Welcome to discussions

Quick Suggestions

  • The-Foxhounded
    Original poster 54 posts

    Ubisoft thinks it's above the law. I've tried to contact them through Customer support rather than Live Chat, and even then I was given scripted responses and they refused to tell me how to actually get into contact with anyone. If you purchased any armor sets that had Diamond slots removed then you are a victim too. Below is the one sided conversation I had with customer "support".

    TL;DR: Ubisoft knows it broke the law, put no effort into response, refuse to tell us who needs to be contacted.



    End of Conversation

    This isn't just about the $20 I paid for the armor pack anymore, this is about holding Ubisoft responsible for making illegal alterations to perpetual licensed content that they have no authority to change. This is the type of change that needs to be called out. If we let them get away with doing this then they could get away with selling a season pass, advertising four new locations and only giving two. The way they have their EULA made up is nothing but a scare tactic that isn't enforceable.

    EULAs are not laws but are subject to laws. Corporations do not possess law-making powers. Many EULAs are not written by legal experts but by people who just see the formats of previous EULAs and make assumptions from seeing those about what the nature of an EULA is, and then just copy and paste the terms they like the sound of from other EULAs. Many EULAs even from large companies contain made-up and non legally-enforceable stuff in them. Considering that it is even unreasonable to expect people to read EULAs, there is a question of how could an EULA-based argument pass the "reasonable person" or "the man on the Clapham omnibus" legal tests. An EULA can often be nothing more than an extremely long-winded and self-aggrandizing equivalent of printing a © symbol, with the parts of it that reach beyond the meaning of a © symbol being invalid.

    EULAs are also used as a tool of manipulation to psychologically ward off potential challenges and to provoke the type of customer behaviour a publisher wishes there to be, by claiming, or, by phrasing things (without outright saying them) in a way that suggests publisher rights and powers beyond what actually exist. There are countless examples of this, but one very familiar one is "this software is licensed, not sold", which plays on the semantics of "software".

    An EULA and a Terms of Service (ToS) are not the same thing. An EULA purports to apply to a good you've purchased and own, to impose conditions on how you use your own property, and so is invalid. A Terms of Service applies to a service, owned by someone else, that you use via a subscription license or a free account, and so a ToS can be valid. Someone else isn't entitled to set terms for your usage of your own property, which is what an EULA tries to do but they are entitled to set the terms over your usage of their own property, which is what a ToS aims to do. However, a ToS can still be invalid depending on what terms it claims. If a ToS tries to add in conditions about your usage of your own property, such as software you've purchased or perhaps modification of your hardware, then at least that part of it is invalid. Just as how some perpetual-license software might include a component that requires a subscription-license for its typical usage (as with some MMOs), a software good that you own might have an online component to which a ToS applies for the sake of accessing 3rd-party servers, with those 3rd-party servers not being a part of your ownership of the base game software you purchased.

    Ownership over a thing is what establishes one's decision-making authority over the thing. To sell something is to relinquish it as one's property and to relinquish all of one's decision-making authority over that thing and to transfer decision-making authority over that thing to the person who bought the thing. Anything sold via a perpetual (meaning non-exhausting, eternal, lasting-forever) license is a product that becomes the sole possession of whoever purchases it, and upon its purchase all property rights including all decision-making authority transfer from the seller to the purchaser. And then the seller no longer has any rightful say over anything regarding that non-reproduceable instance of software represented by its perpetual license.

  • Contrary to popular belief, Lorem Ipsum is not simply random text. It has roots in a piece of classical Latin literature from 45 BC, making it over 2000 years old. Richard McClintock, a Latin professor at Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia, looked up one of the more obscure Latin words, consectetur, from a Lorem Ipsum passage, and going through the cites of the word in classical literature, discovered the undoubtable source. Lorem Ipsum comes from sections 1.10.32 and 1.10.33 of "de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum" (The Extremes of Good and Evil) by Cicero, written in 45 BC. This book is a treatise on the theory of ethics, very popular during the Renaissance. The first line of Lorem Ipsum, "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet..", comes from a line in section 1.10.32.

    Contrary to popular belief, Lorem Ipsum is not simply random text. It has roots in a piece of classical Latin literature from 45 BC, making it over 2000 years old. Richard McClintock, a Latin professor at Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia, looked up one of the more obscure Latin words, consectetur, from a Lorem Ipsum passage, and going through the cites of the word in classical literature, discovered the undoubtable source. Lorem Ipsum comes from sections 1.10.32 and 1.10.33 of "de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum" (The Extremes of Good and Evil) by Cicero, written in 45 BC. This book is a treatise on the theory of ethics, very popular during the Renaissance. The first line of Lorem Ipsum, "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet..", comes from a line in section 1.10.32.

    Contrary to popular belief, Lorem Ipsum is not simply random text. It has roots in a piece of classical Latin literature from 45 BC, making it over 2000 years old. Richard McClintock, a Latin professor at Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia, looked up one of the more obscure Latin words, consectetur, from a Lorem Ipsum passage, and going through the cites of the word in classical literature, discovered the undoubtable source. Lorem Ipsum comes from sections 1.10.32 and 1.10.33 of "de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum" (The Extremes of Good and Evil) by Cicero, written in 45 BC. This book is a treatise on the theory of ethics, very popular during the Renaissance. The first line of Lorem Ipsum, "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet..", comes from a line in section 1.10.32.

  • ChuckKatse
    283 posts

    From what I read, you most likely have a good case for a law suit, however, do you want to go that far. Attorney costs etc. I would ask for a refund for the Armor Set purchased and would not buy anything else from Ubisoft. Once you purchased that Armor Set it became your property not Ubisoft's. They should not of made any changes to any armor set purchased prior to their patch. They could of easily removed the old armor set with the extra rune slots and replaced it with their changed version with less rune slots.

  • The-Foxhounded
    Original poster 54 posts

    @chuckkatse or at the very least they could of refunded the Helix credits. This would still be an issue for some, but changing it and ignoring the glaring issue is adding insult to injury.

  • LeoRaptor1979
    99 posts

    They didn't break any laws. What law did they break?

  • longjohn119
    787 posts
    From what I read, you most likely have a good case for a law suit, however, do you want to go that far. Attorney costs etc. I would ask for a refund for the Armor Set purchased and would not buy anything else from Ubisoft. Once you purchased that Armor Set it became your property not Ubisoft's. They should not of made any changes to any armor set purchased prior to their patch. They could of easily removed the old armor set with the extra rune slots and replaced it with their changed version with less rune slots.


    You do not own software, you only lease/license it ..... Unless the license says specifically you can change or modify the code (Open Source License and even those have some restrictions) you can't .....

    Basically when you cut through all the legalese a software license only guarantees that you'll get something that has "1s" and "0s" in it ..... Their license states they can make any changes they want at any time and you agreed to that when you downloaded it .... I don't care who publishes the software or what it's use is for it's pretty much the same thing everywhere and the wording of these licenses are already court tested and the chances of winning a lawsuit is about nil

    In Odyssey they nerfed both Hero Strike and Bows months after release (granted both were a bit OP and out of balance with the rest of the game) and there was nothing anyone could do about it ..... Actually removing the way OP aspects of these sets was actually the right thing to do because the way they were it sure made it look like it was a "Pay to Win" item like you see in many mobile games .... However they really should refund your money on request or let you have a second armor set for free to make up for THEIR mistake .... It's just Good Business

  • The-Foxhounded
    Original poster 54 posts

    @leoraptor1979 Did you not read the post before typing....?

  • ElMadre1
    93 posts

    It would make infinitely more sense for you to just stop buying Ubisoft products. Only market dynamics will cause them to change anything. Wasting time concocting lawsuits over trivial items will just cause them, and most others, to roll their eyes. It would have cost more than $20 of my time to read the whole treatise. Sorry, just being honest.

    To be clear, I'm pretty [censored] at the current buggy state of the game, and I will respond by not buying the DLCs unless they make some very real progress soon.

    And, in a similar vein, Dice outraged many purchasers of their "Deluxe Preorder" edition of BFV when they very sneakily downgraded many of the promised elements. There was much crying and threatening, but in the end my most effective recourse is to never preorder a Dice/EA product again, and likely never buy a deluxe version again. If enough people do that, there's at least some chance they will change their practices to win back customers.

  • The-Foxhounded
    Original poster 54 posts

    @longjohn119 Companies will tell you you have no rights and they even write "this software is licensed, not sold" which is a lie. You are sold a perpetual license to the software. They legally can't change what you have purchased in this case. Ubisoft is within their right to change armors that are normally in the game as they aren't the reason bought the game. That being said, the Armor has it's slots advertised in the Helix shop and Ubisoft switched the stats after the initial wave of customers came in to buy it. This is Bait and Switch a.k.a. Fraud.

    Here is a youtuber covering the entire aspect of games as a service including perpetual licenses. He provides all of the information in his description that proves that you legally own what you buy.

  • The-Foxhounded
    Original poster 54 posts

    @elmadre1 This isn't about $20. If I was the only person who purchased it then it would be. This is grounds for a class action lawsuit. Every single person who purchased any of the five armor sets that was changed before February 16th is a victim.


    Also, why would you even respond to a post you're unwilling to read? That's like writing a movie review when all you did was read the title.

  • ElMadre1
    93 posts

    @the-foxhounded No, it's not. I clearly understand the point by skimming it. If I had a penny for every time someone claims they have grounds for a class action lawsuit because of ill treatment by a video game company...well, you can complete the sentence. Please show me the precedent that backs up your claim that this is a supportable (and worthwhile) class action. A lawyer would only take it on if there were millions and millions of dollars at stake for the lawyer. Do you honestly thinking millions of dollars were spent on the five armor sets?

    Anyway, you're entitled to your outrage and I wish you the best.

  • The-Foxhounded
    Original poster 54 posts

    @elmadre1 Again, you refuse to read the post and now ask for me to write more just for you to ignore it?

    If you actually care about the post/issue, then read it. After that I'd love to discuss the topic.

  • longjohn119
    787 posts

    @the-foxhounded That doesn't prove anything, it is just an opinion .... The only opinion that counts in Law is that of the judges

  • longjohn119
    787 posts
    It would make infinitely more sense for you to just stop buying Ubisoft products. Only market dynamics will cause them to change anything. Wasting time concocting lawsuits over trivial items will just cause them, and most others, to roll their eyes. It would have cost more than $20 of my time to read the whole treatise. Sorry, just being honest.

    To be clear, I'm pretty [censored] at the current buggy state of the game, and I will respond by not buying the DLCs unless they make some very real progress soon.

    And, in a similar vein, Dice outraged many purchasers of their "Deluxe Preorder" edition of BFV when they very sneakily downgraded many of the promised elements. There was much crying and threatening, but in the end my most effective recourse is to never preorder a Dice/EA product again, and likely never buy a deluxe version again. If enough people do that, there's at least some chance they will change their practices to win back customers.


    CDPR did pretty much the same thing with Cyberpunk, there are a lot of promised features that just aren't in the game because they couldn't get it to run on last gen consoles and even after hacking it out they still couldn't get it to run correctly on last gen ...... Most games are developed mainly on/for consoles and ported over to the PC but CDPR likes to develop on PC and backport to consoles and that has blown up in their faces twice ..... Witcher 3 was also a mess on consoles at release although not nearly as bad as Cyberpunk but the reason for that is PC have come a long ways since Witcher 3 and consoles remained stagnant so the problem is several times worse with Cyberpunk .... Going forward things should get better after they drop support for last gen consoles because there is very little difference between the new gen consoles and a PC .... Same x86 CPU, same memory controller (built into the Ryzen CPU) and the same kind of graphics core and even the same PCIe 4.0 interface (Ryzen CPUs have a 4 lane PCIe 4.0 interface built in and used mainly for NVMe/SSD drives)

  • LeoRaptor1979
    99 posts

    @the-foxhounded Yes I read it and nothing they did is against the law. Just because you buy the items from the store doesn't mean you own them. If you owned them then you would be able to take them to other accounts. They are tied to one account so that means you don't own them. They didn't commit fraud because no where in the description does it say all items have diamond runes so them taking the runes off 4 pieces isn't fraud. No lawyer or judge would take any lawsuit seriously over this.

  • The-Foxhounded
    Original poster 54 posts

    @leoraptor1979 You obviously have no idea what you're talking about, or you're just complacent. When you buy digital content/software, you own a perpetual license. Period. This isn't a subscription license, and the game isn't free to play. Just because they write "You do not own this" doesn't make it true. They have as much power with that lie as I do when I say "You can not respond to this post".

    Edit: The diamond slots being show when you examine the item is how they are advertised.

    Edit: Also how are laws opinions? That's just silly. They broke the law, whether they are charged for the crime or not is what's determined by the judge. @longjohn119

  • LeoRaptor1979
    99 posts

    @the-foxhounded I do know what I am talking about. When you buy a digital item you don't own it since it isn't in your physical hand, it is still considered buying a license to the item. Just because the picture shows diamond runes doesn't mean that is considered advertisement. If you took this to a judge you would be told you don't have a case because they never advertisement it that way, it is a picture not a advertisement. I know what I am talking about because I have done research on fraud and this doesn't fall under it. They warned everyone before they did it so they didn't break no law. It would be different if they did it without notice. Stop complaining about something so childish. If you don't like it then don't play or buy anything from them. Get it through your head you can't file a lawsuit over something like this.

  • The-Foxhounded
    Original poster 54 posts

    @leoraptor1979 I'm the childish one? You're the one who is coming to my post and trying to pretend you know how a judge would decide a hypothetical case.

    Whether or not a judge takes the case isn't the point. Even if they did they can still be wrong. Brock Turner the [censored] was found not guilty because "boys will be boys." Does that mean what he did was not a crime?

    The best you could do to argue my point is that it's in a legal gray zone because there's never been a case taken to the supreme court.

    If you want more information watch this video for about 15 minutes. They will cover everything I've been saying. To reiterate it again myself would be pointless as you're just saying "No it's not, I think you're wrong because I looked it up, but wont provide counter points" which isn't a discussion.




    Also how the hell is photo documentation not advertisement? Let me give you the definition of false advertisement.

    "False advertising is described as the crime or misconduct of publishing, transmitting, or otherwise publicly circulating an advertisement containing a false, misleading, or deceptive statement, made intentionally or recklessly to promote the sale of property, goods, or services to the public."

  • longjohn119
    787 posts

    @the-foxhounded Judges don't decide who gets charged with a crime, prosecutors do ..... This wouldn't be a criminal case it would be a civil case .... Most civil cases don't have juries and the judge decides whether or not the plaintiffs have a case worth being heard and then decides if the defendant is liable

    I'm an engineer that run his own firm and I license both hardware designs and firmware for those designs (mostly remote sensing) to others for manufacturing and also do custom building control designs for commercial and industrial buildings ..... When someone licenses one of my designs for manufacturing I get a cut from each unit they make and they can't use or change any part of that design without being in violation of my license ..... This is a better way to protect my IP because the US Patent system is completely broken for anyone that is not a multimillion dollar corporation with a massive team of lawyers .... My firmware is an encrypted "binary blob" that can't be easily modified or disassembled to see how it works and the added benefit of that is it's considerably harder to hack via the internet

  • The-Foxhounded
    Original poster 54 posts

    @longjohn119 My bad I meant punished; you're correct that a prosecutor is the one who brings the charge to the Judge. That being said there is a term "Judgment notwithstanding verdict"(JNOV) which is a practice in American courts whereby the presiding judge in a civil jury trial may overrule the decision of a jury and reverse or amend their verdict if the jury votes not guilt. The case can also be appealed and taken to a higher judicial court, if granted.
    My point in the matter is that in the very basic definition of the law it is without a doubt a crime. The issue is that digital laws are about a decade or two behind what they should be and that companies will find legal loopholes so that it could be manipulated. Following this, the fact that there hasn't been enough cases in the united states that would create and precedence for the situation as most game companies choose to just settle. My guess is to prevent it from getting major traction which would make it harder to do what it is that they do.

    I appreciate that you took the time to explain how the situation works in the way you've deal with it in your life and am thankful that you went above and beyond by not writing "You're wrong." and nothing else.

    Do I expect this type of case to win in a court? Not very likely in the U.S., but does that mean we have to bend over and accept a company's shady practice? Of course not. All it took for EA to change Star Wars: Battlefront 2 for the better was a Tweet that had traction. The more eyes that see how Ubisoft treats the people that keep them afloat the better.

  • longjohn119
    787 posts

    @the-foxhounded I suggest you go watch this series of videos from an actual lawyer who specializes in this sort of thing who also happens to be an avid gamers

    You don't own software, you license it

    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1zDCgJzZUy_VayRrIvRSP64k6oOv9jLi


Suggested Topics