UBIsoft suspending then closing inactive accounts

[AGTDenton]

The problem here is they don't state the criteria for what qualifies as an inactive account...
And they only give you 30 days once you meet that invisible criteria to stop the closure.

https://www.eurogamer.net/ubisoft-is...game-libraries

[Saracen999]

Tht's certainly a problem, but maybe not "the" problem.

Yes (IMHO) there may well be circumstances where closing "inactive" accounts is valid, especially after the email warning they say they'll send, and yes in part at least, it depends on the definition of "inactive". If for example, that means zero activity for 5 years, or maybe even 1 year, then perhaps fair enough.

It's also very plausible that someone could have changed email addresses and not notified them (probably there's a rule in the T&Cs requiring contact details to be kept up to date). But .... who hasn't changed email address and forgotten to update something?

It's certainly possible that the account holder is deceased, which begs the question of what happens to "digital assets". Again, their T&Cs may well stipulate that accounts are non-transferrable and of course, all account holders knew that because everybody reads T&Cs carefully when opening an account, right?

I'd have maybe argued "the" problem is that they can just invalidate the purchases you made, in this way, at all. But then, I'd guess everybody "bought" a licence to use, not tthe actual rights to their copy of the game, so again, they're probably covered.

I remember making this argument about Steam, all those years ago when it first started, and it was (part of) why I refused to buy any game requiring Steam .... until a few months ago, when I gave in due to Steam deck. I said, if we lose our account "for any reason" we're in that position - lost access to games we paid for, with probably no realistic recourse. That 'reason' could be because they decide (whether correctly or not) an account holder has somehow breahed T&Cs. Which was why, for years, I bought few games and those I did were via GOG, and I immediately downloaded them, and stored them locally.

My guess is there'll be a backlash over this (for all the good it'll do) and that it MIGHT have been avoided if they'd just clarified the nature of "inactive", and provided a route for account reactivation in some circumstances - like the account holder maybe being away for months on end, for work .... or serving at HM's pleasure, of course. Or even ill, for a protracted period.

P.S. I wonder how Nigel Farage would react to such an event?

Sory, I'll get my coat.

[Jonj1611]

"Ubisoft has claimed they don't close accounts that are inactive for less than four years."

[Saracen999]

"Ubisoft has claimed they don't close accounts that are inactive for less than four years."

Well, I don't (surprise, surprise, not) have an account with them so I have no skin in this game but .... if true, that doesn't seem entirely unreasonable. If it hasn't been used for 4+ years, there's probably a reason and it seems unlikely it now will be. I stick by the "re-activate if needed" idea, though. I mean, "close" could just mean marked as closed, not necessarily utterly deleted

[AGTDenton]

"Ubisoft has claimed they don't close accounts that are inactive for less than four years."

Discovered their T&C's say 6 months. A twitter post saying 4 years doesn't spark me with confidence that the whole company knows this as a policy and that it wouldn't stop an employee being able to delete an account. Also what's an inactive account, no login, no play, no download. The criteria should be expanded as some people will have the application auto start with windows, but may not play or install a game for ages.

(https://legal.ubi.com/termsofuse/en-INTL)

We may suspend or close your Account and your ability to use one or more Services or part of the Services, at any time, automatically and at our sole discretion where:

• we have formally requested that you provide us with proof of your identity or to cease an action, behaviour, or breach of these Terms;
• we have reasonable grounds to believe that you have violated these Terms (including the Rules of Conduct) or any specific terms and conditions relating to any Service;
• for any other reason in relation to your actions in or outside of the Services;
• upon notification, where your Account has been inactive for more than six months.

[Jonj1611]

I don't know, it's not a new policy and I think someone has been sent this email, panicked and then contacted whatever person would run the story.

I didn't use my Ubisoft account or login for 2 years before and never received an email like that.

[Ttaskmaster]

I just poke my head in to update games, if any, and just keep it ticking over. It occasionally requires me to access UbiPlay thing for a particular game, but I haven't actually used it in yonks.

[Jonj1611]

The criteria should be expanded as some people will have the application auto start with windows, but may not play or install a game for ages.

In that situation you will be seen as logging in. An inactive account would be one that as it says is inactive. Has no activity at all, logins, downloads or otherwise. I think the case highlighted is going to be quite isolated especially considering how many people never heard of it before and its been around for a few years now

[Saracen999]

In all honesty, I think that this provision ...

- for any other reason in relation to your actions in or outside of the Services;

... would worry me more than the 'inactivity' provision whether 6 months or 4 years. That provision amounts to pretty much a catch-all, equivalent to 'for whatever-the-hell reason we fancy'.

Referring back (briefly) to the Farage bank account thing again, it would include a story on some social media account, whether the story is true or false (or as, I believe, in the NF case, demonstrably proven in a court case to be both false and defamatory), or because, perhaps, in my case I voted (allegedly) pro-Brexit and they don't politically approve, or because I posted a Youtube video of some stupid prank, like farting in an elevator and thinking it funny.

Well, okay, maybe in that last (hypothetical, I promise) example, I'd deserve it.

I'd also point out that such provisions are common in legal agreements, including like in the "how we may use your data" section in Privacy Policies. A common trick is to quote a series of apparently reasonable examples like providing our services, enabling payments, monitoring our performance and administering our network, but then slapping in such a catch-all at the end where many, MANY people won't notice it, not least because they dozed off before getting that far. Caveat - there is some doubt as to how enforceable that would be, but I don't want to be the one paying the legal fees for the test case to find out.

Anyway, bringing the focus back on point, they can use that clause to justify suspending or closing (and no mention is made of what justifies which) accounts for any damn reason they like, inactive or not. They don't actually need ANY other privisions, given the carte-blanche tat provides. The rest, IMHO, is mere smoke and mirrors to obfuscate that one. That was exactly the type of provision that worried me all those years ago re: a Steam account, which suggests to me that this story on UBIsoft probably applies equally well to pretty much any subsscription service with such a clause.