Accpet Steam's New EULA or Say Goodbye To Your Steam Account UPDATED

[Zoomy]

Sorry, I simply don't accept that. The process for buying a game is Add to Cart--> Purchase for Myself.

Nothing about a subscription or rental in there. OnLive is a subscription service.

It's simple. Valve are lying to you, me and everyone else. They say "purchase" in the store, but when it comes down to it, it's actually a subscription, as stated in the Steam Subscriber Agreement you have to accept. It's not a purchase. You can accept it or not, it's still what's happening. It's also a pile of bullshit, but that's a different story.

 

[Epona]

I know that Steam wants it to be a subscription and they say so in their TOS but I don't really think that would hold up in court if challenged. I guess we'll see in time when we get a ruling on the topic of reselling digital games.

Here's something to think about, if you BOUGHT Skyrim at Wal Mart, what right does Steam have to say you don't own it?

 

[Zoomy]

I know that Steam wants it to be a subscription and they say so in their TOS but I really think that would hold up in court if challenged. I guess we'll see in time when we get a ruling on the topic of reselling digital games.

Here's something to think about, if you BOUGHT Skyrim at Wal Mart, what right does Steam have to say you don't own it?

The bullshit EULA that you have to agree to in order to install and play it. However, EULA's don't override the law as far as I know, so hopefully someday this will be tested in a court of law. When that happens, then we'll know where we, as consumers, stand on ownership of the things we bought. Until our day in court comes, we'll have to either say no to Steam or just grin and hope Steam doesn't decide to visit our house with a tube of KY and a creepyface.

EDIT: I just realised that I re-wrote what you just said, sorry. Was answering the question at the bottom, forgot the rest. Point still valid though.

 

[Epona]

I know that Steam wants it to be a subscription and they say so in their TOS but I really think that would hold up in court if challenged. I guess we'll see in time when we get a ruling on the topic of reselling digital games.

Here's something to think about, if you BOUGHT Skyrim at Wal Mart, what right does Steam have to say you don't own it?

The bullshit EULA that you have to agree to in order to install and play it. However, EULA's don't override the law as far as I know, so hopefully someday this will be tested in a court of law. When that happens, then we'll know where we, as consumers, stand on ownership of the things we bought. Until our day in court comes, we'll have to either say no to Steam or just grin and hope Steam doesn't decide to visit our house with a tube of KY and a creepyface.

EDIT: I just realised that I re-wrote what you just said, sorry. Was answering the question at the bottom, forgot the rest. Point still valid though.

It's important for people NOT to accept that they paid for full price for rentals. Buying games on sale doesn't change ownership or not.

When we do get our ruling, it may help if people refused to accept shit like the Steam TOS.

 

[SajuukKhar]

Now the main issue people have with this approach is the way Valve goes about trying to "enforce" these clauses unilaterally in their favor and holding possibly up to $20.000 worth of products/licenses for ransom doing so: http://www.steamcalculator.com/id/taylorsherman

Ohh Dexter, I never get tired of seeing your posts, you always use such manipulative wording in order to make things out to be worse then they are..... "ransom".... god are you serious?

Yep,they hold your games as hostages and if you disagree with the TOS they are gonna pull the button.

Going off topic: why isn't there an article about this in the new section?

Ahh but you see, game devs, and Valve, work on the belief that you DON'T own all those games, they are licenses held by the developer, they are holding "your" games hostage, they are taking back their games from people who didn't follow their rules.

Its like lending a lawnmower to your neighbor for a undetermined time, then taking it back from him when you see him doing something with it you dont like.

 

[Zoomy]

It's important for people NOT to accept that they paid for full price for rentals. Buying games on sale doesn't change ownership or not.

When we do get our ruling, it may help if people refused to accept shit like the Steam TOS.

Agreed. Problem is, trying to get the gaming community to care about consumer rights issues is tough at the best of times. Look at all the failed boycotts, the people who buy a game knowing it has restrictive DRM, the success of project 10 dollar et cetera. Very few seem to care, and those that do care are met with a wave of apathy or even hostility. Especially if Valve are involved in any way; I've been internet-shouted at for suggesting that "hey guys, Steam's quickly becoming a monopoly by our own hands, and that's a bad thing for us, you know".

Really, if you want to start a rally or something to get people more aware about how Valve are shafting us, go ahead. You've got my support, hell I'd even participate if someone did. But I'm going to be honest; I can't be bothered starting something if it'll be doomed to failure.

 

[Zoomy]

Its like lending a lawnmower to your neighbor for a undetermined time, then taking it back from him when you see him doing something with it you dont like.

Only if you told him that he was buying it, took money off him and made him sign a contract stating that you could take it off him for whatever reason since it was only a loan. And smiled while you did it.

 

[yuval152]

It's important for people NOT to accept that they paid for full price for rentals. Buying games on sale doesn't change ownership or not.

When we do get our ruling, it may help if people refused to accept shit like the Steam TOS.

Agreed. Problem is, trying to get the gaming community to care about consumer rights issues is tough at the best of times. Look at all the failed boycotts, the people who buy a game knowing it has restrictive DRM, the success of project 10 dollar et cetera. Very few seem to care, and those that do care are met with a wave of apathy or even hostility. Especially if Valve are involved in any way; I've been internet-shouted at for suggesting that "hey guys, Steam's quickly becoming a monopoly by our own hands, and that's a bad thing for us, you know".

Really, if you want to start a rally or something to get people more aware about how Valve are shafting us, go ahead. You've got my support, hell I'd even participate if someone did. But I'm going to be honest; I can't be bothered starting something if it'll be doomed to failure.

If you want to you can start a petition at change.org and make a thread about it.

 

[Zoomy]

If you want to you can start a petition at change.org and make a thread about it.

Alas, then we run into the double-barrelled problem of will people sign and will Valve listen? As I said, I've found many in the gaming community to be apathetic towards such things. Probably the only way to get anyone to sign would be to ask about Episode 3 at the end, which would diminish the maturity of the petition.

About the second barrel, given the picture in the very first post it seems Valve aren't the best at listening. Hell, ask all those people (myself included) who for whatever reason wish to change their login/account name but can't whether Valve listen to their concerns.

Also, what to say? Would it be a "we the undersigned have issues with A, B, and C and wish you to change these areas" or would it be a "we the undersigned have concerns about X, Y, and Z and wish a statement clarifying these areas"?

 

[CityofTreez]

Let's hope I accepted it, haha.

 

[Stealthygamer]

WHy do companies want people to pirate their games?

 

[Plazmatic]

Gabe himself said that if steam went down permanently, they have a contingency plan for thier customers, saying that you will be able to keep your games.

 

[Epona]

http://wegotthiscovered.com/news/valve-accept-steam-subscriber-agreement-disable-account/

So if you disagree.

That's how EVERY online service works.

I already know that I'm just posting news for people to disccuss about.

Help me understand...what is the discussion value of a company using the identical process of every other company?

Maybe you could add some discussion yourself to explain what it is you expect people to discuss. This seems a lot like "the sky is blue...discuss".

Does every other company take away what you have already paid for?

They aren't taking them away. They are saying you can't use their service if you don't agree to their service terms. And yes, every company does that if they have TOS and you don't agree to them.

If I don't agree to the next PSN EULA, will my games stop working?

Any games that require you to use the PSN won't work and you won't be able to access the PSN network.

So no, my games won't stop working.

So no, your games from them aren't a service. They were a retail sale of merchandise.

People, is it really that hard to understand the difference between signing a service contract and signing a purchase or licensing contract?

I view my Steam games the same as I view downloadable games from PSN. I BOUGHT them.

You may VIEW it that way, but that's not the contract you agreed to. The other party isn't responsible for you not understanding that you were in fact buying a service, not a product. You, according to the contract you agreed to, did not buy those Steam games.

Sorry, I simply don't accept that. The process for buying a game is Add to Cart--> Purchase for Myself.

Nothing about a subscription or rental in there. OnLive is a subscription service.

This takes us back to people who don't seem to understand that they are actually bound by the contracts they agree to and should read them so they understand what they are buying.

Except that I don't believe this contract would hold up in a court of law. I guess we'll see but Europe has already shown some common sense in this area. The games are just as OWNED as physical ones bought at retail.

This really has soured me on Steam. I will be buying much less from them in the future until we get some kind of a pro-consumer ruling in this area. I think it's outrageous to sell people games (or make them register a retail copy) and then have the ability to take them away over a unilateral changing TOS.

 

[Epona]

Gabe himself said that if steam went down permanently, they have a contingency plan for thier customers, saying that you will be able to keep your games.

You really believe that? If they could just write out the DRM then they can do it for people who don't accept their new TOS.

In other words, they can't/won't do it now and they can't/won't do it if they ever go under.

 

[Epona]

WHy do companies want people to pirate their games?

They don't; people just use their attempts at stopping piracy as an excuse to pirate.

Let me ask you something. If Steam went under or if you got your account deactivated due to an objection to a new TOS and you could no longer play the games you bought, would you feel bad about pirating them? After all, you did pay for them.