No eula has ever stood up against a trial of law so valve introducing anything in their eula seems unimpressive and unimportant to be honest. By Danish law at least, no company agreement can place the costumer worse off than by the minimum as defined per law, regardless of any eula and as far as I know its the same in most of the world
Poll: Valve has Instituted an Anti Class Action Lawsuit Clause in their EULA of Steam
- Thread starter Azaraxzealot
- Start date
Yeah, how is this anything new?
I really didn't care when EA, Sony, and other companies instituted anti class action clauses. Class action lawsuits are rarely anything good for anyone other than the lawyers involved.
I really didn't care when EA, Sony, and other companies instituted anti class action clauses. Class action lawsuits are rarely anything good for anyone other than the lawyers involved.
Yeah I remember that happening, I was not to pleased about having accept to the new terms. So that was a black mark against Valve's name for me. Mind it was their first black mark from me.
Though I'd like see any of them of these companies actually try and enforce this term as I don't think many courts, at least in Europe anyway, don't look kindly on terms that require people waiving their rights away.
Though I'd like see any of them of these companies actually try and enforce this term as I don't think many courts, at least in Europe anyway, don't look kindly on terms that require people waiving their rights away.
I'm highly confused.
So what you are saying is that you did not know about this until just now?
I remember it because I had to agree to it seven months ago.
How does that even happen? Did you not have Steam then, or have you not used Steam in Seven Months?
So what you are saying is that you did not know about this until just now?
I remember it because I had to agree to it seven months ago.
How does that even happen? Did you not have Steam then, or have you not used Steam in Seven Months?
I honestly see nothing wrong with it, Valve is a model company with really good business practices that I trust them not to screw us over, The amusing thing is this business model seems to reflect on how they make their games too.
Gabe Newell can be a monster, this was evident with the hacker that stole the source code for HL2 when Gabe was intent on fooling the guy into bringing him here to have him tried in US courts, but that was because Valve was wronged.
I guess the only way to really tell if Valve starts becoming as bad as EA and Sony is when they start making games that emphasize more on monetary gains over the quality of the game itself, it's just like how EA's games are starting to become subpar because more room is focused on micro-transactions and DLC over overall game quality and creativity.
Gabe Newell can be a monster, this was evident with the hacker that stole the source code for HL2 when Gabe was intent on fooling the guy into bringing him here to have him tried in US courts, but that was because Valve was wronged.
I guess the only way to really tell if Valve starts becoming as bad as EA and Sony is when they start making games that emphasize more on monetary gains over the quality of the game itself, it's just like how EA's games are starting to become subpar because more room is focused on micro-transactions and DLC over overall game quality and creativity.
There was a fuss, I simply never cared, though.
I have faith in Valve. They don't screw us over. What they do is make you wait years for a sequel, and quite frankly that's far better than the shitty CoD sequels we get every year. Valve consistently makes games WORTH $60. And their services (such as Steam) are top-notch in my own opinion.
Really, it comes down to loyalty and faith. Origin is a piece of shit, as is EA (I've got quite the story there, but I wanna see if it ENDS. Short version: I've been trying to get Crysis Wars to WORK for almost 7 months now, and EA has been absolutely no help), so I can fully understand the fuss on that front.
I have faith in Valve. They don't screw us over. What they do is make you wait years for a sequel, and quite frankly that's far better than the shitty CoD sequels we get every year. Valve consistently makes games WORTH $60. And their services (such as Steam) are top-notch in my own opinion.
Really, it comes down to loyalty and faith. Origin is a piece of shit, as is EA (I've got quite the story there, but I wanna see if it ENDS. Short version: I've been trying to get Crysis Wars to WORK for almost 7 months now, and EA has been absolutely no help), so I can fully understand the fuss on that front.
This.MarsAtlas said:
When was the last time Valve royally screwed you over? ("Not releasing Half Life 2 Episode 3" does not count.)
Besides, they're not smacking down your ability to make them pay you money if they screw you over. You still can demand compensation via arbitration, and as long as you're not being an idiot, they'll pay your arbitration fees. I actually prefer this TOS over the last one.
No, I didn't notice, and nor do I really care all that much. If I'm gonna sue Valve over something I'm going to take them to court myself instead of piling on to a class action lawsuit that I wouldn't get satisfaction from. The only people who win when a company loses a class action lawsuit are the lawyers who filed it. Nothing in that clause says that you absolutely forbidden from suing Valve ever for anything, it only means that a large group of people can't collectively sue Valve.
There's been a few "Valve is not great" threads lately. Honestly I don't care but it's just silly how some feel the need to let everyone know in a new thread.
OT: Yes there were previous threads as stated above, no that kind of clause probably wouldn't hold up in court. Yes it's a filthy tactic but as we've discovered legal teams are not often saying/doing what the company directly wants. Do we care? Yes and it will probably come up in the next few years and get stomped because it doesn't make any sense legally.
I'm FAR more concerned with the new Xbox having always on, not because I plan on getting it (I'm not) BUT if such a thing still takes off and they realize they can get away with charging people full price for something they don't actually get to own then games/movies will become a very unwelcome place.
OT: Yes there were previous threads as stated above, no that kind of clause probably wouldn't hold up in court. Yes it's a filthy tactic but as we've discovered legal teams are not often saying/doing what the company directly wants. Do we care? Yes and it will probably come up in the next few years and get stomped because it doesn't make any sense legally.
I'm FAR more concerned with the new Xbox having always on, not because I plan on getting it (I'm not) BUT if such a thing still takes off and they realize they can get away with charging people full price for something they don't actually get to own then games/movies will become a very unwelcome place.
People got up in arms about it. Then they all calmly remembered that no one has wanted to sue Valve for a really long time because they haven't messed up in a really long time. Hell, they give refunds on games if you buy it and then it goes on sale a day later! I can't think of any other company that does that. Because of their fantastic customer service, openness and general good sense of humour, people like the company.
Ain't nobody got time for reading EULAs.
[sub][sub]I got Bronchitis...![/sub][/sub]
Honestly though, I did, but only because there were a few threads on here about it. I have never read a EULA in my life except to verify accusations made by others claiming the EULA says something or other, and even then not at the time I'm meant to be agreeing to it. And I think it's despicable that they can just truncate a bit of the legal process in the EULA and shouldn't be stood for, but I don't want to lose my Steam library now do I. How else would I play FTL.
Oh, right, [redacted], how could I forget.
EDIT: Naturally though, it's not so much a problem with Valve because they're generally nice guys. I would be worried about a clause like this coming from one of the companies full of dicks that know who they are. -_-
[sub][sub]I got Bronchitis...![/sub][/sub]
Honestly though, I did, but only because there were a few threads on here about it. I have never read a EULA in my life except to verify accusations made by others claiming the EULA says something or other, and even then not at the time I'm meant to be agreeing to it. And I think it's despicable that they can just truncate a bit of the legal process in the EULA and shouldn't be stood for, but I don't want to lose my Steam library now do I. How else would I play FTL.
Oh, right, [redacted], how could I forget.
EDIT: Naturally though, it's not so much a problem with Valve because they're generally nice guys. I would be worried about a clause like this coming from one of the companies full of dicks that know who they are. -_-
These things never hold up in court anyways. It's like those clauses they put in on occasion, that say "you can't sue us ever." Yeah you're cute lawyers. But laws take precedent and the constitution takes precedent over your little 'binding agreement.'
I am getting pretty fucking tired of the "companies exist to make profit" argument, why the FUCK can't I expect companies to have a shred of respect for their consumers, society and it's laws. Companies are not some lovecraftian being that is beyond control and understanding, it's a group of people coming together with the interest to make money and that's fine BUT it does not excuse them from fucking around with people and trying to subvert their rights. /rant god this is frustratingVivi22 said:
That is a major strawman argument. Valve and EA are two completely different kinds of companies.Terramax said:
Don't really care. Not sure why anyone would sue a company that publishes & or makes entertainment unless it's for copyright reasons. For me, there are only a small handful of excuses for ever filing a lawsuit at all. For instance, if you bought a Steam Box & it exploded shrapnel & burned whatever it was sitting on.