|
For myself, I sort of understand where they are coming from. Class action lawsuits can be complete messes at times. I think they have their benefits but they are not the gross majority of the times. I find myself in a weird situation where I sort of am alright with Valve doing this, but I hated when Sony did it. But that is also due to the potential varying mindset of the two.
Sony made the change post class action lawsuit with regards to the security and hacking that went on. So it came off as a means to make sure that never happens again if they screw up. But Valve, I just believe that although they are looking for themselves, it is in both parties interest.
As for the legality of the situation. ToS and EULA's are a gray area. They can and are supported more often than people realize. The true basis of whether or not it is enforceable is if the change itself goes against a previous or prevailing law. So long as it does not conflict with other laws, it can be enforced. For example, a judge would not enforce one that gives forces you to give up all your rights that are already guaranteed. As example, you have your right to sue. You have not waived the right to sue, but the chance for a class-action lawsuit.
The final point with regards to our rights to use what we own. Well, for the most part, we do not own them. Just think of Diablo III (or Starcraft II), we do not own those games. We have paid to have the right to play or use the product which can be taken away. It sucks but eh, we wouldn't be able to play it otherwise.
|
I'm ok with it for two reasons.
1) The individuals get practically nothing from class actions; its the lawyers who get the biggest payouts. That's why you constantly see commercials for this-or-that law firm vowing to help you get paid from some medicine that got recalled. You get a few bucks while they get a new car.
2) Nothing in any EULA or TOS is legally binding. It all sounds scary and official, but they've practically never stood up in court.
|
Why do they spend all that time writing that junk if it doesn't hold up in court... I guess it still deters ppl from pursuing legal actions at all b having scary words?
|
And how do you decline such a clause? If I don't accept it can I still play the games I purchased?
|
On August 02 2012 16:09 David451 wrote:
And how do you decline such a clause? If I don't accept it can I still play the games I purchased?
I don't think so. It said I had to accept to continue.
|
The law takes precedent over some Terms of Service agreement that some PR-guy drafted.
It works in some ways, because you as a company can say "well they knew what they were getting into."
It doesn't work when you try to deny people their basic rights.
There are companies that say you cannot sue them. Yeah, good luck trying to enforce that one. People think these Terms and Service agreements to be stronger than they are. You can just blindly accept them. If there is anything illegal in there, it simply isn't valid.
|
Think this kinda thing just angers people and is gonna make more lawsuits than it avoids. What if I don't want to agree to these terms that reduce my legal rights? Well then I lose access to all the games on my Steam library. Time to go to court.
|
Not relevant to EU, we can't sign away our rights here. And in my opinion, private for profit companies can't be expected to act morally, their sole purpose is to make money. Government regulations are there to keep them on the right path.
Yeah I don't agree with the move. It's sad affairs are going to that direction. But I will stay in Steam because the benefits of their service outweighs the damage from their PR babble. Yeah it's just a PR move here since it won't have a practical effect.
|
Its sad how hypocritical people have been about this on other forums, had this been EA or Activision they would have raised a shitstorm of epic proportions but because its Valve its "okay".
If you decline this ToS, your games are gone, they are basically holding your entire library hostage until you bow down and agree. Even the so called "evil" Sony and "evil" Microsoft still allow you to download the games you have purchased even if you refuse their newest ToS or latest update on consoles, cant do this on Steam.
If Valve really wants to be "pro consumer" they should do what GOG does, and allow us to take the games off Steam and burn them on a disc/dvd/put on HDD and it should be 100% legal aswell as allow us to decline their newest ToS and update but still be able to play my games, if they even are "my" games.
And lets face it, they arent. We are just renting these games. Thank god i only bought 6 games on Steam for less than 3-4 dollars. Because one day when this company goes full heel mode, the shitstorm will be massive and i wonder where that will leave Steamheads who are utterly convinced that Good vs Evil is how real life is, Valve is good, they would never do this?
Yeah any company can come in and buy them out, new leadership can view things in a different way and make sweeping changes, all your shit is on their service, you are theirs for life. How can you leave if you have 20+ games there, let alone those of you who have 100+ games?
|
Class action lawsuits are useless 99% of the time, and they are just for lawyers to get rich. Remember a Lawyer get a 10-25% cut of $10/person lawsuit that involves 100,000,000 people is crazy. The Lawyer walks away with 25mil, and everybody else gets 10 bucks.
Why do you think there are class action lawsuits against Tobacco companies for billions of dollars all the time?
|
Might have something to do with this:
http://www.gamerlaw.co.uk/2012/07/legality-of-second-hand-sales-in-eu.html
Recently it was decided that in EU you should be allowed to sell your copy of any piece of software (including downloaded Steam games) to another user. Steam currently does not offer that option, and it might hurt their business model. I for one would sell most of my single player games  If this really catches on, people might be enticed to "claim their right" en masse. Maybe Steam wants to preemptively lock down this option for US clients before the same law hits there.
Other then that, I like Steam pretty much. They offer good service, stable client and good games. So I won't be put off by this ToS stuff. (That, and in EU it's not allowed to deny legal rights through a ToS anyways)
|
Its sad how hypocritical people have been about this on other forums, had this been EA or Activision they would have raised a shitstorm of epic proportions but because its Valve its "okay".
The fact that you missed EA doing this means we/they did in fact not raise "a shitstorm of epic proportions".
http://www.giantbomb.com/news/valve-joins-ea-sony-others-in-trying-to-block-class-action-lawsuits/4308/
Steam (and Valve) is joining Sony, Microsoft, Electronic Arts, and other companies hoping to block any and all class action lawsuits.
It is sad when people insult others before fact-checking.
|
On August 02 2012 16:19 Tanukki wrote:
Think this kinda thing just angers people and is gonna make more lawsuits than it avoids. What if I don't want to agree to these terms that reduce my legal rights? Well then I lose access to all the games on my Steam library. Time to go to court.
Do you know anyone that have gone to court over a bad tos?
|
The fact that you missed EA doing this means we did in fact not raise "a shitstorm of epic proportions"
I didnt, Neogaf, a very big gaming website raised a massive shitstorm and had several topics proclaiming EA being the worst company in America. Now that Steam did it, the thread has people defending them blindly, just like they are doing here.
There are other websites out there than TL, check them out
The only companies who DONT have this (so far) are Nintendo and there are rumors they may do the same once their online develops further.
The difference is that with Sony, MS and Nintendo i can still download, re download, play, uninstall, reinstall again despite disagreeing with any new ToS they put up or even being a member of Xbox Live Gold. All i need is a online connection and my digital games are there.
What bizarro world is this when Microsoft of all companies, gives me more rights and options than Valve?
Steam does not allow this, either its their way, or "fuck you and your games" way. They are holding people hostage and Steamheads are saying "Wow Valve so amazing!" "i love you gaben!" utter idiocy.
|
Binding arbitration agreements are very common. You've all probably signed one when visiting a doctor.
|
On August 02 2012 15:35 Millitron wrote:
I'm ok with it for two reasons.
1) The individuals get practically nothing from class actions; its the lawyers who get the biggest payouts. That's why you constantly see commercials for this-or-that law firm vowing to help you get paid from some medicine that got recalled. You get a few bucks while they get a new car.
2) Nothing in any EULA or TOS is legally binding. It all sounds scary and official, but they've practically never stood up in court.
Point two is just spreading misinforomation. It is dependent on different variables, such as the circuit, State, and what is stated in the EULA/ToS.
|
This can only be solved with a class action lawsuit imo
|
Netherlands19138 Posts
Thank god I live in the EU is all I will say regarding terms of use and EULAs (or consumer rights in general).
|
Netherlands19138 Posts
On August 02 2012 16:42 Nilrem wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 15:35 Millitron wrote:
I'm ok with it for two reasons.
1) The individuals get practically nothing from class actions; its the lawyers who get the biggest payouts. That's why you constantly see commercials for this-or-that law firm vowing to help you get paid from some medicine that got recalled. You get a few bucks while they get a new car.
2) Nothing in any EULA or TOS is legally binding. It all sounds scary and official, but they've practically never stood up in court. Point two is just spreading misinforomation. It is dependent on different variables, such as the circuit, State, and what is stated in the EULA/ToS.
Indeed, point two is absolute nonsense. In the US pretty much anything goes in EULAs/TOS/TOU and almost always gets upheld. I work on IT/IE law as a living and consumers in the US really get the short end of the stick compared to EU consumers.
|
On August 02 2012 08:03 Shai wrote:
I looked up the legality of this in Canada, and it isn't legal in at least 4 provinces, untested in the other 6. This was specifically tested in British Columbia and the supreme court supported the individual's right to sue, either as a class action or otherwise.
Too bad you signed a contract saying it's under the jurisdiction of the state of washington and not Canada.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
