They should take a loss because they sold a product and it’s availability shouldn’t be a lever they use to drive traffic to their new game. Is this where I say you are implying that corporate profits are more important than honesty?

Are you implying that they didn’t insinuate that this game would be supported longer when they had an actual expiration date on the product code, 2099? If the Crew 3 has been in development for 10 years and they spend a billion dollars developing it would it be ok to sunset the Crew 2 after a couple weeks to “motivate” buyers to buy the new version? Who decides what is the “appropriate” amount of time a product should be available.

If they don’t allow private or third party hosting for the Crew then anyone should be able to refund it since they bought a product that has been rugpulled.

You can feel free to ignore all of that because there isn’t a good reason to support Ubisoft here and this model unless you like the taste of shoe polish.

You should reread my comment.

I didn’t imply there is a public safety issue. I didn’t imply anything about morality.

If a company drops the hosting for online servers they shouldn’t prevent third parties from picking it up. That’s the whole statement so you don’t need to find anything between the lines.

Art does belong to everyone but that’s completely unrelated to my comment above.

If a company decides to stop hosting it’s online service they should be required to open it up for third party hosting. By ending their support they are admitting the profit capture is over so if another company wants to host it for profit so be it.