Editor’s Note:
This article combines news and editorial analysis on Ubisoft’s updated EULA and its implications for digital game ownership. The situation is evolving, and we will update this piece as more information becomes available.
Ubisoft has updated its End User License Agreement (EULA), and buried in the legal jargon is something that should make every player stop and think: the company can now revoke your access to a game you’ve purchased at any time, for any reason, and there’s little you can do about it.
We’re long past the illusion of digital ownership. But Ubisoft’s new terms cement a reality that gamers have feared for years — that buying a game doesn’t guarantee access, stability, or even the ability to play it tomorrow.
What Changed and Why It’s a Problem
Two sections in particular stand out:
“You and UBISOFT (or its licensors) may terminate this EULA, at any time, for any reason.”
— Section 8, Termination
“Your continued use of the Product following any revision to this EULA constitutes Your complete and irrevocable acceptance…”
— Section 9, Changes to This EULA or to the Product
These passages give Ubisoft near-total control. They can cut off your access at will, change the rules without meaningful notice, and shift all responsibility onto the user to monitor for legal updates. Even if you don’t agree with the changes, your only option is to uninstall the product and delete it from your system — including any backups or copies.
In other words, you’re no longer just agreeing to the terms when you buy the game. You’re agreeing to any future terms they might decide to implement, whether you like them or not.
How This Impacts Players
Let’s be clear: Ubisoft now reserves the right to terminate your access to a game you paid for, without cause and with total discretion, with limited recourse through arbitration or small claims court (see Ubisoft’s EULA, Section 10.4), and no guaranteed refund except in cases like defective physical media or where required by regional consumer laws (e.g., EU statutory rights).
Even worse:
- No guarantee of support: Once they ‘discontinue’ a title, your license is effectively revoked.
- Forced updates: You have no say in automatic patches or resets.
- No opt-outs: If they change the rules, your only real choice is to stop playing.
This isn’t just hypothetical. For instance, Ubisoft delisted games like Assassin’s Creed Liberation HD and Silent Hunter 5 from storefronts, with online services decommissioned on October 1, 2022, prompting player backlash on X and other platforms about losing access to owned copies entirely, with no refunds offered.
Ubisoft clarified that single-player modes remain playable offline after significant backlash, but the new EULA (Section 8) strengthens their legal ability to revoke access permanently in the future. Readers can search X for “Assassin’s Creed Liberation HD delisting” to see 2022 player reactions.
For the full EULA, visit https://legal.ubi.com/eula
A Bigger Problem Than Just Ubisoft
This isn’t happening in a vacuum. Ubisoft’s EULA, with its broad termination rights (Section 8), is a stark example of a troubling industry-wide trend: publishers quietly redefining what “purchase” means in the digital age.
- Sony initially planned to remove previously purchased Discovery Channel content from the PlayStation Store, but reversed course after updated licensing agreements and player feedback. The content remains accessible for now, showing how fragile and changeable these agreements can be.
- Nintendo announced plans to close the 3DS and Wii U eShops, raising fears about losing access to purchased games. However, they later confirmed that previously purchased content can still be redownloaded “for the foreseeable future,” keeping access alive—at least for now.
- Blizzard forced owners of Warcraft III Classic to download the much larger Reforged client without an option to revert, causing significant player backlash. This remains a concrete example of access being effectively altered without consent.
Like Ubisoft’s EULA, which allows termination “for any reason” and enforces automatic updates (Sections 8 and 9), these cases show how publishers can alter or revoke access to purchased games, eroding digital ownership.
Editor’s Take: Access Isn’t Ownership
This isn’t just a legal quirk — it’s a slow erosion of player rights that large publishers have been orchestrating for over a decade.
We’re told it’s “standard” to give up control for the sake of live services or convenience. But when your access to a single-player game can be terminated overnight — not for cheating, not for refunds, but simply because the company no longer wants to support it — that’s not service. That’s exploitation.
And the worst part? Most players won’t realize the rules have changed until it’s too late. Ubisoft didn’t make this a big announcement. They didn’t push a mandatory alert. They quietly updated the EULA and banked on people continuing to click “accept” without reading.
Some of us saw this coming and opted out years ago. Others are just waking up to it now. But no matter where you stand, it’s clearer than ever that digital game ownership is fragile — and that the fight for preservation and consumer rights isn’t optional. It’s overdue.
What You Can Do About It
While the average player has little recourse once these terms are set, there is at least one ongoing effort pushing back: the #StopKillingGames campaign.
Launched by BEUC (The European Consumer Organisation), this initiative calls on EU regulators to stop companies from delisting or disabling access to games people have paid for — especially when those titles are single-player and fully functional offline.
You can find the petition at:
? https://www.stopkillinggames.eu
?? Note: Only EU citizens can officially sign it due to European Commission rules, but that doesn’t mean others are powerless. If you’re outside the EU, spreading awareness still helps. Talk about it, share it, and let companies know that revoking access to paid games isn’t just a legal grey area — it’s a breach of trust.
It won’t undo Ubisoft’s EULA overnight, but it’s a step toward holding publishers accountable for how they treat their players — and their purchases.
Leave a Reply