Assassin's Creed maker faces GDPR complaint for forcing single-player gamers online For anyone who's ever been frustrated by the need to go online to play a single-player video game, the European privacy specialists at noyb have heard you, and they've filed a complaint against Ubisoft in Austria dealing specifically with the issue. Noyb has asked Austrian data protection authorities to investigate the French …
As correctly noted, this is all about telemetry, harvesting user data and not giving them the option to opt out, and while I hope this will end (enforced/sued), in the meantime you do need a workaround.
Why not use what some browser plugins (adnauseum et al) do, add massive noise to the data so it becomes anonymous and useless?
For extra points, make the noise adversarial or magnify it (within ddos limits).
As for me, I'm ok in the retro gaming community where they even respawn old servers to keep games alive, the AAA games do not (for me, ymmv) add much in terms of novelty beyond resolution.
Ubisoft are evil, they will never get my money again. When I paid for AC: unity, logging into the steam acct I purchased with was good enough. My dual core CPU however, was not enough. So a year later when I dropped in a 4-core chip, now they required my to make a "uplay" account AND install the uplay client spyware in order to start the game... as long as I was online and their servers graced me with permission. So I looked for a crack... nope, nothing (at least at the time). Even the scene release of the original version refused to run without updating....
"Why not use what some browser plugins (adnauseum et al) do, add massive noise to the data so it becomes anonymous and useless?"
Or, and I know this is off-the-wall thinking, they can turn off their illegal and unnecessary data scooping to avoid a massive EU fine. Crazy, I know.
Thanks to the EU. They have emerged as the only adult in the room taking personal privacy seriously. Tech Guy is right, you don't need this crap to play a single player game, just as Google does not need location services turned on for a Android app. This is a clear violation.
The EU should fine company board members directly, not the corporations, with no reimbursement from the companies to cover it. That will stop this horse plop very quickly.
whoa whoa whoa! They absolutely should not get out of the fine simply by becoming compliant with the law! The fine is for the infractions. Maybe they should get out of being barred from selling products in the EU by becoming compliant and paying for third party oversight? Why are you so forgiving of corporate malfeasance? The execs should each get a kick in the junk, too, preferably by an angry kickboxer..
It would be nice if Mr Söderberg wasn't lying to sensationalise his point.
Any game I play that has online data collection also has a switch to turn it off, and I use it. So no, when I play my data is not collected and analysed.
(assuming the game company abides by the switch, obviously, but that is not what he said)
I've just completed Assassin's creed: Shadows (an excellent game) on the PS5 and frankly I don't give a damn what data they upload about my game play, hopefully they might use some of it to improve the game's performance or features. I have no personal information on the PS5, only stored saved games. I note that occasionally some saves are actually done online rather than to the console storage, but so what? This sounds very much like a storm in a teacup.
However, if telemetry from my (Linux) PC was being syphoned off and passed on to third parties, that would be an entirely different matter as it holds a significant amount of personal data.
"I have no personal information on the PS5"
No. But it can provide information that can be used to usefully extend the profile of data that the data thieves already have from other sources. The whole MO of private sector mass surveillance is to link multiple different sources, different technologies and then extrapolate, infers, and guess. And then they'll use that imperfect data and stick it all on you.
I accept what you are saying, but even so, pretty much all they can infer is that some unknown person sometimes likes to play games on the PS5. They may also infer that I breathe air, eat, drink and piss too, but fat lot of benefit it will be to them. I'm strongly in favour of GDPR and do the best I can to keep my personal data offline, no facebook etc. Anything that does leak is likely from indiscreet posts by friends or family and of course the government itself, Companies House has published documents online that give my former company name, my full name, former address, date of birth and scanned copies of my (old) signature and similar details for my wife - all available to anyone in the world, free of charge! Pity I can't raise a GDPR complaint against the government.
"I accept what you are saying, but even so, pretty much all they can infer is that some unknown person sometimes likes to play games on the PS5."
Is that so? If you often play lenghy hours or well past midnight, health insurance may consider your lifestyle as unhealthy and increase pemiums. Car insurers might too, as your supposed lack of sleep might increase your chance for being involved in a car accident. If you think it is fair that they'll increase your premiums because of your supposed unhealthy choices, wait until you don't get the benefit if they see you play games only in moderation and well before bedtime. Insurers like to conveniantly only ask you more for supposed unsafe behavior, but be very quiet about reductions when they see you have a below average risk profile.
Maybe, theoretically you are of course correct. These buggers like to join up dots from all over. I suppose it is just as well I rarely ever play past midnight and have no health insurance. My car insurance is now the lowest it has ever been... maybe they know how adept I am at avoiding obstacles in my path (like sword wielding bandits).
Your PS5 presumably has an Internet connection, so they have your public IP and know where you are. Your home network, Smart TV, WiFi router, cell phone, and all your other networked gear including your hyper-protected Linux PC with all your personal info uses that same IP. All of that info is then pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. Index that with the info the government has about you (if you vote, salary, travel destinations, GPS phone location, credit card and banking details, blah, blah, blah...)
In the end, they have a good idea of who you are, where you are, when you are home, when you are on the Internet, where you go when online, who you talk to and about what, your political affiliations, if any. When you leave for work (and with proper telemetry at work they know when you arrive), what you do at work, etc. etc. etc. because it all goes into the same bucket with your name on it.
You were downvoted because with your limited knowledge you assumed you can have one private device in a world with massive surveillance and access to all of the other devices in your life. That is demonstrably false and blatantly dangerous when the wrong government comes into power.
Good Luck Andy.
It's not only about data collection. The requirement also means it is impossible to play the game off-line, if you are somewhere with limited or no internet connection.
As a counter example, Bethesda games requires a periodic check-in online for licensing purposes but is happy to let you play off-line otherwise.
I'll add one detail to my original post. These issues all come down to a matter of perspective. I've got much bigger issues in my life than worrying if someone knows that someone on my IP address plays games on the PS5. I'm not a young man, my health is seriously declining, facing more heart surgery. There is a strong possibility i could suddenly die at any time within the next couple of years. This would also result in my elderly disabled wife having to go into a care home. In addition a major structural fault with our property has come to light which could wipe out our life savings and what remains of my personal pension.
As daft as it may sound, one of my thoughts last year was hoping I would still be alive to play the new (delayed) Assassin's Creed game. That achieved I'm now hoping to still be around for when Death Stranding 2 comes out and also The Ghost of Yotei. There are of course lots of other more important wishes for what remains of my life, but my perspectives have shifted and getting worried over who knows I play games on the PS5 isn't one of them, even if they manage to join up dots to other aspects of my limited online life.
I used to play The Crew. It was a fun driving/racing game. Unfortunately, Ubisoft published it and, as a result, required an always on internet connection to be playable. It was a multiplayer game, but I only ever played single player. When they decided to kill the servers it reported back to the game was dead. No way to run it in the slightest. No patch, no advice, no anything. They've taken your money so you can play, but then killed the ability to do so. Since then, I've actively avoided Ubisoft games if possible, and certainly wouldn't pay for on now. A freebie is OK though.
The usual thing of "You never owned the game, just a license to play it which could be revoked at any time" is their get-out clause. It's the same with Steam as there's no way to gift your library to someone else when you die. I just plan on passing on my login and password to my offspring and let them carry on playing the games.
I miss the days of games on physical media, and an internet connection via a modem with a speed in the kbps range making constant data transmission to host servers impossible.
I have enough history with Ubisoft to have decided to never buy a game from them again.
From the insane requirement to have to reinstall Battlefield 2 every time there was an update (and I was ADSL at the time - took all evening), to the fact that when wanted to update Battlefield 2142 it asked me for the CD key (hello ? I bought it from your fucking store, remember ?) and when I complained about it, Ubisoft just shut down my account (no, no reimbursement, don't be daft).
I've learned my lesson. Ubisoft can go to hell.
Beyond the telemetry and data theft there is basic fact that often these launchers are so poorly developed and implemented that they don't work. Youu pay your hard earned for a single player game you can't play because the laucher doesnt work.
Then you have the risk of the developers removing the authorisation service so your paid for software stops working, forever.
There are many things wrong with this model of business.
The most damning are the games that claim DRM purposes / authentication, when in fact a one-time call upon installation suffices.
Such was true, that some of those could turn to a one-time auth at setup, and never call home again, and did so.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
