In addition to what everyone else has said, a good reason those were acceptable is that it’s a lot like real life, where roads have billboards with ads on them. Yes, it’s crassly commercial, but only in the way that driving along real roads is.

“This weirdly outdated hot take”

“Every idea was a gimmick at some point”

I’m so glad we seem to have gotten past the era of gimmicky motion and touch controls. I still don’t know how anyone thought it would be more enjoyable to use a control scheme that’s less precise by magnitudes. 

All those words just to say “NO U.” Effort and tears well spent.

“No, not the exact same.”

“they in fact do”

“all we know is ubisoft took it down because they CLAIM someone else asked them to.”

What are those obvious reasons? There have been ports of DS games before. Heaven forbid Konami puts in the slightest amount of effort.

Oh no . . . because it’s Konami, it’s literally just going to collect these three games in one package, as opposed to the GBA and DS games altogether, isn’t it?

It can, yes. That’s literally the issue here.

“brief excerpts of copyright material”

It wasn’t a take, it was a question (two questions, really). You failed to provide an answer.

No, I’m not talking about art, this is content that is playable in the game engine. It’s serving the exact same gameplay function in FC5 as it did in Goldeneye, which is why it’s IP infringement. 

“they in fact do,”

“let’s take it to court, then”

The base game costs money.

If you hate Ubisoft so much, why would this news upset you? Wouldn’t you be blaming the user for using a service you think he should have stayed away from?

It’s not free, though. People have to buy FC5.

You can’t “anonymously leak it.” It was a map that was uploaded to the game on Ubisoft’s servers, so other people can play it. There is nowhere else to upload it because you can’t play a map that’s not part of a game. There is nothing to “play.”