It's because MMOs were sold as subscriptions (most of the time) so they're legally covered in being allowed to end their service. The crew however was sold as a full game with no subscription. They didn't make it clear that the game could cease to exist even though you paid for it outright.

Sadly, I feel like a lawsuit line this won't have the benefit we're all hoping for (open sourcing on closure of services) but will instead just make all subsequent games free-to-play, which would make them more exempt to the same scrutiny. And we're already seemingly heading that way too, warts and all.

[–] DosDude@retrolemmy.com 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

For the future maybe. For games that were sold one day, they would have to either keep supporting it, or release server software.

It is up to the gamers to keep supporting this practice in the future.

I can still play Unreal Tournament '99 and 2004 even though the servers are offline. I can even still play it online with the server ip and even use the server browser with fan mods.

You can't say the same for the crew when it goes offline.

[–] Wodge@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The reason you can still play UT99 and 2004 is because those games were never hosted by epic on a central server. The game shipped with the server hosting tools, and it was designed to allow you to host your own server (if your connection was fast enough) or to rent your own server from a third party.

They're also very different types of games from the current crop of live service games that this youtuber is targeting.

[–] DosDude@retrolemmy.com 5 points 9 months ago

I am aware it's different. All I'm trying to say is either make it single player, release dedicated server software or keep supporting it. You sold it as a product. Don't remove access to a product.

[–] Wodge@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

For the last few years, most MMOs have been, or become, Free to Play, with (a lot of) microtransactions. The only subscription MMOs I can think of off the top of my head are FFXIV, WoW and Eve. Then you have the buy to play, with no sub (or optional sub, but not required to play), games like New World and Elder Scrolls Online. Making the vast majority F2P.

All of those games can become EOL and be removed from sale for any number of reasons, and they'll have the same terms in the EULA that the crew would have. There is literally nothing different legally between The Crew and something like Elyon. Both were paid for up front, no subscription with some optional microtransactions.

Since legallly there is nothing different between all these live service games, it makes this youtubers campaign all the more odd. Car Licensing is notoriously well enforced, so why is this guy, a Half Life youtuber of all things, thinking he can go after Ubisoft on this when it's pretty obvious that it's the license agreements that are the likely cause of the shutdown.

[–] yamanii@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Since it's free they were never sold to you as product, their asses are covered on this one, you can make an arguement for Elder Scrolls Online, Black Desert Online (I bought this one, I have the receipt to prove it) and Guild Wars 2 since they use the b2p model with an optional subscription. Car licensing can only prevent ubisoft to sell the game, it's not required for them to shut it down and render your copy unusable.

[–] MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago

It's all about how they're sold and marketed rather than what's in a EULA. They can't be used the same way as a contract upon purchase and have been shown just as such in law cases in the past. FFXIV, WOW and Eve have always been sold under the pretence you need to keep paying to keep playing.