• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Ubisoft is asking AC: Unity customers (+ families) to waive their rights to sue them.

Krakn3Dfx

Member
Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeit.
tv_theWire-clayDavis.gif
 
Holy shit. Is there a day when Ubisoft isn't doing some shady or shitty? Who is running that show? He needs to make a reality check.
 

Crossing Eden

Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!

endtropy

Neo Member
actually they can hold up in court, you are essentially agreeing to accept this as settlement in lieu of otherwise litigating your damages... Not sure why people think this isn't the case, it's not a "fast one". It does go in the face of "we are doing this to apologize" and turns into more of a "if this makes you happy awesome, but also know you can't sue us for more later if you accept this *gift*"... but yeah, stop saying it can't hold up in court, it's a legal agreement between you and ubisoft and unless you can show fraud in the inducement (or something similar) that would invalidate it, it is binding.....
 
It's a pretty standard practice, and it makes sense. Offering the season pass compensation games is their way of trying to make amends, and if you accept that as their apology then you don't get to keep making them apologize by following up with a lawsuit or joining a class action.

If you don't think it's a good enough apology, don't accept the games.





Ok, I found this way funnier than I should have lol
 

Xaero Gravity

NEXT LEVEL lame™
I get that it's cool to shit on Ubisoft, and deservedly so at times, but isn't this sort of thing standard when it comes to agreements these days?
 

Daedardus

Member
I thought only class-action lawsuits could be prohibited? But actually not being able to sue a company for any reason, is that not undermining the purpose of the legal system? I mean, the system is there in place to decide if they did something wrong or not, and sueing a company does not immediately prove their guilt, but by hindering those things it looks like they're scared of something.
 

Logash

Member
Pretty standard stuff when they are offering you compensation. Basically it's saying that you accept the free game as an apology and agree not to sue to receive any more damages. Did you expect them to give you the game and let you sue them for even more damages? If you don't like it don't get the game.
 

The Beard

Member
This is standard procedure. Damn near every time time you accept some form of compensation from a company, they make you agree not to sue in a class action lawsuit. Major phone/ISP companies have almost the same verbiage in their TOS.

Why the outrage ? This happens all the time. Because Ubisoft dogpile?
 

Crossing Eden

Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
This is standard procedure. Damn near every time time you accept some form of compensation from a company, they make you agree not to sue in small claims. Major phone companies have almost the same verbiage in their TOS.

Why the outrage ? This happens all the time. Because Ubisoft dogpile?
Unfortunately it seems to be that way.
 

Alienous

Member
This is standard procedure. Damn near every time time you accept some form of compensation from a company, they make you agree not to sue in a class action lawsuit. Major phone/ISP companies have almost the same verbiage in their TOS.

Why the outrage ? This happens all the time. Because Ubisoft dogpile?

Outrage?
 
Not out of the ordinary in any sense. This has become standard practice in a variety of industries. Why didn't OP take the time to research whether Ubisoft's industry peers utilize similar boilerplate, perhaps to confirm whether this is truly threadworthy?

Most should not be surprised that these types of clauses have proliferated - video games publishers are no exception. This type of boilerplate, CYA language is now standard practice for in-house legal teams.

I understand this recent Ubisoft trend, but these threads are now starting to shit up the board unnecessarily.

EDIT: My common sense also tells me to discourage others from throwing around the "this would never hold up in court" sentiment. They can, do, and will.
 
If you think you'll ever get anything better than Far Cry 4 in a theoretical settlement of a theoretical class-action suit regarding the suckitude of AC:U, well, you're going to be disappointed.

Go ahead, click on the disclaimer.
 

ClearData

Member
If Killzone Shadow Fall can garner a CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT this game should have people rolling out the guillotine of litigation.
 

Vlade

Member
It's really shitty. i hate it.

have you looked at the loyalty cards for restaurants, shoestores, and such? same fucking thing.


edit:
the point is that you waive your right to sue the company for any reason ever. it's particularly binding (totes a legal term) if they give you something of monetary value, like an ice cream cone on your birthday.
 

Crossing Eden

Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
And that's the problem. "Everyone does this shitty thing so it's automatically not shitty."
Then that's a different discussion on it's own, not "Ubisoft does something that is completely standard procedure in a user agreements"

People need to have bought a season pass to think this is a bullshit term to agree to?
No, but I don't understand why it's suddenly bad that Ubisoft is doing something that's pretty much standard procedure in a ton of user agreements and other gaming related distribution services, like Steam<---especially when the majority of people who are angry about this are ignorant about this fact.
 

Rebel Leader

THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
Then that's a different discussion on it's own, not "Ubisoft does something that is completely standard procedure in a user agreement."


No, but I don't understand why it's suddenly bad that Ubisoft is doing something that's pretty much standard procedure in a ton of user agreements and other gaming related distribution services, like Steam.

Do orhers have a next of kin clause?
 
If you think you'll ever get anything better than Far Cry 4 in a theoretical settlement of a theoretical class-action suit regarding the suckitude of AC:U, well, you're going to be disappointed.

Go ahead, click on the disclaimer.

100% agree.

I get that it's fun to pile on Ubisoft these days, I've done it too, but these types of agreements are in every agreement (including Valve and Blizzard as pointed out earlier in the thread) and it's basically saying "you accept this free game as your repayment and will not sue us for even more." If you want to "stick it" to Ubi and not accept the agreement and sue, then have fun waiting for your $2.50 check in the mail 3 years from now. Accept the agreement and enjoy Far Cry 4.
 
Unfortunately this will be glossed over in the thread since it's evidently a little known fact since many people don't read these things and thus, are very ignorant about the fact that it's quite commonplace. I vote for your post to be added to the OP.
I agree with you. This is all very standard stuff.


It's still hilarious in light of the awful shit Ubi has done recently.
 
Top Bottom