PDA

View Full Version : The Real Reason Ubisoft Offered a Free Game



Shahkulu101
12-21-2014, 11:27 PM
LOL:

http://www.polygon.com/2014/12/20/7427437/assassins-creed-unity-free-game-lawsuit-class-action

The free game wasn't a gesture of goodwill and an apology, it was just Ubisoft's way of ensuring you can't sue them. In other words, they were ensuring they wouldn't lose money. Not that a lot of people were actually going to sue, but it's the principle that counts.

What seemed like a surprising pro-consumer act by Ubisoft can actually be viewed as anti-consumer. At the end of the day though, I'm pleased that I'm receiving Dead Kings for free, so I don't really care. Just find it funny.

Thoughts?

X_xWolverinEx_X
12-21-2014, 11:29 PM
don't have the game so cant say anything

Namikaze_17
12-21-2014, 11:33 PM
The Truth hasn't been more said!

It pays to wait. :cool:

So when I buy Unity, I'll have Dead Kings and a not as buggy game waiting.

D.I.D.
12-21-2014, 11:42 PM
Yeah, I thought it was stupid. I don't think it's as simple as being anti-lawsuit. Only a fraction of the customer base bought the season pass, and not all of them will end up availing themselves of the offer. At worst, the move reduces the number of people who might participate in a lawsuit.

In reality, the likelihood of any such lawsuit succeeding are very low. Ubisoft has made significant improvements to the game and continues to do so. Some people still have problems. Ubi's overzealous legal contract is a failure, because it lends more credibility to the idea of a lawsuit's success than it ever really had, and what's more, it makes people think about wanting to sue Ubisoft.

The truth of it is probably much more simple: "How much will the offer cost us, versus how much money will we make as a result of the goodwill/free advertising in press stories?". A smart person asked that question, and a stupid person answered it.

Now, instead of feeling good about my free game, I'll always remember that this was the game that put a bad taste in my mouth by making me sign away legal rights. In other circumstances, it might be okay to exchange compensation for an assurance that the matter ends with the act of settlement, but this rampant display of clownshoes should not have ended with any such caveats. They should have let people have the game AND let them sue, if they wanted to. As you say, chances are, they would not.

JustPlainQuirky
12-21-2014, 11:54 PM
I noticed this.

I would never sue a company over a videogame because that would feel silly, but yeah the agreement was super sketchy

Shahkulu101
12-21-2014, 11:57 PM
I noticed this.

I would never sue a company over a videogame because that would feel silly, but yeah the agreement was super sketchy

Well on second thought, suing for your money back doesn't sound that ridiculous. Obviously Ubi thought there was some chance someone might do that.

Although yes, I'd feel silly in a courtroom. "I DEMAND my $60 dollars back -- or they can buy me another game IDK..."

Namikaze_17
12-22-2014, 12:04 AM
Although yes, I'd feel silly in a courtroom. "I DEMAND my $60 dollars back -- or they can buy me another game IDK..."

Haha. XD

Make this on Judge Judy or something. :rolleyes:

Jackdaw951
12-22-2014, 12:30 AM
That's completely standard legal procedure. They're giving you something of value (a game) in exchange for something else of value (your acceptance of the game as legal satisfaction). It's the same as a conditional endorsement on a check. An insurance company sends you a check for the loss of, say, a car, and where you endorse it in the back, it may say something like "This check is payment in full for claim [etc]". Sure it's a CYA move, but a common one, not dastardly at all.

I'm not defending Ubisoft's contempt for their customers. They deserve all the bad press they've been getting. But this standard legal practice doesn't add any fuel to the fire.

JustPlainQuirky
12-22-2014, 12:38 AM
^^^very good point

ze_topazio
12-22-2014, 12:48 AM
Clever girl.

deskpe
12-22-2014, 12:53 AM
Eh, just about every thin you AGREE to these days says that you won't sue them. both playstation and xbox user agreements does this.

Just about standard procedure. Cause why wouldnt you have people 'sign' a thing that they wont sue you.

wvstolzing
12-22-2014, 03:24 AM
I really doubt that that's the reason. I'll be talking out of my rear end here, but obviously they can't be concerned about individuals suing them -- because *for an individual*, lawyer expenses, the amount of time you'd have to put into it, etc. etc. would be prohibitively high by any measure. They might be concerned with a 'class action lawsuit'; but then again that's unlikely as well, in that if this case were to establish some sort of 'precedent' (badly written software requires damages to be paid?), then the floodgates would open, and people would sue Microsoft, Adobe, Apple, Google, and on and on, for selling them software full of security holes, ungodly amounts of bloat, spyware, ad infinitum.

They do make customers sign an EULA; but obviously if any of the terms on that EULA are against the basic rights & freedoms of consumers, they'd become void. However, a gaming company has an advantage on this account, in that they offer nothing that's in any sense 'mission critical'; in other words, 'bugs' in games can 'ruin your day', but they can't (e.g.) 'ruin your career'; so when they make you agree that they're making no 'guarantees', it's kind of final -- it's a bloody game, after all.

That might be one reason why they get away so easily, with shipping broken software.

GoldenBoy9999
12-22-2014, 06:31 AM
I kind of figured this was part of the reason all along. At least a fraction of it.

I'm still glad I got the game. Far Cry 4 has been weaker than I expected so far though.

SixKeys
12-22-2014, 11:02 AM
I noticed this too. It's definitely sketchy but personally I don't really care because I don't have the chance (or desire) to sue Ubi anyway.

Pr0metheus 1962
12-22-2014, 11:18 AM
The free game wasn't a gesture of goodwill and an apology, it was just Ubisoft's way of ensuring you can't sue them.

Well, anyone can still attempt to sue Ubisoft over this fiasco. The legalese is just a way of ensuring that those who bought the Season Pass and accepted the free game are less likely to win a lawsuit. Season Pass holders who don't accept the free game have not given up their right to pursue a class action lawsuit, and neither have the rest of us.

Shahkulu101
12-22-2014, 05:22 PM
Okay so it seems I've misinterpreted the situation a bit and it's not that big a deal - although I only said what Polygon wrote so...

Still, my bad.