Ubisoft’s Shocking EULA Clause Forces Players to Destroy Game Copies: Outrage Ensues!

by

In the constantly changing world of digital gaming, a clause in Ubisoft’s End User License Agreement (EULA) that has been around for a while has recently caused a lot of upset among gamers and those who watch the industry closely. This rule requires users to get rid of any physical versions of a game when the license is terminated, which is becoming more controversial as people become increasingly concerned about preserving games and protecting consumer rights.

Although Ubisoft claims the language isn’t novel, having been around for more than ten years, critics counter by stating it symbolizes a consumer-unfriendly strategy that devalues the worth of bought games.

The debate picked up steam when Pirat_Nation brought attention to a specific clause in a post on X’s platform, which occurred on July 8, 2025.

Ubisoft Wants Gamers To Destroy All Copies of A Game Once It Goes Offline

The revised Terms of Use for our company now require that anyone who owns the product should eliminate or discard all their duplicate versions as necessary.

**”You and UBISOFT (or its licensors) may terminate this EULA, at any time,…

— Pirat_Nation 🔴 (@Pirat_Nation) July 8, 2025

Ubisoft Asks Players to Delete Their Copies of a Game When It’s Taken Offline

In a surprising move, game developer Ubisoft is asking gamers to remove all copies of one of their games from their systems once it goes offline. This decision has sparked debates among the gaming community about the future of digital ownership in the industry.

Ubisoft’s move has certainly started a conversation that will continue to shape the industry for years to come.

He next read out directly from the User License Agreement, explaining: “Both you and UBISOFT (or its owners) have the power to end this agreement at any moment, for any cause. If you don’t adhere to any of the terms and conditions of this agreement, it will come to an end automatically. In the event of termination for any reason, you must promptly uninstall the Product and erase all versions of the Product that are in your possession.

The article mentioned that a different part said, “Ubisoft has the right to alter the Product whenever they want, with or without explanation, and Ubisoft underlines that it’s the consumers’ responsibility to check the EULA regularly for any changes, including what they consider ‘unfair’ updates without prior notice from the company.” In simpler terms, Pirat_Nation pointed out that Ubisoft expects customers to be aware of modifications in their Terms of Use and to identify questionable updates on their own, as the company won’t always inform them.

The post rapidly gathered more than 4,000 ‘likes’ and numerous responses, as countless individuals voiced their shock and frustration.

Ubisoft responded promptly via its official support account on X the same day.

In their latest statement, @UbisoftSupport has confirmed they’re addressing concerns that have surfaced about the termination clause mentioned in recent reports.

Recently, there’s been some discussion about the terms of Ubisoft’s End User License Agreement (EULA), specifically concerning what transpires once a license expires. I appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention!

This particular clause isn’t a recent addition; it’s actually been incorporated into our End User License Agreement for over a decade.

— Ubisoft Support (@UbisoftSupport) July 8, 2025

In their defense, Ubisoft stated that this particular clause is not a recent addition – it’s been included in our End User License Agreement for over a decade. Originally, this clause was created as a formal legal measure to make it clear that when a license expires, the user no longer holds any rights to access or utilize the product.

The business acknowledged that their language might come across as too forceful or incongruous with how players perceive and appreciate their games. They also revealed they are assessing this specific provision as part of their continuous endeavor to adjust policies according to player preferences and the advancement of the gaming industry. It’s worth noting that comments were disabled on the post, which fueled more criticism due to perceived suppression of dialogue.

Community reactions were swift and vehement.

YouTube personality SmashJT, in a post on July 14, 2025, lambasted Ubisoft’s defense.

Ubisoft Support justifies their controversial EULA: “…it’s been this way for over a decade!”

Translation: They’ve been acting shady for more than ten years, and now they’re owning up to it.

As expected, they disabled the comment section.

They’re not apologizing for what they wrote, just sorry they got caught.

— Smash JT (@SmashJT) July 14, 2025

As a passionate moviegoer, I’d rephrase it like this: “When Ubisoft Support defended their controversial EULA, they argued, ‘It’s been this way for over a decade!’ Frankly, that sounds more like a long-standing shady practice to me. It’s refreshing to see the truth come out. Naturally, with such contentious terms, it’s no surprise they’ve disabled comments. As always, they seem less apologetic about the content and more regretful for getting caught.

Across various platforms, numerous users, including @Chris_TV_Live, noticed similar provisions in different companies’ Terms of Use agreements, like SEGA’s, and questioned how common this practice might be.

In simple terms, much like Ubisoft, SEGA includes a provision in their End User License Agreement (EULA) that requires users to discard or destroy the product if the agreement between them and the company is ended for any reason. However, it’s unclear how many other companies enforce such a clause. It’s an interesting question to consider whether many firms truly expect consumers to get rid of their copies when the agreement terminates.

— Chris | DoesItPlay 💿 (@Chris_TV_Live) July 6, 2025

Another user, @DoesItPlay1, highlighted the wording’s implications.

It seems that Ubisoft has run out of reasonable storylines, resorting to an extreme measure such as urging customers to discard their legitimately purchased products.

The phrasing is quite intriguing, indeed. To clarify, it’s not merely a license we’re dealing with; it’s a full-fledged PRODUCT. Moreover, it’s not simply that we have TEMPORARY ACCESS to it; instead, we OWN IT, meaning we POSSESS it in its entirety.

— Does it play? (@DoesItPlay1) July 6, 2025

He argued that requiring individuals to eliminate all their legally acquired items of a product isn’t reasonable. This clearly demonstrates that the item is indeed a PHYSICAL PRODUCT, rather than merely a license. Furthermore, since we have PURCHASED it, we OWN IT, not just have temporary access to it,” he explained.

The commotion is linked to wider debates concerning game conservation, notably the “Halt the Elimination of Games” campaign, which has recently gathered over a million signatures across Europe with the aim of enacting rules that prohibit publishers from rendering games inaccessible following support discontinuation.

Some critics contend that Ubisoft’s policy conflicts with their stated goals, since it requires the deletion of games, whether they are single-player or physical versions, once servers cease operation or support is discontinued—without offering any refunds or chances to appeal.

Although this provision is not exclusive to agreements like those of Rockstar or SEGA, it undeniably contributes to the growing opposition towards violent video games.

Back in January 2024, Ubisoft’s Subscription Director, Philippe Tremblay, stated to GamesIndustry.biz that gamers may need to get used to subscription-based services. This wasn’t the first time Ubisoft had encountered discussions about ownership.

He pointed out that gamers are accustomed to having their games, similar to owning DVDs. However, this is a shift in consumer behavior that needs to occur. People have grown accustomed to not physically owning their CD or DVD collections. This change has been slower in the gaming world. As gamers become more comfortable with this concept… you don’t lose your progress when you return to the game later. The saved progress file remains intact, not deleted. This means that what you’ve accomplished in the game and your overall engagement with it is preserved. Essentially, it’s about becoming comfortable with the idea of not actually owning the game.

Tremblay emphasized the benefits of Ubisoft+ Premium, a subscription plan costing $17.99 per month, which grants users access to upcoming game releases without purchasing ownership rights, likening it to popular streaming platforms.

It’s unclear if the rules of this contract can be enforced. Both legal professionals and avid gamers are having discussions about whether these conditions would be valid in a court of law, particularly when it comes to physical games that were bought outright.

In essence, they require you to adhere to their End User License Agreement (EULA), which means deleting all copies of their products if the EULA is ever terminated for any reason. However, this seems contradictory because if the EULA termination occurs, the agreement to destroy the products under the EULA would no longer be in effect, making the destruction of the products irrelevant. Is that a correct interpretation?

— HACK the Developer (@HACKhalo2) July 6, 2025

You know, it’s like they expect me to obey the End User License Agreement (EULA), even if it gets canceled for any reason. And if that happens, I’m supposed to delete all their products, which kind of defeats the purpose because the agreement to destroy the products under the EULA only applies when the EULA itself is still in effect.

In essence, this episode brings to light a crucial dilemma in contemporary gaming – the evolution from possessing games to having access to them. As Ubisoft reconsiders their choice of language, the controversy serves as a call for clarity, protection, and equitable handling.

In the face of growing discussions about subscriptions and live services in the industry, players are becoming more vocal about safeguarding their financial commitments. Whether this results in new regulations or modified policies is yet to be determined, but it’s evident that the gaming community won’t let go of their enthusiasm without a struggle.

Read More

2025-07-14 18:00