German Consumer Group Sues Valve

[Lilani]

Oh good, when I saw the headline I thought it was something important.

I'm a bit meh on the whole thing. Considering on-disc DLC is allowed to happen, and companies can deny you the ability to play a single-player game if you are so unfortunate as to not have a consistent Internet connection, I think not being able to resell Steam games is a pretty minor problem at this point.

 

[Timmey]

If its not in their terms of service that you can re sell them then how can they sue them? They agreed to the terms of service, if they don't agree with them, then don't agree with them, and use a different platform. I really don't get it ?

 

[Albino Boo]

But seriously people need to figure that when you buy a digital game you are not really buying the game. You are buying unlimited access to a specific game in the steam library for as long as the Steam Library is able to legally provide access to the game. Read the Terms of Service.

This is the trade off with digital ownership. convenient, flexible buuuut sketchy. The second question is quite frankly, why would you want to resell it and who would buy it. It'll either create a case of people buying a ton of licenses when the game is on sale and then selling the games at cost+50% when the game goes back to full price. Which while fair does kinda hose the game makers. The end result would be devs gradually migrating to other distribution networks.

This could be "unfair" treatment of endconsumers, wich it forbidden by law in germany. Cause there is no other way to activate certrain games. As the license could be labeled a product, the rules used for a product would be in progress, so they would have to make it possible. Otherwise Steam would have to make large payments as long as they don't change Steam.

If you read the steam Eula, it says all sales in the european union take place under UK law. This term was introduced to get round the German courts.

 

[Skeleon]

Very good. I remember the whole thing when they first threatened to sue if Valve didn't do anything. Glad to see they are following through. It's pretty damn faulty advertising when it says "purchase this game" when you basically get an indefinite rental and can't do with your purchase as you please because, well, it's not an actual purchase.

I mean seriously, if you want a hard copy to do with it as you please, don't buy a licence, buy a hard copy from a brick and mortar shop.

You know, I already do that as much as possible, but not only are a lot of games Steam exclusive, even tons of hard copies bought at the store require Steam activation and tying of a particular code to one's account. So, yeah. Fix this, Valve. Your anti-customer policies don't fly here. We actually value consumer protections.

If its not in their terms of service that you can re sell them then how can they sue them? They agreed to the terms of service, if they don't agree with them, then don't agree with them, and use a different platform. I really don't get it ?

If the terms of service that Valve tries to get people to agree to violate the rules, then those ToS and the agreements given are null and void.

 

[R.Nevermore]

If you don't like what steam has to offer....

SUE THEM!

I mean seriously, if you want a hard copy to do with it as you please, don't buy a licence, buy a hard copy from a brick and mortar shop.

EDIT: but even then, you'll have to deal with some even more draconian DRM...

Wait, you are actually unhappy that there are consumer protection organizations that are trying to strengthen the rights of consumers towards companies and strengthen the ownership over products you buy?...

Absolutely not! The more rights I has as a consumer the better... I just think they are fishing in the dark here and have no case. Games these days do not belong to us. We've moved on to a life ding system, and quite frankly I prefer it. Steam has done great things for the game industry. I don't think this group understands the difference here. The game does not belong to us. We merely bought the rights to use them on our accounts.

Like I said. I prefer it this way. I am not really up for game prices being driven further up because some asshat buys the new CoD game and resells it a thousand times for a fraction of the price because its 'within his rights'. Freedoms can be taken too far.

 

[Karma168]

I will laugh so very hard if the end result here is that Valve just stops selling games to German customers.

But seriously? Used digital games still make no !@#$%ing sense. Consumer rights are good and all, but used digital games are still nonsense.

If it was legal to resell a digital game, I could sell the same copy seventy three bajillion times using the magic of Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V.

Not really, you aren't selling the data, only the key. Take steam keys for example, it's tied to your account and only you can use it. If you could sell/transfer it to someone else the code would no longer be tied to the account and you'd be unable to use it.

 

[Braedan]

Honestly now. I agree that we should be able to sell the games that we own, and buying from retail and having them say we own a license is a steaming pile.
But buying from Steam is ACTUALLY buying a license. You aren't buying a disk and then when you install it you find out that you can't give it away or sell it. You are quite obviously buying a non transferable license.
If you don't agree with this, which is understandable, don't use Steam, go buy it from a store.

 

[Skeleon]

If you don't agree with this, which is understandable, don't use Steam, go buy it from a store.

Do we need to repeat the point about store-bought games requiring Steam?

You aren't buying a disk and then when you install it you find out that you can't give it away or sell it. You are quite obviously buying a non transferable license.

That is exactly what is happening in a lot of cases. The moment you install a game and tie it to your account, you can't resell it even if you have a CD or DVD.
It's also not "quite obviously a non transferable license" since Steam actually advertises in a way that suggests you "purchase this game" rather than "purchase a non-transferable license".

 

[Braedan]

If you don't agree with this, which is understandable, don't use Steam, go buy it from a store.

Do we need to repeat the point about store-bought games requiring Steam?

I get that. I think that practice is pretty shitty, but doesn't it say that it requires Steam to play? Also, this is quite clearly a reason to get mad at the company that makes the game, not the company that distributes the game.

 

[Nimzabaat]

I love this thread!

EA uses DRM to slightly penalize used game sales = EA is the devil and is destroying video games
Valve uses DRM to completely negate used games sales = Rally the troops to Valve's defense!!!

That's just too funny.

 

[Skeleon]

I get that. I think that practice is pretty shitty, but doesn't it say that it requires Steam to play?

Yeah, usually in the fine print or there's like a small icon that says "Steam activation required".
Funnily enough, the biggest problem with store-bought games requiring Steam is Amazon for me. While unobservant customers can easily fall into the trap of buying a product that they didn't realize they need a third-party program and internet connection for in a store (which is in itself reason enough for consumer protections to get involved), I always carefully check boxes. However, a lot of online retailers don't (or didn't, hopefully they fixed it) state on the article's website whether or not a game needs Steam.
Do you know how I found out that Fallout New Vegas needs Steam (even though Fallout 3 didn't)? From the customer reviews on Amazon. Amazon itself never bothered to tell me such a crucial detail. And since it's online, I can't even check the box for any tiny info tidbit that might tell me.
As for whom to get mad at? Valve handles the subscription service. The issue is with them and, yes, the publishers working with them. But I don't see how others also being at fault in any way removes responsibility for fixing their broken service from Valve.

 

[JaredXE]

I don't know anybody that has ever bought a game from Steam full-price. So that "I bought a game full-price so I can do what I want" argument sounds kinda bollocks. Reselling a digital only product is ridiculous.

 

[Arkley]

I'm still not sure which side of the fence I come down on with regards to reselling digital games, but I do know that going for a supreme court ruling for it in a single European country is dumb as balls. Even if the court rules in favour of the consumer group, Valve won't implement the desired system; they'll just make Steam unavailable in Germany. Anyone with a functioning brain can see why it would be in Valve's best interests to cut the cord with Germany rather than allow reselling of digital wares.

 

[Bostur]

If you read the steam Eula, it says all sales in the european union take place under UK law. This term was introduced to get round the German courts.

Just because someone writes something doesn't make it true. I doubt Valve can bypass national laws like that, but I'm no lawyer so I may be mistaken.

I think it's great if this area will get some attention. When buying games most of my consumer rights is being bypassed and I doubt that everything that EULAs claim are actually enforcable. It seems like a bit of a loophole that copyright laws can be bypassed like this by claiming that games are not actually sold.

It's tricky when a whole industry decides to change how the business works. What if car manufacturers decides not to sell cars anymore but only offer rentals? Or selling a license to use the car without actually transfering ownership. I think similar business practices could be used for physical products, it's not really something that is unique for intellectual property.

 

[MagmaMan]

If you don't like what steam has to offer....

SUE THEM!

I mean seriously, if you want a hard copy to do with it as you please, don't buy a licence, buy a hard copy from a brick and mortar shop.

EDIT: but even then, you'll have to deal with some even more draconian DRM...

You must not have done this in a while. I wasn't pleased when my copy of Fallout: New Vegas which I purchased from Walmart for PC for the purpose of modding had a one-time use activation code for Steam and nothing else. Also most of EA's games even if you buy a hard copy at a store that really just means you are buying a code to use for their Origin service. I find it quite angering.

 

[Beryl77]

I think it's good that they're standing up for the consumers but I don't think you can simply compare a board game and a video game in this regard.

 

[Zombie_Moogle]

I think the obvious solution is that people should be allowed to do whatever they want with their Steam games including selling them.

'Anything they want'? Okay, here goes: I copy it. Then I 'sell' it to a friend for $0.01. Then I make another copy. And I sell that to another friend for $0.01. In fact, while I'm at it, why not just throw it up on my website and offer a 'donate what you want' system.

Is that okay? I mean, it's MY game! I paid for it! I should be allowed to do whatever I want for it.

I love this thread!

EA uses DRM to slightly penalize used game sales = EA is the devil and is destroying video games
Valve uses DRM to completely negate used games sales = Rally the troops to Valve's defense!!!

That's just too funny.

Imagine if Half Price Books was to be sued by Penguin Publishing for copyright infringement for allowing the resale of books & dvd's. If garage sales were stormed by ICE agents, people would be livid

Meanwhile, game publishers start implementing plans to make impossible and/or illegalize secondhand sales, & gamers defend them.

I like Steam in that it's a relatively unoffensive form of DRM, but there's a reason I buy games on GOG or Humble Bundle instead if I have the chance: because if I do, then the thing I bought actually belongs to me

 

[V3rtig0]

While I like and respect Valve the most out of any game company, I'm inclined to think that this case might yield favourable results. I wouldn't mind being able to re-sell games on steam (or, rather, the rights to play them). Especially single-player games. And as someone mentioned, I could use that money to buy more games from steam. There could even be a 10% or so commission fee that goes to Steam, although I'm pretty sure people would ***** about that, too.

On the other hand, it's probably within Steam's TOS that we've all accepted before using it. I can't say if it's definitely in there, because I haven't read it(as I'm pretty sure well over, uh, being generous, 90 percent of users haven't done). So if you've agreed to the thing, you don't really get to ***** and sue left and right about it.

 

[Zeckt]

I love this thread!

EA uses DRM to slightly penalize used game sales = EA is the devil and is destroying video games
Valve uses DRM to completely negate used games sales = Rally the troops to Valve's defense!!!

That's just too funny.

It's amazing how consumer loyalty works for companies that actually deserve trust. And if Germany wants to sell downloadable games and sell multiple copies of them for a penny and call that legal, then steam has no reason to sell to them at all.

Infact, why not open a site and sell full price games on your own website after buying them from steam for a 1$ for your own profit? it would happen, and giving in to these people would cause a snowball effect that would cannibalize online gaming. If I were Gabe I would cut off the German's entirely to prevent that. And I admit, I would like them to give this group a kick in the balls for potentially ruining digital downloads.

 

[Doom972]

Apparently, Germany doesn't get how software licensing works...

Apparantly, you don't realize that it doesn't have to be this way.

OT: I'm a fan of Valve and I love Steam, but I'm glad that someone is trying to get them to change that policy. There are definitely some games on Steam that I'd love to trade/sell.