A French Lawsuit Might Have Deep Ramifications for Gaming’s Future

In the current gaming landscape, always-online games like Fortnite have carved out a very impressive niche for themselves. Games that rely solely on online gameplay can be fortuitous investments if they connect with players. Conversely, a game like that getting its servers shut down can permanently disconnect players from that experience, as what recently happened to Highguard.

While the companies behind the games aren’t necessarily expected to provide non-stop support for games that aren’t connecting with players, the practice of taking away content from players who actually bought the game is incredibly frustrating. The issue is even reaching the courtroom in France, where a lawsuit against Ubisoft for shutting down an always-online game could legally force the company to change its approach to that style of game. In fact, if the lawsuit goes through, it could radically reshape how every developer approaches the concept.

Why A Consumer’s Rights Group In France Is Suing Ubisoft

A new lawsuit targeting Ubisoft could radically change how developers design always-online games. The concept of always-online games can seem promising on the surface for players looking to dive into a perpetual multiplayer experience, but the need for an active internet connection and consistent servers means there are some serious drawbacks to that style of development. This notably includes the possibility of servers being shuttered, resulting in the game effectively becoming unavailable. One such example was The Crew, Ubisoft’s online racing game.

Launched in 2014, Ubisoft decided to shut down The Crew servers a decade later. They even went so far as to revoke the game license from anyone who owned the game through Ubisoft Connect. This prompted a lot of frustration from players who had spent years playing the game. This has led to a class-action lawsuit in France, which is also home to Ubisoft. The lawsuit, which is led by the French consumers group UFC-Que Choisir and has the backing of the larger Stop Killing Games movement, argues that Ubisoft infringed upon the consumer rights of players by taking away access to a game they had already paid for.

The argument also asks larger questions of the games industry, challenging the legal freedom of publishers to sell consumers a license to access games instead of just the game itself. The argument posits that if there was ever a possibility that the game would become unavailable, Ubisoft should have made it clearer to the public or even offered refunds to players who no longer have access to the game. It’s still early in that legal battle, so it’s unclear if the courts will side with Ubisoft or UFC-Que Choisir. However, if it does go through, it could create a precedent to keep publishers from shutting down games.

Online Gaming Might Look Very Different If Ubisoft Loses This Lawsuit

The debate over consumer ownership of primarily online games has become more heated in recent years, especially as the Stop Killing Games movement continues to pick up steam across the world. The movement is focused on the idea that developers and publishers shouldn’t be able to simply shut down a game server and effectively erase any and all progress that players have put into titles, especially if they paid money for them. This isn’t even the first time Ubisoft has been taken to court over this issue, with two players suing Ubisoft over the issue in 2024. However, the backing of the UFC-Que Choisir group makes this a much larger fight, as the group has more backing and support from sympathetic figures in the industry, as well as members of the E.U.

Ubisoft, meanwhile, seems to be representing the larger titans of the industry in their battle, as their loss in this court case could result in other companies being held to the same standard. While game companies claim the cost of maintaining games in perpetuity would be cost-prohibitive, others have argued that offline modes or at least clearer warnings about the potential closures are crucial for consumers to make informed decisions when purchasing a video game.

This could have a serious impact on titles that primarily work in the larger online space, with developers forced to adapt during their development process to accommodate it by either adding single-player and limited server functionality or by openly admitting to players that their new game might not survive long-term. It’s also worth asking how this would apply to free-to-play games like Fortnite, which do offer players the ability to spend money on in-game elements. Especially as so many games today are designed with online multiplayer in mind, this could have serious ramifications for the larger industry and how they develop games. This could also build off the momentum of the Stop Killing Games petition and even shed more light on the issue, raising awareness of game preservation and saving plenty of titles from disappearing.