Games

I agree with this point, and it's also why I think the class action suit makes sense. Some of the people who bought The Crew got a physical copy, which is now just a useless disc. It's still just a license like you said, and I agree that it feels like they're selling the game.

It's like if the movie theater sold a DVD for a movie, but the disc will only work while you're in the theatre. Pirating might still be a crime legally but I don't think anyone should feel bad about doing it here, Ubisoft absolutely does not deserve your money over slimy business practices like this.

I think a better comparison would be a "Drive-In Theater", because with pirating you're just seeing the film, not using their seats/venue (servers) so it's like you're sitting in the neighbors yard watching it from their porch. Still costing them what would be considered a "viewing purchase" for the data but you're really not putting a strain on the theater itself by "attending or sneaking in".

the fact is, that most people who pirate, wouldn't pay for it if they couldn't pirate. It's not a loss of revenue in most cases. I sure as shit wouldn't pay for media if i couldn't pirate. I'm poor as fuck.

I wasn’t saying you can’t play them, just that you don’t own them. This is still true with DRM free games. GOG’s agreement is different to Steam’s in that you own your purchase

You don’t think you own every house with an unlocked front door, do you?

I think Ubisoft is clearly in the wrong, but you're not making a good case. You're conflating very different meanings of the word "own".

In terms of legal ownership, only the copyright holder owns the intellectual property, including the right to distribute and license it. When a consumer "buys" a piece of media, they're really just buying a perpetual license for their personal use of it. With physical media, the license is typically tied to whatever physical object (disc, book, ROM, etc.) is used to deliver the content, and you can transfer your license by transferring the physical media, but the license is still the important part that separates legal use from piracy.

When you pirate something, you own the means to access it without the legal right to do so. So, in the case at hand, players still "own" the game in the same sense they would if they had pirated it. Ubisoft hasn't revoked anyone's physical access to the bits that comprise the game; what they've done is made that kind of access useless because the game relies on a service that Ubisoft used to operate.

The real issue here is that Ubisoft didn't make it clear what they were selling, and they may even have deliberately misrepresented it. Consumers were either not aware that playing the game required Ubisoft to operate servers for it, or they were misled regarding how long Ubisoft would operate the servers.

Ultimately I think what consumers are looking for is less like ownership and more like a warranty, i.e. a promise that what they buy will continue to work for some period of time after they've bought it, and an obligation from the manufacturer to provide whatever services are necessary to keep that promise. Game publishers generally don't offer any kind of warranty, and consumers don't demand warranties, but consumers also tend to expect punishers to act as if their products come with a warranty. Publishers, of course, don't want to draw attention to their lack of warranty, and will sometimes actively exploit that false perception that their products come with a perpetual warranty.

I think what's really needed is a very clear indication, at the point of purchase, of whether a game requires ongoing support from the publisher to be playable, along with a legally binding statement of how long they'll provide support. And there should be a default warranty if none is clearly specified, like say 10 years from the point of purchase.