never fight it on merits. Much of those terms are either borderline iffy or blatantly unlawful. Want an example? Look no further than the microsoft Windows EULA for the US. A solid 1/3 of that document is little more than unenforceable drivel. Why else do you think they require mediation for disputes? They know full well that they can not influence a court Judge or jury but they CAN lawfully influence a mediator and that many of the terms in said EULA will not stand up in a court of law.

Whhere is comes to big companies, it's all about overwhelming you with legal jargon and fear tactics. They don't care about you on any level except to get your money. There are some companies that are the exception to that rule, but they few and far between.

Folks, contracts are only enforceable so long as they do NOT violate standing statutory legal code.

 

[FreedomEclipse]

Logged in to ubisoft launcher for the first time since Farcry 4 was released -- I only own two games in my library FC3 and FC4. If they deleted my account, it honestly wouldnt bother me. I mean, i wouldnt even be mad to lose two games that i paid for back in those days. Had a lot of fun with FC3 with friends, FC4 i bought but never played past the intro where you meet the insanity guy. FC4 was officially my last ever Ubisoft purchase. I dont even have any of their games on steam.

 

[lexluthermiester]

i wouldnt even be mad to lose two games that i paid for back in those days.

Why not? It would be the same as if someone stole something from you while you were unaware. Why would you not have a problem with that?

 

[MentalAcetylide]

If it is indeed included in the TOS (as shown above), which YOU failed to read before agreeing to it, then that's YOUR fault, not theirs, yes ????

This makes me think of that one South Park episode "HUMANCENTiPAD". "You didn't read it!!!"

Log in every once in a while, people, or you may find one of your orifices surgically attached to an orifice of someone else...
Anyway, the concept is nothing new. I know there are a number of games out there that will keep your account active but will delete your data/progress after a certain amount of time if you haven't logged in at all. However, I do find it to be a dick move on the part of Ubi to disable inactive accounts. The real question is, would the accounts be recoverable in cases where circumstances(i.e. medical) prevented the user from being able to get on a computer and log into the game? Shit happens, and it would certainly be a scumbag thing to do to someone if Ubi refused to or is unable to reverse it.

 

[qubit]

That's outrageous. People have paid good money for their games and the client is required to play them. What do they do if the account is deleted? Also, they'd lose any social features etc.

 

[Regeneration]

I have 2 inactive accounts, I checked them both yesterday, and both still work fine.

 

[Chomiq]

Checked mine yesterday, still active and I can't even remember when was the last time I logged in. Maybe last year when playing AC:Origins.

 

[Bomby569]

This was really overblown, they said they never delete accounts with paid games and also never without a warning first. Like most i have an old account and no one deleted it. It was one or two cases and they solved it. Social media and clickbait news did the rest, blown this into a thing.

 

[MentalAcetylide]

This was really overblown, they said they never delete accounts with paid games and also never without a warning first. Like most i have an old account and no one deleted it. It was one or two cases and they solved it. Social media and clickbait news did the rest, blown this into a thing.

That sounds about right. It just doesn't make any sense that Ubi would indiscriminately delete accounts that users haven't logged into for a long period of time. Its not like it requires a huge amount of data storage on their side, and I'm sure there's no incentive or advantage to users in creating multiple accounts and somehow abuse this. I think its more of a case that they just want to cover their asses if & when they need to start deleting/disabling accounts of users that misuse their service.

 

[FreedomEclipse]

Why not? It would be the same as if someone stole something from you while you were unaware. Why would you not have a problem with that?

I got my moneys worth out of FC3. FC4 I bought on a whim but I have seen play throughs on YT and if my account gets deleted, nothing of value will be lost. I dont just say that about these two games but pretty much all of ubisofts games in the last decade or so apart from seige.

I really don't know why I bought FC4 but I was probably hoping that it would be more different than the rest of their low effort copy pastes and renames.

Thats just me though.

 

[Vayra86]

Did you guys seriously not notice the Ubisoft statement on this matter? Or is that just thrown by the wayside because 'muh reddit says it happens and let's go outrage mode'

Holy crap. Use common sense. Who benefits here? Ubisoft for having one less customer in their portfolio?! Of course not, they even say so - there is no active policy to delete inactive accounts with paid product on it, but if you're using an account with just free giveaway crap on it AND you're not logging in for over four years, it might get listed for deletion at some point... AFTER sending you a notification, too.

And yes, GDPR might very well be behind it, because realistically, you can't indefinitely save user data if the user is not using your service anymore. Its actually desirable to protect your privacy. You weren't a customer if you had only unpaid giveaways on the account to begin with. Customer rights never entered the equation here. Ubisoft is just conforming to what we consider proper account management.

Wake up already, instead of parroting each other in misinformation.

This was really overblown, they said they never delete accounts with paid games and also never without a warning first. Like most i have an old account and no one deleted it. It was one or two cases and they solved it. Social media and clickbait news did the rest, blown this into a thing.

And people read only headlines, its stunning, this topic. The most baffling to me is the collective stupidity and lack of common sense. Do we not consider what we read anymore, or what?! And we wonder why the world's going to shit...

I never said it was an "impenetrable defense", but it IS a starting point for the description/explanation of both yours and the company's legal rights & responsibilities concerning account access and other matters....

Everyone, when presented with a TOS (or any other legally binding document), has (at least) 3 choices:

1) Read it, understand it (or ask for clarification) agree to it, and be happy
2) Don't read it, blindly accept it, then suffer the consequences for your ignorance/lack of patience/negligence/inability to comprehend...
3) Don't agree to it and move on to something that you feel moar comfortable with....

And as for the shoot me in the head clause, do you really think these TOS's are written without the advice of lawyers ? They know what they can & can NOT put in these things, and they don't get paid for writing shit that will get the company into an ass load of trouble or that conflicts with what most people & courts would consider as reasonable & customary by any normal standards.

IMHO, it's largely about common sense, personal responsibility & accountability.... if you don't have any of these, then who's fault is that ??

Its actually the other way around with a TOS. It all depends on when the TOS/EULA is presented to you. If its presented AFTER the contract is made (ie the purchase, which, in 99% of games, is the case), any restriction of that mutual agreement is illegal in the TOS/EULA. After all, as a customer, you had no way of knowing of these restrictions before signing the contract.

Thát is common sense. So with regards to access to Uplay, Ubisoft has a legal TOS. But for each individual purchase, it does not apply. The TOS you accepted for Uplay applies to Uplay.

Here's a source.

Are End User License Agreements Enforceable?

End user license agreements are enforceable as long as it is clear that it is a contract and both parties can understand the terms.

toslawyer.com

REASONS WHY AN END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT MAY NOT BE ENFORCEABLE​

The courts might not deem an EULA as enforceable if the user is not required to agree to the terms before purchase.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Thats just me though.

Fair enough. For me, once I pay for something I expect to be able to use it anytime I need/want to. I do NOT expect to be denied access to it, EVER.

 

[Vya Domus]

They know what they can & can NOT put in these things

That is just not true, there are a lot of grey areas with no precedents in the law those things touch upon. There is no certainty, they do it on the premise most of that stuff will never be brought into question in an actual legal battle.

This case is a perfect example. Can the company really deny access to a product a user paid for whenever they want ? Was it made clear within reason to the user that they're actually engaged in a licensing type agreement when the purchase was made that might be broken latter on ? Are there straight answers that leave no room for interpretation to those question ? If not then it's not that simple. I don't know why it's so hard to understand that it's not enough for a company to write a tome, call it TOS and proceed to do whatever they want with no repercussions.

People win legal battles with banks over abusive calluses in contracts for example all the time even though those clauses were in fact disclosed but they were proven to be unlawful due to circumstances.

 

[BSim500]

Surely, this can’t be a policy of the company can it? Unfortunately, it is. Looking through Ubisoft’s international terms of service agreement, it’s spelled out for all to see:
“We may suspend or close your Account and your ability to use one or more Services or part of the Services, at any time, automatically and at our sole discretion where…
upon notification, where your Account has been inactive for more than six months.”

Reason #731 why I always buy the GOG version of a game when available...

 

[Vayra86]

Reason #731 why I always buy the GOG version of a game when available...

There is no legal difference between a game license on GOG and a game license offered through a service.

Somehow in this topic people have come to believe otherwise. Maybe you should read more than a selective quote.

 

[BSim500]

There is no legal difference between a game license on GOG and a game license offered through a service.

Somehow in this topic people have come to believe otherwise. Maybe you should read more than a selective quote.

1. Incorrect. If you actually read GOG's User Agreement you'll see stuff like "17.3 It seems very unlikely, but if we have to stop providing access to GOG services and GOG content permanently (not because of any breach by you), we will try to give you at least sixty (60) days advance notice by posting a note on www.GOG.COM and sending an email to every registered users – during that time you should be able to download any GOG content you purchased." ie, it's extremely obvious they regard "your content" (offline installers) are being very separate from "a license to play the game is dependent on the store / client / services" of other stores. Fun fact - the word "subscription" or "subscriber" also doesn't appear in GOG's EULA even once (but 115x times for Steam). So yes, the way it's worded legally is actually different for obvious reasons (DRM-Free games work without "services", DRM'd games do not). Some people just get hung up on "but license means you own nothing" which is factually incorrect in this case. GOG games are licensed directly, most other stores (inc Steam) it's the store services being licensed with the content "subscribed" to being an indirect privilege dependent on those services.

2. Most people who want DRM-Free offline installers know why they want them for practical reasons, ie, as soon as they are in your possession and backed up, there is literally nothing that can be done to remotely disable or alter them. So again, the practicals are obviously as different as the legalese.

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

So if I dont use my ubisoft account, they can delete my shit with all my games I paid for? Fuck you Ubisoft!

 

[Bomby569]

1. Incorrect. If you actually read GOG's User Agreement you'll see stuff like "17.3 It seems very unlikely, but if we have to stop providing access to GOG services and GOG content permanently (not because of any breach by you), we will try to give you at least sixty (60) days advance notice by posting a note on www.GOG.COM and sending an email to every registered users – during that time you should be able to download any GOG content you purchased." ie, it's extremely obvious they regard "your content" (offline installers) are being very separate from "a license to play the game is dependent on the store / client / services" of other stores. Fun fact - the word "subscription" or "subscriber" also doesn't appear in GOG's EULA even once (but 115x times for Steam). So yes, the way it's worded legally is actually different for obvious reasons (DRM-Free games work without "services", DRM'd games do not). Some people just get hung up on "but license means you own nothing" which is factually incorrect in this case. GOG games are licensed directly, most other stores (inc Steam) it's the store services being licensed with the content "subscribed" to being an indirect privilege dependent on those services.

2. Most people who want DRM-Free offline installers know why they want them for practical reasons, ie, as soon as they are in your possession and backed up, there is literally nothing that can be done to remotely disable or alter them. So again, the practicals are obviously as different as the legalese.

The fact that they don't allow DRM is obviously better, so you get to keep your game if the store goes down. But in legal terms like was said there is no difference, you don't own the games, just a license to play them, that doesn't change.

 

[BSim500]

The fact that they don't allow DRM is obviously better, so you get to keep your game if the store goes down. But in legal terms like was said there is no difference, you don't own the games, just a license to play them, that doesn't change.

Buying a physical paper book doesn't give your author's distribution rights either but that's not really what anyone is talking about here. In legal terms it's what's being licensed that's different ("the game is licensed to you directly as a lifelong perpetual license" is far more like buying then owning a DVD vs a potentially far more temporary "we're licensing you the right to use our store services. The privilege to access your "subscriptions" through that will be dependent on that service provision". The difference is so obvious it's borderline trolling to deny it, though in my experience people who've spent thousands on games debating this will often try to push the "they're all the same line" out of denial over how an expensive large DRM'd game collection can disappear with your complete and full agreement of such when you create the account...

Likewise, GOG is based in Poland and the EU High Court have actually ruled before in prior cases related to reselling software (paraphrased) "just because you call something a license in a EULA doesn't mean the purchaser doesn't 'own' that particular individual copy of it if the item was sold as a one-off physical substitute (ie, there are no ongoing services involved) and the only reason for using the word 'license' is to deprive normal ownership rights". See also why a Norwegian court threw out Hollywood's massive case vs Jon Johanson over DecSS (including the failed argument (paraphrased) "We licensed it, so we continue to own his individual movie disc not him and therefore he had no right to create DeCSS to watch his our disc on Linux") which was thrown out. Again, "if it uses the word 'license' even once you don't own it" is a fallacy. It's how that thing is licensed that determines that in practise the legal world.

Don't get me wrong, I'm as disgusted with Ubisoft as anyone else, but there's a whole lot of wishful thinking and bad legal advice in here with "If someone agreed to have their account deleted due to lack of use, it's unfair / illegal when it gets deleted due to lack of use" being any different to multiple failed past lawsuits vs e-mail address providers who do the same thing every day when exactly that was mentioned in the EULA. It's extremely crappy but may well be perfectly legal if that's exactly what the person agreed to. Nor do you need to see or re-agree to the EULA upon every purchase to continue to make it legal (same reason you don't see Netflix EULA after starting every movie / payment), only when they change the agreement. And if you disagreed with a future new EULA change and clicked "Deny" upon reinstalling a new version of Steam / Origin / uPlay tied to same new EULA during a Windows re-install, you could be legally locked out of your games the same way. Ultimate bottom line - "there's no free lunch" with DRM'd services.

 

[Kovoet]

Well good thing my buddy suggested we picked GR Breakpoint back up last week. I rarely play any Ubi games and I do have quite a few…

You ever in game add me bud.