Ubisoft latest decommissioning of online services (Sept 2022)

[AGTDenton]

This is probably worth a mention:

Closing the online services for some older games allows us to focus our resources on delivering great experiences for players who are playing newer or more popular titles.

To help us achieve this, a number of older titles will be added to our list of decommissioned online services on 1 September 2022.

Games include for multiple platforms:

Anno 2070
Assassin's Creed 2
Assassin's Creed 3 (2012 Release)
Assassin's Creed Brotherhood
Assassin's Creed Revelations
Driver San Francisco
Far Cry 3 (2012 Release)
Ghost Recon Future Soldier
Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands
Rayman Legends
Silent Hunter 5
Space Junkies
Splinter Cell: Blacklist
ZombiU

Full details here: https://www.ubisoft.com/en-gb/help/g...2022/000102396

[Jonj1611]

I don't play online games but I know people who still play some of them :/

[Saracen999]

I don't play online games but I know people who still play some of them :/

Me neither, and nor have I had (for no particular reason) a Ubisoft game for a very long time.

BUT .... no doubt in large part due to my own ignorance, that link (or rather, the info in it) brings a question to mind, which reflects ONE of my reasons for not using such 'services', including Steam.

If I'm reading the notes on most of those games correctly, you won't be able to :-

- play multiplayer, or
- install DLC etc.

But, though it doesn't say it explicitly, the inference is you will be able to continue to :-

- play single-player (assuming a given game has such a mode).

Am I interpreting that correctly?

The reason I ask is (though re: Ubisoft, it's academic) because I don't have much if any interest in multiplayer, that isn't much of a loss to me but I do either play intermittently, or go back to my 'legacy' games periodically and replay them.

If taking Ubisoft games offline means any install/play activation/validation services down, so you can't install games you bought in the past, then that is a direct impact on how I would use those games had I actually bought any of them back in the day.

It seems it would not have that impact.

As I said though, I don't have any of them and won't actually be affected but I'm curious about what would been implied if I did.

[Jonj1611]

Yes from what I understand you will still be able to download and play single player

[MrJim]

I own some of those games, and tend to play online multiplayer modes with a friend of mine. It's outrageous that a company like Ubisoft can just decide to scrap the DLC and multiplayer modes of games that I've bought.

[Jonj1611]

I agree with you there MrJim, funny how they have disabled any replies to their announcement on twitter. I have some of those games but dont play online or have any of the DLC but it is a joke.

[DanceswithUnix]

I think that means there are achievements in FarCry 3 that you won't be able to get now? I did also buy extended packs of the FarCry games (as they were all old by the time I "bought" them) with some dlc so I guess they are all gone. It's all annoying, I can't imagine it costs them much to run a VM though perhaps they wrote the server code in some bad choice like Java where it would be written against what is now an old JVM which is a security hazard but if you update the JVM to something new then it all falls in a heap because that's what Java seems to do

I bought a copy of ZombiU back when the Wii-U seemed to be dying off, and still haven't played it

[Saracen999]

I own some of those games, and tend to play online multiplayer modes with a friend of mine. It's outrageous that a company like Ubisoft can just decide to scrap the DLC and multiplayer modes of games that I've bought.

Okay, Devil's Advocate argument follows :-

When you 'buy' (*see note) software for a fixed price, as I MUCH prefer to do, how long should you expect ongoing support to last?

When I buy, oh dunno, Windows, photo-editing software, office suite, accounting software etc, I expect that software to be usable for as long as I want to use it. I mean, Systemics accounting software that I got for my Apple II back in the '80s still works, if I boot up the machine (which I still have) .... even though I migrated to Sage, then Quickbooks, years ago. And I'm still using that perpetual Quickbooks licence for about 20 yers ago. What I don't expect, and am sure I wouldn't get, is ongoing support.

When it comes to a game where some/all relies on ongoing provision of a service, like running and maintaining servers, for how long does that initial one-off payment for DLC etc include ongoing server provision?

I mean, buy a TV (or whatever) and you'll get a warranty for a year, maybe several, but even you (UK) consumer rights expire after about 7 years. It's not indefinite entitlement for that one-off payment, and it's not really reasonable to expect it to be. Ditto server provision.

/Devil's Advocate mode off.

Up to a point, I agree with you. You paid for DLC etc and now, will effectively have it obsoleted for you. How long is it 'reasonable' to expect it to last for when you buy it?

Hence, why I refuse to use Steam, etc (well, other things too but that's a big part of it). And, after 20 years etc it's why I migrated my photo editing/management away from Photoshop, to an option with a perpetual licence. And why I so much got the hump with MS over the direction of travel of Windows when going from W7 to W8. Yeah, the Start menu thing wound me up but what got me moving lotsa stuff off Windows onto Linux, leaving some on an offline legacy W7 system, wasn't the start menu (irritating that it was) but the clear direction of travel they signalled even then from perpetual licence model to 'software as a service'. Which is NOT what I want from my machines.

Another concern with the activation/validation server model is if you do something, or more subtly, if they decide you've done something they don't like, they can suspend/permaban yur account, and what's the ongoing benefit from the potentially thousands of £'s you spend on games worth then, if you can't install, and/or even run those games?

It's that same "loss of DLC" argument, but applying to just running the game at all, never mind the DLC, even if it's already installed/running on YOUR machine.

It happened a year or so back to Luke of LTT/Floatplane fame. If I remember correctly, ha had his account banned (as in 6-month) suspension, for a game he only played with his Dad and a few other family members. I don't remember if it got lifted. not least due to some pretty bad publicity on the LAN show, but at least initially before the glare of Yputube publicity shone on it, they just told him 'suspended, implied it was "cheating" perhaps by running some software, auto-refused the appeals, refused to even say what software was suposedly cheating, and ten just stopped responding at all.'

Even if you get convicted of a criminal offence there's usually an appeal route but they just seem to have decided he was guilty, appeal denied and no, we won't tell yu what you allegedly did.

One reason I won't use Steam, OR subscription Photoshop, etc, is precisely so as to not put myself in the situation where they can even do that.

But even with Windows 10, there is (as you no doubt know) now an end-of-life date (2025) at which time MS stop support and if I still use it, I'm on my own. My plan is that when that happens and security patches etc stop, I just take that (this) machine behind my air-gap, and carry on, because I do not want an MS account any more than I want Steam or Ubisoft servers.

It's implicit, IMHO, in using ANY software that sooner or later, any company not charging an on-going fee for services/support is going to stop providing it. I don't like the fact that MS changed horses yet again, from "Win10 is last ever version" to, oh wait, W10 is going EOL and now you need W11 where the goalposts, and implications, have changed yet again. But I'm a long way from surprised they're doing it. They're still on that new direction that the W7 to W8 changes signalled, but i's becoming a bit more mandatory and a bit less subtle, and I expected it.

It is, IMHO, implicit in the deal when you buy ANYTHING that requires ongoing expense on the part of the supplying company that, sooner or later, they're either going to start charging for it, or just simply withdraw it. The only real question is when it happens.




(*) Note - I'm bypassing the old argument about buying v licensing, for using the simplistic if slightly inaccurate "buying". Yes, you don't "own" the software itself but, generally, you buy the right to use it and/or selling disposing of any included packaging, material and media (not keeping a copy) if you sell/transfer, tc.

[AGTDenton]

Just to add some further information:

Units and Challenges for these titles have also been retired, meaning that you will not earn Units by completing Challenges for the game.

While rewards can still be unlocked, you will not be able to receive them in-game.

If your game did not transfer when we moved from Uplay to Ubisoft Connect in 2020, all rewards will be automatically unlocked.

Unlockable content (ULC), such as maps and skins, has been disabled, meaning that it is no longer possible to redeem them.

If you have previously redeemed ULC while playing on PC, it will no longer be available.

If you have previously redeemed ULC on console, it may remain available, unless you reset your saved game files.

More details & list of ALL games that have been decomissioned to date:
https://www.ubisoft.com/en-gb/help/a...ames/000064576

I believe ULC & DLC are the same in this context.

[jimbouk]

Getting a lot harder to have a graceful exit from support these days. DLC sounds like a mess. I remember when companies had had enough after a few patches they'd release the final one that removed the cd check to encourage more people to play it at LAN parties and the like.

But as you say, where there's a cost, it either needs paying our removing.

[Saracen999]

That would be an acceptable solution to me .... provided I believed they would actually do so. Problem is, I don't believe they necessarily would. The furthest I'd go is that they may well say they would, and may even fully intend to but when push comes to shove, I think it's very likely to just not happen. And that isn't good enough for me to put my money in. Or rather, certainly not very much. I would consider that for trivial amounts I was willing to risk just writing off, but with the price of new relases of top games, no way.

It's not the only reason I won't, though. Another is privacy. I very nearly gave in and got Steam yesterday, mainly for Doom Eternal while it was on sale. But then I saw the bit about needing not just Steam but the publisher's EULA and that gave them the right to do pretty much whatever they want with my personal data. Oh, hell, no. And as I was interested in Steam for it, no Doom = no Steam, because not much point.

[AGTDenton]

Getting a lot harder to have a graceful exit from support these days. DLC sounds like a mess. I remember when companies had had enough after a few patches they'd release the final one that removed the cd check to encourage more people to play it at LAN parties and the like.

But as you say, where there's a cost, it either needs paying our removing.

The good old days when they respected their own titles.
A sad problem today is, companies with a huge back catalogue don't want you to be distracted by old titles. They want you focused on the new titles so that they continue to make money. Now they'll just disrespect anything older than a year or after all the DLC for shareholders.

[badass]

Just to add some further information:



More details & list of ALL games that have been decomissioned to date:
https://www.ubisoft.com/en-gb/help/a...ames/000064576

I believe ULC & DLC are the same in this context.

My gut feeling is that the online component loss is just unfortunate for players, however DLC being removed is probably against consumer law. REGARDLESS of what it says in the EULA.

[Gibson]

The good old days when they respected their own titles.
A sad problem today is, companies with a huge back catalogue don't want you to be distracted by old titles. They want you focused on the new titles so that they continue to make money. Now they'll just disrespect anything older than a year or after all the DLC for shareholders.

Yes indeed. But I think it's very sad, because companies prefer to increase their income than to really satisfy their customers. And this is also true in many other sectors.

[jimbouk]

Yes indeed. But I think it's very sad, because companies prefer to increase their income than to really satisfy their customers. And this is also true in many other sectors.

That worked very well for Mercedes at the turn of the century when they upped profits by not rust proofing their cars properly and ruining their reputation, sending previously loyal customers elsewhere.

And given the amount of old games still up for sale there must still be money available for old rope.

[AGTDenton]

More bad headlines:

Ubisoft's online decommissioning may render three games unplayable for people who bought them

https://www.pcgamer.com/ubisofts-onl...o-bought-them/

Two entries from the list of games Ubisoft is decommissioning online support for—Assassin's Creed: Liberation HD (opens in new tab) and Silent Hunter 5 (opens in new tab)—look like they will be rendered completely unplayable by the move, contradicting Ubisoft's initial statement on what what aspects of each game would be cut off.