|
If you were like many other Steam users who logged on this morning to play some games before work or as a daytime activity, you saw that Valve recently updated their Terms of Services and required a new acceptance in order to use their Steam cloud video game service. However, what caught my eye about this one was a bold-type font regarding a new "Section 12" that read:
SECTION 12 CONTAINS A BINDING ARBITRATION AGREEMENT AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER. IT AFFECTS YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS. PLEASE READ IT. IF YOU LIVE OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES, SOME OR ALL OF SECTION 12 MIGHT NOT APPLY TO YOU.
I, personally, was a bit hesitant to accept the terms without reading them fully, and I found several articles that filled me in on the details.
http://www.joystiq.com/2012/08/01/valves-updated-steam-subscriber-agreement-bars-class-action-law/
If you're like most people, when Steam started up this morning you noticed there was an extra pop-up prompting you to click a button that says "I agree" a few times, and you did this without reading much into what you were consenting to. Turns out you don't actually "own" your left hand anymore. Oh, well.
Actually, it was an updated Steam Subscriber Agreement altering the legal options available to customers. First, Steam customers may no longer bring class action claims against the service, mirroring similar moves by large distribution and publishing companies, including Sony and Microsoft.
"We considered this change very carefully. It's clear to us that in some situations, class actions have real benefits to customers," Valve explains. "In far too many cases however, class actions don't provide any real benefit to users and instead impose unnecessary expense and delay, and are often designed to benefit the class action lawyers who craft and litigate these claims."
Individual claims will still be allowed, though Valve has now instituted a required process that channels these claims to arbitration or small claims court. Valve will reimburse the cost of arbitration under a certain amount, provided the arbitrator deems the claim isn't frivolous nor the expenses unreasonable.
Valve is also opening an office in Luxembourg "to better serve our EU customers and partners," who will sign an EU-specific SSA.
Hey, at least you still own your left hand.
So, do you think Valve is overstepping their bounds here by banning users from joining together in class action lawsuits? Or do you believe that they have a legitimate point, that class action lawsuits rarely benefit the individuals, and that individual claims will still be processed and recompensed?
EDIT woops poll mixed around yes and no, adding new one
Poll: Should companies stop users from joining class action lawsuits?No, they help protect user's rights (144) 57% No, but I trust Valve not to abuse this power (82) 32% Yes, they rarely ever help out the individual (27) 11% 253 total votes Your vote: Should companies stop users from joining class action lawsuits? (Vote): No, they help protect user's rights
(Vote): No, but I trust Valve not to abuse this power
(Vote): Yes, they rarely ever help out the individual
|
I already have my gripes and issues with Valve...I think this was yet another step in the wrong direction for them.
|
I agree with their statement that many class action lawsuits are brought forth by lawyers for the purpose of making themselves money and without much regard to actually helping consumers.
However, this type of clause is probably unenforceable. None of your poll answers address this opinion.
|
Russian Federation325 Posts
Imagine people do class action lawsuit and judge says "lol you've selected a checkbox on the internetz no lawsuits plzkthx". Does it work like that?
|
Unless Steam stole from me, used my credentials in a illegal way, or do anything illegal, they are still bound to the U.S. Law, no matter what the fuck has been signed.
Can you get someone to sign something allowing you to kill them, and then not get charged with murder? Nope.
|
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.
|
Agree to terms online by checking a box is about as binding as signing a document without having to show ID, theirs no proof its something you did.
|
lawyers making rules which will be disputed so they can make a living arguing about them. I despise bureaucracy.
|
God I love that so many people think "class action lawsuit" is the same thing as any lawsuit. You can actually ban class action lawsuits with the tolaa class action lawsuit, legally, in the ToS. You can not ban "suing Valve", as so many seems to think.
|
Legal rights being made illegal through a digital contract. I think you actually could sue valve for this.
|
Would Valve be allowed to include a statement in the ToS forbidding individual claims as well? Just curious about how far they can go with this sort of thing. The article makes it seem like they chose to allow individual claims.
|
class action doesn't exist here...
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
I wonder how much consumers actually benefit from class action lawsuits. From what I've seen, payouts are always rather meager. Would love to see the breakdown of payouts (amount paid by the corporation / amount paid to lawyers / amount paid in legal fees / amount paid out to consumers)
|
Terms of Service is not a legally binding contract. Also a judge can ignore a legally binding contract.
This is pretty obvious and the courts do notice these tactics and ignore them.
|
Well if it turns out to be an abusive tactic to screw customers I'm sure that we can petition for legislation to remove it. I'm not going to pitchfork them until they actually do something terribly wrong.
|
My theory, for what it's worth:
One only need look at the at the almost commonplace attacks against credit card databases, and the recent attack on the Sony/Playstation Network online service, as proof that breaches are a real threat.
As DotA 2 ramps up in popularity, the amount of personal data they hold will grow. This personal data includes credit card information. Yesterday, I saw 65,000+ people online for DotA2, and it will grow from there. People will go after their database - they went after Sony. Think about it, why else would there be a class action lawsuit against Valve? It's not like they're going to release some bad software update that frags everyone's computers.
In fact, haven't they been breached once before, ie Gabe's apology letter? (Source needed ofc).
IMHO Valve is smart to head this off at the pass, but they could probably go about it a better way, such as specifying in plain language "class action lawsuits related to data theft and breaches of security even when best practices for electronic security have been followed."
Strange update though... a little extreme. Such is the world we live in, I suppose. Either way, Valve still has my trust and respect. This won't stop be from using Steam or purchasing their games and services.
|
On August 02 2012 08:38 Rybka wrote:
My theory, for what it's worth:
One only need look at the at the almost commonplace attacks against credit card databases, and the recent attack on the Sony/Playstation Network online service, as proof that breaches are a real threat.
As DotA 2 ramps up in popularity, the amount of personal data they hold will grow. This personal data includes credit card information. Yesterday, I saw 65,000+ people online for DotA2, and it will grow from there. People will go after their database - they went after Sony. Think about it, why else would there be a class action lawsuit against Valve? It's not like they're going to release some bad software update that frags everyone's computers.
In fact, haven't they been breached once before, ie Gabe's apology letter? (Source needed ofc).
IMHO Valve is smart to head this off at the pass, but they could probably go about it a better way, such as specifying in plain language "class action lawsuits related to data theft and breaches of security even when best practices for electronic security have been followed."
Strange update though... a little extreme. Such is the world we live in, I suppose. Either way, Valve still has my trust and respect. This won't stop be from using Steam or purchasing their games and services.
they'd never say that because they can't know for sure that the bold part will be true.
They don't need to get a high tiers decision to have bad security (ala Sony) but inviduals error can be enough and you don't want to be sued because one of your employees screwed up big time.
|
On August 02 2012 08:41 sAsImre wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 08:38 Rybka wrote:
My theory, for what it's worth:
One only need look at the at the almost commonplace attacks against credit card databases, and the recent attack on the Sony/Playstation Network online service, as proof that breaches are a real threat.
As DotA 2 ramps up in popularity, the amount of personal data they hold will grow. This personal data includes credit card information. Yesterday, I saw 65,000+ people online for DotA2, and it will grow from there. People will go after their database - they went after Sony. Think about it, why else would there be a class action lawsuit against Valve? It's not like they're going to release some bad software update that frags everyone's computers.
In fact, haven't they been breached once before, ie Gabe's apology letter? (Source needed ofc).
IMHO Valve is smart to head this off at the pass, but they could probably go about it a better way, such as specifying in plain language "class action lawsuits related to data theft and breaches of security even when best practices for electronic security have been followed."
Strange update though... a little extreme. Such is the world we live in, I suppose. Either way, Valve still has my trust and respect. This won't stop be from using Steam or purchasing their games and services. they'd never say that because they can't know for sure that the bold part will be true. They don't need to get a high tiers decision to have bad security (ala Sony) but inviduals error can be enough and you don't want to be sued because one of your employees screwed up big time.
Well said.
|
It's unenforceable. You can't make someone give up their ability to join a class action lawsuit.
It's really simple logic. By bringing up a class action lawsuit, the plantiffs are asserting Valve breached some kind of agreement, or harmed them in some way. How can Valve enforce a contract that, in all likelyhood, the plantiffs would be asserting they had broken? Makes no sense.
|
I doubt this clause is even legally enforceable.
|
On August 02 2012 08:55 Craton wrote:
I doubt this clause is even legally enforceable.
We did this dance when origin did the same thing. Yes, you can legally enforce stopping class action lawsuits with a ToS. Its not stopping you from suing them, but its stopping you from suing them in a spesific way that benefits no one including yourself.
|
As long as i can continue to play my games, whatevah
|
On August 02 2012 08:32 motbob wrote:
I wonder how much consumers actually benefit from class action lawsuits. From what I've seen, payouts are always rather meager. Would love to see the breakdown of payouts (amount paid by the corporation / amount paid to lawyers / amount paid in legal fees / amount paid out to consumers)
The purpose of a class action suit, even with a tiny per-plaintiff payout, is to police corporations without waiting for the government/regulator to step in and do it for you.
|
On August 02 2012 09:01 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 08:55 Craton wrote:
I doubt this clause is even legally enforceable. We did this dance when origin did the same thing. Yes, you can legally enforce stopping class action lawsuits with a ToS. Its not stopping you from suing them, but its stopping you from suing them in a spesific way that benefits no one including yourself.
O, what case was this?
|
On August 02 2012 09:05 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 09:01 Excludos wrote:On August 02 2012 08:55 Craton wrote:
I doubt this clause is even legally enforceable. We did this dance when origin did the same thing. Yes, you can legally enforce stopping class action lawsuits with a ToS. Its not stopping you from suing them, but its stopping you from suing them in a spesific way that benefits no one including yourself. O, what case was this?
Origin had the same thing in their ToS when their service went live, and there was just as much outrage about it because people are equally unlearned about the subject as they are now. Most of the outrage comes from people who doesn't even know what a class action lawsuit is.
|
I'm actually glad that they made this change. On the one hand, it limits the consumer's rights by preventing them from filing a class action lawsuit (duh). However, think of all the times where companies you have used lose these lawsuits: did you see any of the money? Maybe, but we all know the lawyers saw a lot more. This will make it so that Valve doesn't have to spend as much money fighting pointless lawsuits, allowing them to spend more money on actually making games and updating their Steam service. That's something that I can actually benefit from.
Class action lawsuits aren't even used for their actual purpose anymore, anyway. They are meant to extract money from something on behalf of multiple people within one lawsuit, but they are really popular these days because the lawyers that execute them get to keep all of the leftover money, while many consumers, who are the people that the lawsuit is being made for in the first place, walk away penniless.
|
Although it is true that class action lawsuits are many times non-beneficial to all parties involved, it still should be available to the consumers to, at the very least, raise awareness of a problem, especially if the potential defendant won't accept a reasonable settlement out of court.
|
This can't be legally enforced as everyone else said, but I, despite not voting the poll cuz I'm lazy, think this is a good thing. A lot of people bring "class action" lawsuites as lawyers saying that these video games are corrupting the youth somehow, that won't stop them, but it may prevent some of those cases popping up to harrass and spend video game makers money.
|
|
|
On August 02 2012 09:09 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 09:05 Sub40APM wrote:On August 02 2012 09:01 Excludos wrote:On August 02 2012 08:55 Craton wrote:
I doubt this clause is even legally enforceable. We did this dance when origin did the same thing. Yes, you can legally enforce stopping class action lawsuits with a ToS. Its not stopping you from suing them, but its stopping you from suing them in a spesific way that benefits no one including yourself. O, what case was this? Origin had the same thing in their ToS when their service went live, and there was just as much outrage about it because people are equally unlearned about the subject as they are now. Most of the outrage comes from people who doesn't even know what a class action lawsuit is.
Oh, of course, people think this is bad just because they don't understand it, not because it's bad. Search me. I had just assumed that people agreed with Steam's ToS because they didn't understand it, not because they agree. But you've convinced me. Thanks for that compelling argument.
My heart goes out to all the victimized corporations that are forced to defend themselves when they act irresponsibly towards thousands of customers at once.
|
As much as I think lawsuits are abused by people looking to get rich at the expense of someone else, what this is ultimately doing is stomping on consumer rights.
|
On August 02 2012 08:32 motbob wrote:
I wonder how much consumers actually benefit from class action lawsuits. From what I've seen, payouts are always rather meager. Would love to see the breakdown of payouts (amount paid by the corporation / amount paid to lawyers / amount paid in legal fees / amount paid out to consumers)
That would be interesting but class action lawsuits also prevent future harm in some cases. The continuing use of whatever practice the lawsuit is over can hurt future consumers, so its not super cut and dry through payouts for cases.
|
In France, you could make someone give up his right to go to court over a particular matter, that's often used in labor law or civil law. That's called a transaction. However, to be valid, that transaction needs to give both party an advantage : one party gains the security of not being sued (that's her advantage), and most of the times, the other party gains money.
Other than that mechanism, I don't know of any legal act that can make you lose your right to sue, in french law at least.
This clause has no effect, imo.
Edit : and there are so many clauses like that... "this company will not be responsible for blablabla"... lol. Writing that down does not grant magical immunity.
|
Would anyone care to share with me some of the class action lawsuits that have been pursued against gaming companies? I don't know much about them besides what I just wiki'd .. that they are lawsuits representing many people at once (at least that is what i took from my quick perusal of the wiki entry)
|
In which countries is this actually enforceable?
|
Graduate solicitor here. Nothing contained here is advice, or should be taken as advice. It's alarming how many people believe in misconceptions regarding contract law.
On August 02 2012 08:23 Integra wrote:
Legal rights being made illegal through a digital contract. I think you actually could sue valve for this.
No. No you can't. You cannot sue someone for having a contract with unenforceable terms.
On August 02 2012 07:33 laegoose wrote:
Imagine people do class action lawsuit and judge says "lol you've selected a checkbox on the internetz no lawsuits plzkthx". Does it work like that?
Yes.
On August 02 2012 08:35 Thenerf wrote:
Terms of Service is not a legally binding contract. Also a judge can ignore a legally binding contract.
This is pretty obvious and the courts do notice these tactics and ignore them.
... No. Terms of Service can be legally binding depending on the manner in which they are presented and accepted.
On August 02 2012 08:04 gubbstrut wrote:
Agree to terms online by checking a box is about as binding as signing a document without having to show ID, theirs no proof its something you did.
... Signing a document without having to show ID is binding. Proof is another matter altogether.
|
Considering how many games I have on steam, I could get full market value in refunds totally around 800$ if I went into arbitration. And the bad press for steam would be end of them.
Oh and fuck the supreme court, can't get any rulings right.
|
Yea, Valve is really pushing for gamers these days...
Anyways, not much choice in the matter. Could be worse.
|
Is this even legal to do? We all paid money for these games. How can they lock us out if we refuse to give up our right to sue? I paid a ton of money for all my collective steam games. Is it legal to prevent me from accessing them until I agree to give up my right to participate in a class action lawsuit?
|
I'm pretty sure that EA does the same thing in the Origin ToS. That said, I don't agree with it but doubt it will ever be a major issue.
|
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
|
Netherlands19135 Posts
Thank god I live in the EU is all I will say regarding terms of use and EULAs (or consumer rights in general).
|
Netherlands19135 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.
|
Poll needs an "I don't know option" because I'm willing to bet that's what a decent amount of people's actual answer should be, including myself.
|
On August 02 2012 19:19 Jonoman92 wrote:
Poll needs an "I don't know option" because I'm willing to bet that's what a decent amount of people's actual answer should be, including myself.
If you don't know, then you have the option to not vote...
|
ToS agreements are not enforceable in a court, law or civil.
|
On August 02 2012 20:38 whiteguycash wrote:
ToS agreements are not enforceable in a court, law or civil.
There are 2 types of court: civil and criminal.
|
It is basically saying that you do not OWN what you purchase and that you are 'renting' it for a flat fee for as long as the service wishes to carry it.
By locking yourself into a 'Steam' usage and therefore waiving class action abilities as a customer means, you basicaly say. They can shut down a game distribution / electronic activation authentication with no notice (as many companies have / will do f2p mmo's for example).
But, Steam is just an electronic distributor of games you can purchase from a retail store and then have a physical hard copy. If Steam were to for example, offer such a service as to send you a full function copy of the game itself on dvd / blu-ray disk on demand that will work with your steam key which you purchased.
Honestly? I understand why they would do this, and I also understand why people would use the service, sadly what I cannot understand is the stupidy some people put and the faith they have in companies that would do such a thing to their clientel.
For whatever reason when I got to Steam today and saw this, I was bored enough and contacted a lawyer. Discussed the situation with them and came to the conclusion that.
1) Steam is basically stealing from their customers selling a 'lisenced' copy of the game via electronic download and a key.
2) Not offering said content in a hard copy.
3) Being able to shut down said services at whim (or if it isn't making enough money etc.) with out option of refund and or hard copy of a game to be played with out their services running.
So, why really do we all use steam? It's convienant and that is about all it comes down to. Have I purchased things from them? Yes, will I in the future? No; as the fundemental aspect of rights comes in play here. The reason we have class action law suits is to protect the consumers. Waiving a right that was established is simply idoitcy on a grand scale (again, this mainly pretains to the USA of which I live)
Also, if you agree to waiving a right; same as miranda rights you have a choice to opt out of them. By agreeing to the clause in the new ToS you agree to not join a class action lawsuit. If you do join one against Vaule, you are breaching a contract at that point and they will have the right to sue you, close your accounts, etc.
Yes, it is enforceable in a court of law. That is why companies have EULA and ToS. If you agree, you are abiding by their contractual obigations even if you are unaware of what you are agreeing to.
|
Hobby lawyers unite and tell me how this is or isn't enforcable ten times per page!
I don't give a fuck and clicked continue. Irresponsible of me? Maybe. Will it ever bother me? I highly doubt it.
|
On August 02 2012 21:02 FliedLice wrote:
Hobby lawyers unite and tell me how this is or isn't enforcable ten times per page!
I don't give a fuck and clicked continue. Irresponsible of me? Maybe. Will it ever bother me? I highly doubt it.
not irresponsible since you don't live in the US. Is there even such a thing as class action lawsuits in Europe?
|
On August 02 2012 08:23 Integra wrote:
Legal rights being made illegal through a digital contract. I think you actually could sue valve for this.
It's also possible to argue that the realm of informed consent was not met, but that's another debate for another day
|
On August 02 2012 18:18 Yonnua wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I dont know about Canadian law, but this is i.e. completely irrelevant in Germany. German law is always applicable in those cases.
source. Origin case
|
Can´t say I´m that much surprised by this. I have a big problem with the steam service. I had not used steam for about 4 years, and about a week ago i was going to log in and was greeted by a message saying that my account had been suspended. No reason what so ever given, so I contacted their support and they want me to prove that the games on my account belong to me by sending in credit card information. I see a big problem with this since they don´t explain why my account was suspended in the first place, so I see no reason why i should have to prove that the games are mine. The account was not hacked, I only had one game on the account and the status of last login is when i was logged in few years ago.
And now i have to figure out if the 4 last numbers on the end of my card is the same as my old card i had 4 years ago. Fuck em.
|
Whatever, until Valve drops down to the current apathetic and even downright scornful level of Blizzard, I dont really care. Until they start doing things that actively hurt the player base, I see no reason to judge them yet. Sure this does limit your options but for the better or worse I cant really say.
I think this issue is being over-estimated.
|
On August 02 2012 21:20 Nausea wrote:
Can´t say I´m that much surprised by this. I have a big problem with the steam service. I had not used steam for about 4 years, and about a week ago i was going to log in and was greeted by a message saying that my account had been suspended. No reason what so ever given, so I contacted their support and they want me to prove that the games on my account belong to me by sending in credit card information. I see a big problem with this since they don´t explain why my account was suspended in the first place, so I see no reason why i should have to prove that the games are mine. The account was not hacked, I only had one game on the account and the status of last login is when i was logged in few years ago.
And now i have to figure out if the 4 last numbers on the end of my card is the same as my old card i had 4 years ago. Fuck em.
If you only have one game on it that you have not played in 4 years, then its not really a loss for you. Besides, steam costumer service are usualyl very reasonable if you explain the situation (ie: I don't have my old credit card anymore, here is my new one. Also I will buy lots more games if you let me log on, etc).
You could make an argument that Steams services are detrimental to the industry as a whole because no one can compete with them. but I don't think any argument can be made that the service is bad... Well, I guess you could compare it to drm, but the amount of cheap and free games at your fingertips more than makes up for that. If it didn't, Valve wouldn't be swimming in an ocean of pure money right now.
|
Netherlands19135 Posts
On August 02 2012 20:38 whiteguycash wrote:
ToS agreements are not enforceable in a court, law or civil.
Absolute flat out nonsense. The part after the comma just illustrates your expertise on the matter.
On August 02 2012 21:15 Zocat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 18:18 Yonnua wrote: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. I dont know about Canadian law, but this is i.e. completely irrelevant in Germany. German law is always applicable in those cases. source. Origin case
Correct, and is applicable to the entirety of mainland Europe. Excellent and actual case example.
On August 02 2012 16:41 Bayyne wrote:
Binding arbitration agreements are very common. You've all probably signed one when visiting a doctor.
These kind of agreements only tend to hold up in the EU when they are a seperate and explicite agreement. If they are a clause in a larger agreement, especially boiler plate ones they are summilarly dismissed by courts in at least 4 countries in western europe. Since this line of reasoning is based on EU regulation this probably applies in the whole of EU, except perhaps the UK (EUs common law black sheep). In the US they are valid (such as the ones in Blizzards ToSToU).
On August 02 2012 18:18 Yonnua wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Too bad most people don't live in the US and are protected by binding clauses in their national law which entails that as far as people acted in the capacity of a consumer their national (and EU in case of EU) laws and regulations (or part thereof) are always applicable and the national judges will always have jurisdiction in the matter. Aka if I have an issue with Valve of Blizzard Entertainment as a gamer/consumer I can and will bring the case before a Dutch court on the base of Dutch law + the contract in question and will seek (and most likely succeed) in destroying the relevant clauses violating my rights as a European consumer. No forum clause will protect against this. The only real problem here is getting your judgement enforced in the US. Albeit not impossible, it will prove challenging and mostly too costly to prove feasible for consumers as legal fees/costs in the US are astronimical and will amount to impossible costs for consumers while being peanuts for large companies just trying to stall the proceedings until the claimant fails to be able to continue due to financial reasons. Being right and getting your right are two entirely different things in todays legal reality.
It's been clearly visible the last decade that large software companies, gaming or otherwise, have been moving towards more specific agreements tailored towards consumers from specific parts of the world. As well they should. Luckily for most consumers in this world they do not live in the US which is pretty much rock bottom as far as consumer rights go in the Western world/Asia/SEA.
On August 02 2012 21:31 Crissaegrim wrote:
Whatever, until Valve drops down to the current apathetic and even downright scornful level of Blizzard, I dont really care. Until they start doing things that actively hurt the player base, I see no reason to judge them yet. Sure this does limit your options but for the better or worse I cant really say.
I think this issue is being over-estimated.
I fail to see how this is apatetic or scornful. A company such as Valve, Blizzard Entertainment, EA etc are greatly exposed due to the kind of service and goods they provide for todays consumer base. The inherent risks are of such magnitude that one minor mistake can escalate easily over millions of users into straight bankrupcy for the company if allowed to persist unchecked. These companies have to protect themselves within the boundaries available to them as they should. It is in my opinion the national/regional legislator that should make sure that while companies protect themselves (especially since they have an unequal barganing position, aka you can not accept but lose access to your goods) they protect the consumer interests. But as always, corruption is a danger where large sums of money are involved and large business runs into the legislator.
If this kind of practice from these companies (software/service in general) can persist blame the legislator, not the company, for allowing it. The companies merely aim to protect themselves from the consequences of their mistakes as would each and any of us put into the same situation. You work with the tools which are provided to you. Blame the toolmaker/provider (the national/regional legislator) for allowing these kinds of (perceived) abuse and unfairness to continue.
|
On August 02 2012 21:10 Nizaris wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 21:02 FliedLice wrote:
Hobby lawyers unite and tell me how this is or isn't enforcable ten times per page!
I don't give a fuck and clicked continue. Irresponsible of me? Maybe. Will it ever bother me? I highly doubt it. not irresponsible since you don't live in the US. Is there even such a thing as class action lawsuits in Europe?
Yes there is but not in belgium according to the Dutch wiki
http://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class-action#section_5
|
Can I just ask what class action suits, or what kind of legal disputes do people have with steam at all?
I can understand like small-claims, if steam fks up your order or your account, and hesitates to respond on customer service; but it's not like they're gonna wrong you in any other way, is there?
Down time and patching? You didn't get to play for 3 hours, so now you're getting the whole world in on a class action suit ?
|
Since I cant access any of my games without agreeing to this, is it possible to get a refund on my purchases?
|
On August 04 2012 02:15 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Since I cant access any of my games without agreeing to this, is it possible to get a refund on my purchases?
No, and you are massively over reacting to the change if you decline.
|
On August 04 2012 02:16 Goshawk. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2012 02:15 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Since I cant access any of my games without agreeing to this, is it possible to get a refund on my purchases? No, and you are massively over reacting to the change if you decline.
Hey, we gotta stick up for our rights at some point. Its fine and dandy if you dont agree with me, and I know its not a huge deal because I would never see more than pennies if a class action suit happened.
|
Somebody asked:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YM7Hq.png)
Aka those games you "own" are there for rent, as i and many have always suspected.
Its strange that despite having similar clauses, you can still opt out of any updates on your PS3 and Xbox 360 and still be able to re download and play your games.
I mean this is Sony and Microsoft we are talking about, greedy companies that are "out of touch" with what gamers want, yet offer a far more flexible service than the so called generous Valve who understand our supposed needs
I recently re downloaded UFC 2009 on my 360, i dont even have Xbox Gold and have not had it for the past 5 years. Yet i was still easily able to re download my old purchase and play it. And i could do so if i had another 360 aswell
Bizarro world where Microsoft of all companies does digital far better than Valve, its suppose to be the opposite way around.
|
I don't like the fact that I can't sell my "copy" of Diablo III. I don't like the fact that Steam can change their user policy to anything they like and basically force me to either give up all the games I've purchased there or accept their policy (which might include murdering children for all I know).
I don't think Steam should try to decide for its users what they can and cannot do outside of Steam itself. Especially making up some bullshit about what's supposed to be better for us.
|
Is it actually possible to put a clause that prevents a group of people from claiming justice? that is really weird, isnt that a violation of basic rights? Actually a class action law suit is just a group of people claiming something right?
I dont really see myself wanting to go into a class action lawsuit against valve. I only use it for dota 2(dont buy anything there) and orange box.
|
On August 05 2012 17:32 Tyree wrote:Somebody asked: Aka those games you "own" are there for rent, as i and many have always suspected. Its strange that despite having similar clauses, you can still opt out of any updates on your PS3 and Xbox 360 and still be able to re download and play your games. I mean this is Sony and Microsoft we are talking about, greedy companies that are "out of touch" with what gamers want, yet offer a far more flexible service than the so called generous Valve who understand our supposed needs I recently re downloaded UFC 2009 on my 360, i dont even have Xbox Gold and have not had it for the past 5 years. Yet i was still easily able to re download my old purchase and play it. And i could do so if i had another 360 aswell Bizarro world where Microsoft of all companies does digital far better than Valve, its suppose to be the opposite way around.
You do realize that every time you buy a game you're buying a license for the game, even if it's a hard copy. Whenever you purchase a game you're actually acquiring a license that enables you to use the software. You don't actually "own" the game you buy.
To draw an analogy to your PS3 and Xbox360 example, a more apt comparison would be if you decided to trash your PS3 and Xbox 360 but have an emulator and you ask Sony/Microsoft if they would give you the data files for the game so you can play on an emulator. The answer will almost always be no.
On August 05 2012 18:05 dartoo wrote:
Is it actually possible to put a clause that prevents a group of people from claiming justice? that is really weird, isnt that a violation of basic rights? Actually a class action law suit is just a group of people claiming something right?
I dont really see myself wanting to go into a class action lawsuit against valve. I only use it for dota 2(dont buy anything there) and orange box.
A class action lawsuit is when a group of people (a class) bring a lawsuit against a company suing for damages in (generally) a broader sense. If the class wins the lawsuit, they usually charge the company a large amount of money for damages. These lawsuits can and usually will be something like say a security leak at Valve compromises a bunch of cc numbers. What makes class action lawsuits different than a regular lawsuit is that the money from the damages assuming the lawsuit is won, is split among every member of the class, even if you had no part in the lawsuit itself. As long as you fit into the definition of the class, you get something.
HOWEVER, class action lawsuits are generally not all that great for most people since a LOT of the money won from the lawsuit ends up going to the lawyers. Then, in order to get your share of the damages, you occasionally have to jump through a bunch of hoops. When you do get the money, it's often mere pennies. If shit happens, you're usually better off suing them individually. Class action lawsuits are usually better for big big big cases that have millions to billions of dollars on the line and/or have some extremely hot controversial topic. That said, they can be helpful for allowing people with little money to get something out of a bad situation where they wouldn't have seen any compensation otherwise.
|
On August 05 2012 17:32 Tyree wrote:Somebody asked: Aka those games you "own" are there for rent, as i and many have always suspected. Its strange that despite having similar clauses, you can still opt out of any updates on your PS3 and Xbox 360 and still be able to re download and play your games. I mean this is Sony and Microsoft we are talking about, greedy companies that are "out of touch" with what gamers want, yet offer a far more flexible service than the so called generous Valve who understand our supposed needs I recently re downloaded UFC 2009 on my 360, i dont even have Xbox Gold and have not had it for the past 5 years. Yet i was still easily able to re download my old purchase and play it. And i could do so if i had another 360 aswell Bizarro world where Microsoft of all companies does digital far better than Valve, its suppose to be the opposite way around.
What are you talking about? the games aren't for rent, you purchase them, and they are bound to your account. If your account gets suspended for whatever reason or you cancel it, of course you can't access them. There is literally no way to find out which games you own if you cancel your account. I really don't know what you expect.
As for the comparison to Microsoft and Sony, they also have updated their agreements for their online services to prevent class action suits. It was even mentioned in the link in the OP! So yes, you can download your UFC, but you would have also had to agree to Microsofts updated TOS also... You probably just didn't even realise it.
So I really have no idea wtf you are talking about... I don't think you do either.
Bizarro world where keyboard-warriors run to internet forums to hang shit on companies that have their best interests at heart while championing shitty, backwardly-managed corporations... It's supposed to be the other way round.
(also comparing a PC game distribution platform, to a console-only online service is just about heresy in its own right.)
|
On August 02 2012 08:04 gubbstrut wrote:
Agree to terms online by checking a box is about as binding as signing a document without having to show ID, theirs no proof its something you did.
They assume that only you log on with your account , which should be the case .
|
What are you talking about? the games aren't for rent, you purchase them, and they are bound to your account. If your account gets suspended for whatever reason or you cancel it, of course you can't access them. There is literally no way to find out which games you own if you cancel your account. I really don't know what you expect.
I expect to own these games, as i purchased them. Is that too much to ask?
As for the comparison to Microsoft and Sony, they also have updated their agreements for their online services to prevent class action suits. It was even mentioned in the link in the OP! So yes, you can download your UFC, but you would have also had to agree to Microsofts updated TOS also... You probably just didn't even realise it.
No i wouldnt have to agree with Microsofts ToS, i can decline to update my Xbox 360 from 2010 when i bought that game, i can decline any update, i can simply plug in my cable, download the game, and go offline and play the game all i want. Sounds like you know little of Xbox Live
So I really have no idea wtf you are talking about... I don't think you do either.
Uh huh. You just showed you didnt know how Xbox Live worked, its not like Steam, you go into your download history and download whatever you bought, regardless of firmware you are on.
Bizarro world where keyboard-warriors run to internet forums to hang shit on companies that have their best interests at heart while championing shitty, backwardly-managed corporations... It's supposed to be the other way round.
No need to be condescending, you sound like a corporate Valve fanboy who thinks Valve is a divine company that will give you anything you want. Where i outlined exactly how they are forcing your hand to agree to their ToS or they will take your supposed games, as hostage.
(also comparing a PC game distribution platform, to a console-only online service is just about heresy in its own right.)
Its heresy? Really? You used that word? It is digital distribution, licenses are bougth to these games. The difference is that one company forces you to agree to a ToS and follow in what they want, otherwise your games that you bought under a different ToS and agreement is no longer valid. You are incapable of playing your games.
Steam forces you into agreements, and saying no means no access to your games. Services like Live, PSN and especially GOG arent like this at all
Infact GOG allows you to download the games and put it on a disc/harddrive/external harddrive til the end of time if i so want to. That is ownership.
Everything you wrote is either wrong or absolute drivel, mostly wrong tough. I have no interest in arguing this with Valve fanatics
I'm pretty sure the doctrine of equitable unconscionability comes into play here. You agreed to a contract for services and paid money and then the other side unilaterally changed the terms of the contract with no remedy on your end.
|
On August 05 2012 18:18 skipgamer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2012 17:32 Tyree wrote:Somebody asked: Aka those games you "own" are there for rent, as i and many have always suspected. Its strange that despite having similar clauses, you can still opt out of any updates on your PS3 and Xbox 360 and still be able to re download and play your games. I mean this is Sony and Microsoft we are talking about, greedy companies that are "out of touch" with what gamers want, yet offer a far more flexible service than the so called generous Valve who understand our supposed needs I recently re downloaded UFC 2009 on my 360, i dont even have Xbox Gold and have not had it for the past 5 years. Yet i was still easily able to re download my old purchase and play it. And i could do so if i had another 360 aswell Bizarro world where Microsoft of all companies does digital far better than Valve, its suppose to be the opposite way around. What are you talking about? the games aren't for rent, you purchase them, and they are bound to your account. If your account gets suspended for whatever reason or you cancel it, of course you can't access them. There is literally no way to find out which games you own if you cancel your account. I really don't know what you expect. As for the comparison to Microsoft and Sony, they also have updated their agreements for their online services to prevent class action suits. It was even mentioned in the link in the OP! So yes, you can download your UFC, but you would have also had to agree to Microsofts updated TOS also... You probably just didn't even realise it. So I really have no idea wtf you are talking about... I don't think you do either. Bizarro world where keyboard-warriors run to internet forums to hang shit on companies that have their best interests at heart while championing shitty, backwardly-managed corporations... It's supposed to be the other way round. (also comparing a PC game distribution platform, to a console-only online service is just about heresy in its own right.)
the point is not that he wants to be able to play games from a canceled account, the point is he wants to "freeze" the status quo. But valve is basically forcing him to enter a new contract to keep being able to play. They *could* in theory implement a feature that the account gets frozen, as in no more updates of games or steam platform, no longer allowed to purchase anything, only download install and run games in the accounts current state, and users doing this would not automatically be subjected to the new ToS. But they don't, and force people to sign whatever they decide to put in the ToS unless they want to lose dozens of game licenses.
Think about it, that kind of means it the ToS contents are actually completely pointless: Whatever you don't sign now, the more games you purchase the more you are hurt if you don't agree to whatever they decide to put in later, to which you did not have to agree the first time. It's basically a free ticket to force you into any contract they want.
|
Does anyone know of any examples of class action lawsuits against Steam specifically? They make it sound like there have been a lot in their statement.
|
Ryuu314's got it. This is actually gonna be beneficial for us as well as Valve, but most people see it as a bad thing because they just see the "no class action lawsuit allowed" as equivalent to valve turning into this evil dictatorship that's gonna take away your rights to complain about a service/product you're unhappy with.
|
On August 05 2012 18:47 Tyree wrote:Show nested quote +What are you talking about? the games aren't for rent, you purchase them, and they are bound to your account. If your account gets suspended for whatever reason or you cancel it, of course you can't access them. There is literally no way to find out which games you own if you cancel your account. I really don't know what you expect. I expect to own these games, as i purchased them. Is that too much to ask?
How do you Expect to own them when there would be nothing linking you to them. Your account is what allows Steam to know what games you own... Do you expect them to bind to IP or CPU ID or something?
On August 05 2012 18:47 Tyree wrote:Show nested quote +As for the comparison to Microsoft and Sony, they also have updated their agreements for their online services to prevent class action suits. It was even mentioned in the link in the OP! So yes, you can download your UFC, but you would have also had to agree to Microsofts updated TOS also... You probably just didn't even realise it. No i wouldnt have to agree with Microsofts ToS, i can decline to update my Xbox 360 from 2010 when i bought that game, i can decline any update, i can simply plug in my cable, download the game, and go offline and play the game all i want. Sounds like you know little of Xbox Live
Updating your firmware has nothing to do with agreeing to an updated ToS... I'm certain you have agreed to it, it probably popped up when you connected to live and you forgot about it.
Also, I can decline to update my pc from 2010 when I bought any number of steam games, I can go offline, play the game all I want... The features are the same and have nothing to with what we are talking about (the updated ToS)...
On August 05 2012 18:47 Tyree wrote:Show nested quote +So I really have no idea wtf you are talking about... I don't think you do either. Uh huh. You just showed you didnt know how Xbox Live worked, its not like Steam, you go into your download history and download whatever you bought, regardless of firmware you are on.
I have no idea how Xbox live works? what the fuck are you smoking? you can do the exact same thing on steam... you're tripping man... If you're trying to imply you can download games on xbox live without agreeing to their updated (non opt-out) policy, then you are flat out bullshitting.
On August 05 2012 18:47 Tyree wrote:Show nested quote +
Bizarro world where keyboard-warriors run to internet forums to hang shit on companies that have their best interests at heart while championing shitty, backwardly-managed corporations... It's supposed to be the other way round.
No need to be condescending, you sound like a corporate Valve fanboy who thinks Valve is a divine company that will give you anything you want. Where i outlined exactly how they are forcing your hand to agree to their ToS or they will take your supposed games, as hostage. Show nested quote +(also comparing a PC game distribution platform, to a console-only online service is just about heresy in its own right.) Its heresy? Really? You used that word? It is digital distribution, licenses are bougth to these games. The difference is that one company forces you to agree to a ToS and follow in what they want, otherwise your games that you bought under a different ToS and agreement is no longer valid. You are incapable of playing your games. Steam forces you into agreements, and saying no means no access to your games. Services like Live, PSN and especially GOG arent like this at all Infact GOG allows you to download the games and put it on a disc/harddrive/external harddrive til the end of time if i so want to. That is ownership. Everything you wrote is either wrong or absolute drivel, mostly wrong tough.
.... Live and PSN have both had non-ignorable ToS updates which you are required to accept which have had similar ramifications to this Steam update... I still don't know why you think you will be able to access your content on Live or PSN without your accounts for these services, which you would not have if you have not agreed to the updated ToS...
Your only half-decent point is with GoG, but even then, the majority of games there are (or at least were when the service launched) old games, hence the title, what would have in the past been referred to as Abondonware... GoG provides a way to access these games, of course they will provide full copies of them because they are losing nothing if they don't. They would be on torrent sites anyway, unlike the majority of recent AAA titles which the publishers want to ensure are purchased by users and not just shared... Steam DRM (although not bulletproof) provides these publishers with a relatively safe place to sell their games.
On August 05 2012 18:47 Tyree wrote:
I'm pretty sure the doctrine of equitable unconscionability comes into play here. You agreed to a contract for services and paid money and then the other side unilaterally changed the terms of the contract with no remedy on your end.
Almost all ToS have clauses which allow them to change at any time, without notifying you... It's bullshit, yes... But its a part of life in this digital age, suck it up...
|
do you guys even know what a license is? when u buy a game on steam, u buy a license. that license says u do not own the game. license = permission.
|
On August 05 2012 19:11 skipgamer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2012 18:47 Tyree wrote:What are you talking about? the games aren't for rent, you purchase them, and they are bound to your account. If your account gets suspended for whatever reason or you cancel it, of course you can't access them. There is literally no way to find out which games you own if you cancel your account. I really don't know what you expect. I expect to own these games, as i purchased them. Is that too much to ask? How do you Expect to own them when there would be nothing linking you to them. Your account is what allows Steam to know what games you own... Do you expect them to bind to IP or CPU ID or something? Show nested quote +On August 05 2012 18:47 Tyree wrote:As for the comparison to Microsoft and Sony, they also have updated their agreements for their online services to prevent class action suits. It was even mentioned in the link in the OP! So yes, you can download your UFC, but you would have also had to agree to Microsofts updated TOS also... You probably just didn't even realise it. No i wouldnt have to agree with Microsofts ToS, i can decline to update my Xbox 360 from 2010 when i bought that game, i can decline any update, i can simply plug in my cable, download the game, and go offline and play the game all i want. Sounds like you know little of Xbox Live Updating your firmware has nothing to do with agreeing to an updated ToS... I'm certain you have agreed to it, it probably popped up when you connected to live and you forgot about it. Also, I can decline to update my pc from 2010 when I bought any number of steam games, I can go offline, play the game all I want... The features are the same and have nothing to with what we are talking about (the updated ToS)... Show nested quote +On August 05 2012 18:47 Tyree wrote:So I really have no idea wtf you are talking about... I don't think you do either. Uh huh. You just showed you didnt know how Xbox Live worked, its not like Steam, you go into your download history and download whatever you bought, regardless of firmware you are on. I have no idea how Xbox live works? what the fuck are you smoking? you can do the exact same thing on steam... you're tripping man... If you're trying to imply you can download games on xbox live without agreeing to their updated (non opt-out) policy, then you are flat out bullshitting. Show nested quote +On August 05 2012 18:47 Tyree wrote:
Bizarro world where keyboard-warriors run to internet forums to hang shit on companies that have their best interests at heart while championing shitty, backwardly-managed corporations... It's supposed to be the other way round.
No need to be condescending, you sound like a corporate Valve fanboy who thinks Valve is a divine company that will give you anything you want. Where i outlined exactly how they are forcing your hand to agree to their ToS or they will take your supposed games, as hostage. (also comparing a PC game distribution platform, to a console-only online service is just about heresy in its own right.) Its heresy? Really? You used that word? It is digital distribution, licenses are bougth to these games. The difference is that one company forces you to agree to a ToS and follow in what they want, otherwise your games that you bought under a different ToS and agreement is no longer valid. You are incapable of playing your games. Steam forces you into agreements, and saying no means no access to your games. Services like Live, PSN and especially GOG arent like this at all Infact GOG allows you to download the games and put it on a disc/harddrive/external harddrive til the end of time if i so want to. That is ownership. Everything you wrote is either wrong or absolute drivel, mostly wrong tough. .... Live and PSN have both had non-ignorable ToS updates which you are required to accept which have had similar ramifications to this Steam update... I still don't know why you think you will be able to access your content on Live or PSN without your accounts for these services, which you would not have if you have not agreed to the updated ToS... Your only half-decent point is with GoG, but even then, the majority of games there are (or at least were when the service launched) old games, hence the title, what would have in the past been referred to as Abondonware... GoG provides a way to access these games, of course they will provide full copies of them because they are losing nothing if they don't. They would be on torrent sites anyway, unlike the majority of recent AAA titles which the publishers want to ensure are purchased by users and not just shared... Steam DRM (although not bulletproof) provides these publishers with a relatively safe place to sell their games. Show nested quote +On August 05 2012 18:47 Tyree wrote:
I'm pretty sure the doctrine of equitable unconscionability comes into play here. You agreed to a contract for services and paid money and then the other side unilaterally changed the terms of the contract with no remedy on your end.
Almost all ToS have clauses which allow them to change at any time, without notifying you... It's bullshit, yes... But its a part of life in this digital age, suck it up...
Just because a ToS has something doesn't mean it's legal. For example this class action lawsuit thingy seems illegal / unbinding to me with my limited understanding of the law.
That's like having a ToS "We aren't responsible for your credit card information and you hereby forfeit your rights to sue us for your credit card being used" and then when you buy something with your credit card the company steals your info and empties your account. You definitely could sue them for that even with the ToS.
On August 05 2012 19:23 Tom Cruise wrote:
do you guys even know what a license is? when u buy a game on steam, u buy a license. that license says u do not own the game. license = permission.
Btw if you don't accept the new ToS you are supposed to have the right to have your money back for all the games you've bought
|
Btw if you don't accept the new ToS you are supposed to have the right to have your money back for all the games you've bought
quote the TOS where it says that plz.
|
On August 05 2012 19:37 Shikyo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2012 19:11 skipgamer wrote:On August 05 2012 18:47 Tyree wrote:What are you talking about? the games aren't for rent, you purchase them, and they are bound to your account. If your account gets suspended for whatever reason or you cancel it, of course you can't access them. There is literally no way to find out which games you own if you cancel your account. I really don't know what you expect. I expect to own these games, as i purchased them. Is that too much to ask? How do you Expect to own them when there would be nothing linking you to them. Your account is what allows Steam to know what games you own... Do you expect them to bind to IP or CPU ID or something? On August 05 2012 18:47 Tyree wrote:As for the comparison to Microsoft and Sony, they also have updated their agreements for their online services to prevent class action suits. It was even mentioned in the link in the OP! So yes, you can download your UFC, but you would have also had to agree to Microsofts updated TOS also... You probably just didn't even realise it. No i wouldnt have to agree with Microsofts ToS, i can decline to update my Xbox 360 from 2010 when i bought that game, i can decline any update, i can simply plug in my cable, download the game, and go offline and play the game all i want. Sounds like you know little of Xbox Live Updating your firmware has nothing to do with agreeing to an updated ToS... I'm certain you have agreed to it, it probably popped up when you connected to live and you forgot about it. Also, I can decline to update my pc from 2010 when I bought any number of steam games, I can go offline, play the game all I want... The features are the same and have nothing to with what we are talking about (the updated ToS)... On August 05 2012 18:47 Tyree wrote:So I really have no idea wtf you are talking about... I don't think you do either. Uh huh. You just showed you didnt know how Xbox Live worked, its not like Steam, you go into your download history and download whatever you bought, regardless of firmware you are on. I have no idea how Xbox live works? what the fuck are you smoking? you can do the exact same thing on steam... you're tripping man... If you're trying to imply you can download games on xbox live without agreeing to their updated (non opt-out) policy, then you are flat out bullshitting. On August 05 2012 18:47 Tyree wrote:
Bizarro world where keyboard-warriors run to internet forums to hang shit on companies that have their best interests at heart while championing shitty, backwardly-managed corporations... It's supposed to be the other way round.
No need to be condescending, you sound like a corporate Valve fanboy who thinks Valve is a divine company that will give you anything you want. Where i outlined exactly how they are forcing your hand to agree to their ToS or they will take your supposed games, as hostage. (also comparing a PC game distribution platform, to a console-only online service is just about heresy in its own right.) Its heresy? Really? You used that word? It is digital distribution, licenses are bougth to these games. The difference is that one company forces you to agree to a ToS and follow in what they want, otherwise your games that you bought under a different ToS and agreement is no longer valid. You are incapable of playing your games. Steam forces you into agreements, and saying no means no access to your games. Services like Live, PSN and especially GOG arent like this at all Infact GOG allows you to download the games and put it on a disc/harddrive/external harddrive til the end of time if i so want to. That is ownership. Everything you wrote is either wrong or absolute drivel, mostly wrong tough. .... Live and PSN have both had non-ignorable ToS updates which you are required to accept which have had similar ramifications to this Steam update... I still don't know why you think you will be able to access your content on Live or PSN without your accounts for these services, which you would not have if you have not agreed to the updated ToS... Your only half-decent point is with GoG, but even then, the majority of games there are (or at least were when the service launched) old games, hence the title, what would have in the past been referred to as Abondonware... GoG provides a way to access these games, of course they will provide full copies of them because they are losing nothing if they don't. They would be on torrent sites anyway, unlike the majority of recent AAA titles which the publishers want to ensure are purchased by users and not just shared... Steam DRM (although not bulletproof) provides these publishers with a relatively safe place to sell their games. On August 05 2012 18:47 Tyree wrote:
I'm pretty sure the doctrine of equitable unconscionability comes into play here. You agreed to a contract for services and paid money and then the other side unilaterally changed the terms of the contract with no remedy on your end.
Almost all ToS have clauses which allow them to change at any time, without notifying you... It's bullshit, yes... But its a part of life in this digital age, suck it up... Just because a ToS has something doesn't mean it's legal. For example this class action lawsuit thingy seems illegal / unbinding to me with my limited understanding of the law. That's like having a ToS "We aren't responsible for your credit card information and you hereby forfeit your rights to sue us for your credit card being used" and then when you buy something with your credit card the company steals your info and empties your account. You definitely could sue them for that even with the ToS. Show nested quote +On August 05 2012 19:23 Tom Cruise wrote:
do you guys even know what a license is? when u buy a game on steam, u buy a license. that license says u do not own the game. license = permission. Btw if you don't accept the new ToS you are supposed to have the right to have your money back for all the games you've bought
You are being missinformed. A class action lawsuit is not the same as a normal lawsuit. If you scroll up its been explained to you in this very page. You can still sue them, just not with a deeply flawed class action one.
|
On August 05 2012 19:23 Tom Cruise wrote:
do you guys even know what a license is? when u buy a game on steam, u buy a license. that license says u do not own the game. license = permission.
While somewhat broken language, yes, this is correct. Even when you buy a hardcopy of a game, you don't buy the game, you buy a license to play it. Hence why there is a cd key involved, which can be banned. The only difference is that most games can not be banned in singleplayer mode unless some kind of drm is involved. But that is what the steam service is: a big awesome drm that gives you amazing games for cheap and sometimes free. They have the ability to ban you licences, even for singleplayer.
They have the legal rights to change the ToS at any time (although it has to be withing reason. They can not change it to "and now you have to give us all ur money lolz!"), and they have the legal rights to ban class action lawsuits, but not regular lawsuits. Which is good for Valve and good for the costumers. I see no reason why anyone would be so upset about this that they refuse to accept and leave out their accounts with thousands of dollars of games on them.
|
On August 02 2012 16:34 Filter wrote:
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?
Are these numbers with proof or are you just guesstimating?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
