Image: Ubisoft

Ubisoft has published a new support document that can confirm the publisher will be shutting down the multiplayer and online services for 15 of its older games on September 1, 2022. The titles that Ubisoft will be pulling the plug on include Assassin’s Creed II, Far Cry 3, Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands, and Splinter Cell: Blacklist, the most recent mainline game in the stealth franchise that released in 2013 and starred a younger Sam Fisher. Players will no longer be able to play multiplayer, use their online features, link them to their Ubisoft accounts, and/or install and access their DLC this coming September. This marks the second round of server closures from Ubisoft this year, with the company having shut down online services for over 90 games in April. That list included classics such as Rainbow Six Vegas and Beyond Good and Evil.

Decommissioning of online services (September 2022)

  • Anno 2070
  • Assassin’s Creed 2
  • Assassin’s Creed 3
  • Assassin’s Creed Brotherhood
  • Assassin’s Creed Liberation HD
  • Assassin’s Creed Revelations
  • Driver San Francisco
  • Far Cry 3
  • Ghost Recon Future Soldier
  • Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands
  • Rayman Legends
  • Silent Hunter 5
  • Space Junkies
  • Splinter Cell: Blacklist
  • ZombiU

Closing the online services for some older games allows us to focus our resources on delivering great experiences for players who are playing newer or more popular titles. To help us achieve this, a number of older titles will be added to our list of decommissioned online services on 1 September 2022. [Above] you will find a detailed breakdown for the effects of this new round of decommissions per platform.

Source: Ubisoft

Go to thread

Don’t Miss Out on More FPS Review Content!

Our weekly newsletter includes a recap of our reviews and a run down of the most popular tech news that we published.

15 comments

  1. As long as I can play solo, It's OK.
    Not being able to access DLCs however is an issue. They never told you that you are only leasing them and not actually buying them.
  2. As long as I can play solo, It's OK.
    Not being able to access DLCs however is an issue. They never told you that you are only leasing them and not actually buying them.
    Sad to say that I don't remember exactly what game it was that got on my radar with Ubisoft but I can say it happened somewhere in between my Atari 400-Tandy 1000EX days and that, at the time, I thought they were different and cool. Now I hold them in the same regard as EA and Activision and this isn't a good thing. I also used to look up to those companies as well when it came to good single-player games. I'm not saying there haven't been exceptions but that's all those have been, exceptions.
  3. I'm sure it's someplace in that 27 page EULA you have to accept
    Except EULA's are inadmissible in court, whether you agreed to them or not you cannot sign away your rights. If it said buy on the page, that's all that matters.
  4. Sad to say that I don't remember exactly what game it was that got on my radar with Ubisoft but I can say it happened somewhere in between my Atari 400-Tandy 1000EX days and that, at the time, I thought they were different and cool. Now I hold them in the same regard as EA and Activision and this isn't a good thing. I also used to look up to those companies as well when it came to good single-player games. I'm not saying there haven't been exceptions but that's all those have been, exceptions.
    They are still not that bad, but there seems to be a lot of reactionary top down interference in their games.

    As far as publishers go, I think I've spent the most time playing ubisoft games. Rainbow 6, Ghost Recon, Splinter Cell, Far Cry, unfortunately the current state is pretty bad for all of these franchises.

    Rainbow 6 didn't have a decent entry since Vegas 2, they tried to turn Ghost Recon into a looter shooter, then an NFT game. And I think they are learning the wrong lessons from both of those failures. Splinter Cell didn't have an entry since 2013. Far Cry games are lacklustre reskins of previous ones since Far Cry 3. And Assassin's Creed has also embraced the quantity over quality approach. Still I never learn, except may be for Far Cry if they announced a new game in any of these franchises I'd be looking forward to it.
  5. Except EULA's are inadmissible in court, whether you agreed to them or not you cannot sign away your rights. If it said buy on the page, that's all that matters.
    Well, you can try taking lawyering up - might even get a class action out of it. Fairly sure Ubi will say yeah, it clearly says buying... a license, and it clearly says they can revoke it at any time.
  6. Well, you can try taking lawyering up - might even get a class action out of it. Fairly sure Ubi will say yeah, it clearly says buying... a license, and it clearly says they can revoke it at any time.
    Whether it is listed as a software product or a license to use a software product, buy means buy. There is no revoke option for something that you bought.

    Now of course in practice ubisoft will crap all over your rights and they are betting that there will be no class action for 10+ year old games.
  7. product, buy means buy.
    You did buy. The license.

    You still own that, for all that its worth after they shut off the servers, along with any physical packaging or media it may have happened to be distributed on.

    But they never sold you the server, or guaranteed access to their servers, or made the claim that the license would do anything other than work with their specific server. In fact, I would be willing to bet the EULA even expressly forbids you from using your license to access any servers ~other than~ the official ones, that are now being shut down.
  8. You did buy. The license.

    You still own that, for all that its worth after they shut off the servers, along with any physical packaging or media it may have happened to be distributed on.

    But they never sold you the server, or guaranteed access to their servers, or made the claim that the license would do anything other than work with their specific server. In fact, I would be willing to bet the EULA even expressly forbids you from using your license to access any servers ~other than~ the official ones, that are now being shut down.
    A permanent license is not just until it is convenient for ubisoft. We are using a ton of legacy software at work, and the developer has no choice but allow us to use it while we want to. Of course we would be dumber than dump to replace our permanent licenses for a subscription model, which is the only one they offer now. Especially since the software barely changed in 15 years. But I digress.

    Permanent license only being valid while the publisher feels like it is like a lifetime warranty that only lasts while the device is working.
  9. A permanent license is not just until it is convenient for ubisoft. We are using a ton of legacy software at work, and the developer has no choice but allow us to use it while we want to.
    And if these were single player games, that would still be the case for this article.

    You can still use the DLC.. the servers are just down, so .. good luck
  10. And if these were single player games, that would still be the case for this article.

    You can still use the DLC.. the servers are just down, so .. good luck
    Have you read the article? Most of these are single player games. And you cannot access / install the DLCs without the servers.
  11. And you cannot access / install the DLCs without the servers.
    Yes. Correct.

    You never licensed or bought the servers, but you licensed a product that requires a server, for whatever reason, to function.

    That is my point.

    Now, why single player games ~require~ a server has been a point of contention for some time - and rightly so - just for instances like this. This was exactly what opponents of persistent online connections and/or accessible only via a digital storefront feared could happen.

    But Ubisoft never did anything they didn't tell you they were going to do - it was transparent the entire way. You bought a license to some software. In the case of DLC, it requires the base game to function, and for multiplayer games it requires an online server to function, and it's only obtainable via their authorized download servers.

    They never promised anything else, and people bought it anyway. Hope they enjoyed it while they could.
  12. Yes. Correct.

    You never licensed or bought the servers, but you licensed a product that requires a server, for whatever reason, to function.

    That is my point.

    Now, why single player games ~require~ a server has been a point of contention for some time - and rightly so - just for instances like this. This was exactly what opponents of persistent online connections and/or accessible only via a digital storefront feared could happen.

    But Ubisoft never did anything they didn't tell you they were going to do - it was transparent the entire way. You bought a license to some software. In the case of DLC, it requires the base game to function, and for multiplayer games it requires an online server to function, and it's only obtainable via their authorized download servers.

    They never promised anything else, and people bought it anyway. Hope they enjoyed it while they could.
    If ubisoft is smart they will release an update to make all of these single player games fully functional offline.
  13. Online gaming has only gone downhill in the era of official servers, matchmaking and everyone has to have their own launcher.

    Absolutely everything was better in online gaming when you were FORCED to use a community server because there wasn't al alternative.

    Since those days ended, it is barely worth playing multiplayer games at all. The experience just sucks. I'd rather just play my single player games.

Leave a comment

Please log in to your forum account to comment