Rust Dev Thinks Limiting Steam Releases is "Insane"

[Hateren47]

Oh goody. It gets better. All the way in the front of the directive, before we get to the articles and paragraphs, we got the bit where EU claims themselves the rulers of a list of things and number 19 on the list says:

(19)Digital content means data which are produced and supplied in digital form, such as computer programs, applications, games, music, videos or texts, irrespective of whether they are accessed through downloading or streaming, from a tangible medium or through any other means. Contracts for the supply of digital content should fall within the scope of this Directive. If digital content is supplied on a tangible medium, such as a CD or a DVD, it should be considered as goods within the meaning of this Directive. Similarly to contracts for the supply of water, gas or electricity, where they are not put up for sale in a limited volume or set quantity, or of district heating, contracts for digital content which is not supplied on a tangible medium should be classified, for the purpose of this Directive, neither as sales contracts nor as service contracts. For such contracts, the consumer should have a right of withdrawal unless he has consented to the beginning of the performance of the contract during the withdrawal period and has acknowledged that he will consequently lose the right to withdraw from the contract. In addition to the general information requirements, the trader should inform the consumer about the functionality and the relevant interoperability of digital content. The notion of functionality should refer to the ways in which digital content can be used, for instance for the tracking of consumer behaviour; it should also refer to the absence or presence of any technical restrictions such as protection via Digital Rights Management or region coding. The notion of relevant interoperability is meant to describe the information regarding the standard hardware and software environment with which the digital content is compatible, for instance the operating system, the necessary version and certain hardware features. The Commission should examine the need for further harmonisation of provisions in respect of digital content and submit, if necessary, a legislative proposal for addressing this matter.

I read this as TOS and EULA's are a thing now as long as they live up to the other parts of The Directive on Consumer Rights (2011/83/EC) regarding digital content not sold on physical media.

I also read, as long as the seller describes the minimum specs on standard hardware it doesn't matter if it works on the consumers hardware. And this stuff isn't even written in advanced Legalese like the stuff I quoted in the previous post. That stuff was printed in the blood of a thousand weasels and could be read any way I wanted to.

So Steam is perfectly fine to have any refund policy or none at all the way I see. If not already then in 10 days.

 

[Warachia]

snip

The long and short is that you didn't buy a $60 game that doesn't work. You bought a license for software that indeed does work and you can play as much as you want for ever and ever. It doesn't run on your computer maybe but it does on mine. Therefore the license is still valid and you just don't have the hardware for it. You will get a better computer eventually and the license will still be there.

No I did not, I entered into a legally binding contract (thanks Steam TOS) to play a game that I was assured would work on my computer, if it doesn't work then they've lied to me, if they refuse to refund it then they've broken the law and stolen my money.
If I bought it at a retailer, THEN I would have bought a license.

If you don't want software to be treated the same as hardware, why are you demanding it's sold on the same conditions when you can't protect the sellers or re-sellers rights under those conditions? They just have to take a financial hit from their customers inability to read specs and reviews, right? Because they can just send the license back to the license-factory to have it fixed for you twice before reimbursing you and selling it to some one else. You know, the right of the seller not to get screwed by opportunists that will destroy your business if they could without consequences.

I read the specs, AS I ALREADY SAID, they were fine, I only want my money back when I was lied to and my money taken from me, but Steam seems to have this strange idea that a contract can bypass the law, and it cannot. Once they get my money and I've agreed to the contract, they have to hold up their own end of the contract, if the game doesn't work, then they've not held up their own end of the contract.

 

[Strazdas]

Also I think you are confusing betas with demos. Paid demos are definitely "retarded".

So is paid Betas. THEY should be paying US money to bug-test their game, not the other way around.

I like Early Access so I disagree. Don't buy them if you don't like them.Early acess is not paid betas though (altrough sometimes it is). Paid betas are for exmaple buying into BF4 beta. Early acess is more of an investment, you put money in and hope they work out into complete product.
Not a very smart thing to do either though. And i dont buy them.

In the history of pizza delivery i doubt a single pizza has ever been delivered entirely as advertised. Like a BigMac never looks as good as it's advertisement.

I never bought a pizza from Just-Eat. They are an internet company. I bought it from Pepe through Just-Eat.

I dont think you know what is "As advertised". and i actually buy pizzas from a place where it looks like in the picture too btw. and it also has all the components. so yeah, kinda like advertised.
you bought a pizza from Just-Eat. you made a contract with them. they bought pizza from Pepe and sold it back to you, for profit. What your saying is that you never bought milk from sueprmarket, you bought it from a cow thgouh supermarket. completely ignoring whole branch of economy of milk processing. cow is not at fault that you got sour milk, supermarket is.

Right. I looked it up and at the very best you have 10 days to do it if a refund is even possible today according to Directive 97/7/EC since:

10 days does not equal 0, therefore the things dont match. im perfectly fine with having 10 day window with game refunds.

steam does not have me sign anything away. i never signed anything when using steam. pressing i agree on TOS is not considered signing. in fact the only way TOS would be legally applicapble if i had to sign it BEFORE i bought the product and signed it with my actual signature (as in in writing or the digital encrypted signature that is being used in few places nowadays).

Steam does not have a right to take any of my rights away. the laws supercese any such contracts even if i signed one, which i didnt.

 

[Hateren47]

snip

The long and short is that you didn't buy a $60 game that doesn't work. You bought a license for software that indeed does work and you can play as much as you want for ever and ever. It doesn't run on your computer maybe but it does on mine. Therefore the license is still valid and you just don't have the hardware for it. You will get a better computer eventually and the license will still be there.

No I did not, I entered into a legally binding contract (thanks Steam TOS) to play a game that I was assured would work on my computer, if it doesn't work then they've lied to me, if they refuse to refund it then they've broken the law and stolen my money.

Broken what law? Are we still in the EU? Read the post before yours (top of page 5). That is from an EU directive that member states are to put into local law by June 13, 2014. The directive can be found in the last post on page 4.

If I bought it at a retailer, THEN I would have bought a license.

You would have done so either way but you would probably be closer to getting a refund if you bought it at a real physical store.

If you don't want software to be treated the same as hardware, why are you demanding it's sold on the same conditions when you can't protect the sellers or re-sellers rights under those conditions? They just have to take a financial hit from their customers inability to read specs and reviews, right? Because they can just send the license back to the license-factory to have it fixed for you twice before reimbursing you and selling it to some one else. You know, the right of the seller not to get screwed by opportunists that will destroy your business if they could without consequences.

I read the specs, AS I ALREADY SAID, they were fine, I only want my money back when I was lied to and my money taken from me, but Steam seems to have this strange idea that a contract can bypass the law, and it cannot. Once they get my money and I've agreed to the contract, they have to hold up their own end of the contract, if the game doesn't work, then they've not held up their own end of the contract.

Read the post on top of page 5 and it says that your hardware is not important as long as the seller has posted minimum specs on which the software will run on a standard configuration. I have bolded the relevant bits. EULA's and TOS of software are legal contracts under EU law now and if you sign away your rights to a refund in one then it sticks. The EULA's and TOS's just have to live up to The Directive on Consumer Rights (2011/83/EC)'s rules regarding digital content not sold on a physical media.

 

[Hateren47]

Also I think you are confusing betas with demos. Paid demos are definitely "retarded".

So is paid Betas. THEY should be paying US money to bug-test their game, not the other way around.

I like Early Access so I disagree. Don't buy them if you don't like them.Early acess is not paid betas though (altrough sometimes it is). Paid betas are for exmaple buying into BF4 beta. Early acess is more of an investment, you put money in and hope they work out into complete product.
Not a very smart thing to do either though. And i dont buy them.

In the history of pizza delivery i doubt a single pizza has ever been delivered entirely as advertised. Like a BigMac never looks as good as it's advertisement.

I never bought a pizza from Just-Eat. They are an internet company. I bought it from Pepe through Just-Eat.

I dont think you know what is "As advertised". and i actually buy pizzas from a place where it looks like in the picture too btw. and it also has all the components. so yeah, kinda like advertised.
you bought a pizza from Just-Eat. you made a contract with them. they bought pizza from Pepe and sold it back to you, for profit. What your saying is that you never bought milk from sueprmarket, you bought it from a cow thgouh supermarket. completely ignoring whole branch of economy of milk processing. cow is not at fault that you got sour milk, supermarket is.

Right. I looked it up and at the very best you have 10 days to do it if a refund is even possible today according to Directive 97/7/EC since:

10 days does not equal 0, therefore the things dont match. im perfectly fine with having 10 day window with game refunds.

steam does not have me sign anything away. i never signed anything when using steam. pressing i agree on TOS is not considered signing. in fact the only way TOS would be legally applicapble if i had to sign it BEFORE i bought the product and signed it with my actual signature (as in in writing or the digital encrypted signature that is being used in few places nowadays).

Steam does not have a right to take any of my rights away. the laws supercese any such contracts even if i signed one, which i didnt.

Those 10 days are 9 days today. It's not a time limit you have to stay within to get a refund. We are talking about June 13, 2014. In 9 days a TOS on digital software sold and delivered online is a binding contract. And those 9 days only count if your country waits on till the very last day to put the rules of the directive into local law. It probably already is in the law in your country. If that is in EU.

Regarding Just-Eat, pizza and the payment, I payed Pepe cash on delivery and he made sure Just-Eat got their cut.

 

[Warachia]

snip

The long and short is that you didn't buy a $60 game that doesn't work. You bought a license for software that indeed does work and you can play as much as you want for ever and ever. It doesn't run on your computer maybe but it does on mine. Therefore the license is still valid and you just don't have the hardware for it. You will get a better computer eventually and the license will still be there.

No I did not, I entered into a legally binding contract (thanks Steam TOS) to play a game that I was assured would work on my computer, if it doesn't work then they've lied to me, if they refuse to refund it then they've broken the law and stolen my money.

Broken what law? Are we still in the EU? Read the post before yours (top of page 5). That is from an EU directive that member states are to put into local law by June 13, 2014. The directive can be found in the last post on page 4.

I did read it, where in there does it say they are allowed to tell me a product will work on my system when it does not?
Because that's what they sold it as, a product that works on my system because it meets the specs that Steam had put out for it.
Telling me the product will work, then finding out it doesn't, then not giving me my money back, is illegal.

If you don't want software to be treated the same as hardware, why are you demanding it's sold on the same conditions when you can't protect the sellers or re-sellers rights under those conditions? They just have to take a financial hit from their customers inability to read specs and reviews, right? Because they can just send the license back to the license-factory to have it fixed for you twice before reimbursing you and selling it to some one else. You know, the right of the seller not to get screwed by opportunists that will destroy your business if they could without consequences.

I read the specs, AS I ALREADY SAID, they were fine, I only want my money back when I was lied to and my money taken from me, but Steam seems to have this strange idea that a contract can bypass the law, and it cannot. Once they get my money and I've agreed to the contract, they have to hold up their own end of the contract, if the game doesn't work, then they've not held up their own end of the contract.

Read the post on top of page 5 and it says that your hardware is not important as long as the seller has posted minimum specs on which the software will run on a standard configuration. I have bolded the relevant bits. EULA's and TOS of software are legal contracts under EU law now and if you sign away your rights to a refund in one then it sticks. The EULA's and TOS's just have to live up to The Directive on Consumer Rights (2011/83/EC)'s rules regarding digital content not sold on a physical media.

This was several years ago, that I bought this game that doesn't work, what is in place to let them keep my money was not in place then, just as the contract I entered into, and that still applies to those games, is different than the current one, and even if it still applies, where in there does it say they are allowed to post false minimum specs?

 

[Hateren47]

I did read it, where in there does it say they are allowed to tell me a product will work on my system when it does not?
Because that's what they sold it as, a product that works on my system because it meets the specs that Steam had put out for it.
Telling me the product will work, then finding out it doesn't, then not giving me my money back, is illegal.

This was several years ago, that I bought this game that doesn't work, what is in place to let them keep my money was not in place then, just as the contract I entered into, and that still applies to those games, is different than the current one, and even if it still applies, where in there does it say they are allowed to post false minimum specs?

In the last part of the definition of digital content:

In addition to the general information requirements, the trader should inform the consumer about the functionality and the relevant interoperability of digital content. The notion of functionality should refer to the ways in which digital content can be used, for instance for the tracking of consumer behaviour; it should also refer to the absence or presence of any technical restrictions such as protection via Digital Rights Management or region coding. The notion of relevant interoperability is meant to describe the information regarding the standard hardware and software environment with which the digital content is compatible, for instance the operating system, the necessary version and certain hardware features.

It says "standard hardware and software environment" not all hardware environments.

 

[Warachia]

It says "standard hardware and software environment" not all hardware environments.

WHICH IS WHAT I'M USING. I'm not an idiot, I checked to make sure it should work before I bought it, and it doesn't. That isn't on me.

 

[Hateren47]

It says "standard hardware and software environment" not all hardware environments.

WHICH IS WHAT I'M USING. I'm not an idiot, I checked to make sure it should work before I bought it, and it doesn't. That isn't on me.

I don't think we read this the same way.

So what game isn't working on what hardware in your case? Not that it matters since TOS and EULA's are indeed legal in the case of digital delivery and you do have the right to sign away your right to a refund now. I'm just curious and maybe we can get the game to run if it should be able to. I'm decent with Windows computers and I am coming up on 2 decades of experience, my google-fu is pretty strong and I have the day off. Maybe we can get it running.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

There's nothing wrong with the number of games coming out. Steam just needs to fix their horrid store-front so that terrible shovelware, old mobile game ports and early access/green-light crap isn't clogging up the front page.

Way to sit on the fence there. You can't have it both ways with all the games submitted to Steam being accepted but none of them getting displayed.

Are you suggesting they should allow anything and everything to be listed but only *display* curated, hand-picked quality titles? If so, why not only allow curated, hand-picked quality titles onto Steam in the first place and keep the "terrible shovelware" off it? You want crap games to be allowed on Steam without curation but don't want to see them? Ludicrous.

It's been brought up before but in the "New releases" section at your local game's store do you see the boxed version of "Euro Van Simulator 2015"? Do you see that anywhere apart from the bargain bin? No. ALL stores curate their content in some way. Steam has become strangely, abnormally hands off with it. For their own good steam should put what it thinks people are going to buy in places they can buy it, like a store put their hottest games "Art side up" for all to see.

Look at the Google play store. It is a complete mess filled with terrible clones, a dumping ground that can be difficult to navigate. Do we really want that for Steam? To have it as a place where people have to wave though the 99.9% of shit to find a playable, original game?

Completely agree with this. The app store is a perfect example of how hard it can be to find quality amongst all the dross and that is what Steam is becoming. A laissez-faire approach to adding content is degrading the entire platform. Trying to find a good game out of 10 titles is fine, that's the fun of browsing. Trying to find one amongst 1,000 is futile.

IMO The limit should not be a numerical one but a quality one. A game should be "at least this playable" to enter, as it were. The fact is that right now, Steam Early Access [http://kotaku.com/unfinished-steam-game-abandoned-after-thousands-bought-1572931721] allows someone to upload an Alpha, sell it for money then quit development and keep the cash. I could right now download the Unity engine, create something shitty, sell it on Early Access and jump ship with customers' money, and it is entirely above board and enabled/condoned by Steam. It's. Not. Right.

Steam Early Access needs to go, entirely. Selling unfinished games should be banned outright, restricted to Kickstarter and the like. Greenlight should be only for complete games and a human being at Valve should play each game to ensure it's completely working before it gets listed. That's the minimum IMO to appear on Stam...a working, complete product.

 

[Eve Charm]

This is just poetic coming from the rust dev that put out an early access game 6 months ago and haven't even updated it once yet. The only things they've been doing it seems is putting out dev blogs with textures of stuff to come soon.

Early access's peak and shining example was Don't starve, A game that was cheaper in early access, they even gave you a buy one get one free for supporting it in early access, it was basically already a full game, only needing balance and a few things to help balance it, Hence good reason to be in early access, and planned updates at least ever two weeks that hit out in time.

If you don't have something that is pretty much a game already, you shouldn't be allowed to early access it. We already have enough shining examples on steam that more often then not, the early access money isn't being used to finish the game, espeically when it's not even an quarter of a game to begin with.

 

[Arcane Azmadi]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.851575-Jimquisition-Air-Control-A-Steam-Abuse-Story

Seriously. Steam? Get on with the fucking limiting. Get limiting now. The fact that this kind of shit even exists is obscene without you irresponsibly helping promote it.

 

[Warachia]

It says "standard hardware and software environment" not all hardware environments.

WHICH IS WHAT I'M USING. I'm not an idiot, I checked to make sure it should work before I bought it, and it doesn't. That isn't on me.

I don't think we read this the same way.

So what game isn't working on what hardware in your case? Not that it matters since TOS and EULA's are indeed legal in the case of digital delivery and you do have the right to sign away your right to a refund now. I'm just curious and maybe we can get the game to run if it should be able to. I'm decent with Windows computers and I am coming up on 2 decades of experience, my google-fu is pretty strong and I have the day off. Maybe we can get it running.

I'm aware I don't have the right to get a refund now, I was annoyed that they didn't give me a refund then.
Anyway, here's the specs, spoiled so those not interested won't be bothered.

Steam Minimum
OS: Windows XP SP2 or Windows Vista SP1
Processor: P4 3.2 GHz (single core) or any Dual Core processor
Memory: 1 GB RAM (XP), 1.5 GB RAM (Vista)
Graphics: A 128MB Video Card (Shader Model 3) - Nvidia GeForce 6600 GT / ATI X1600, or equivalent
Hard Drive: 6.5 GB of uncompressed Hard Drive space


Steam Recommended
OS: Windows XP SP2 or Windows Vista SP1
Processor: AMD Athlon 64x2 4400+ or any Intel Core 2 Duo
Memory: 2 GB RAM (XP and Vista)
Graphics: A 256MB Video Card (Shader Model 3) - Nvidia GeForce 7800 GT / ATI X1900, or equivalent
Hard Drive: 6.5 GB of uncompressed Hard Drive space


My specs
OS: Windows 7 Home Premuim 64-bit
Processor:Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2410M CPU
Memory: 4096MB RAM
Graphics: 1696MB Video card
Hard Drive: 40.6GB of uncompressed Hard Drive space

For the record it might just be that the way Steam does things doesn't agree with my computer for some reason, programs far more intensive (like the Witcher 2, the Incredible Adventure of Van Helsing 2, and Skyrim) can be run on my computer, the Steam version of Skyrim ran like shit (before you ask, yes I did a full removal of the pirated version). Conversely I did the same thing with the new X-COM game, but the Steam version runs just fine.

Also here's how I HAVE to boot up Steam, start Steam, log in, Steam closes and refuses to re-open. Start Task Manager, end process of Steam Bootstrapper Client, Start Steam, and now I don't have to re-login and steam works just fine.

Recently too Steam Bootstrapper Client has a habit of using 100% of my CPU for seemingly no reason, a few days ago, while playing Tabletop Simulator with a friend of mine, it made my computer slow to a crawl, it took half an hour (literally) for me to open task manager, then slowly crawl over to end process of Steam Bootstrapper Client, after doing that everything worked just fine, Steam booted up again without any issue, and playing Tabletop Simulator the day after wasn't an issue either.

All of this is why I do not think it is the fault of my computer that this game refuses to run.

 

[Hateren47]

My specs
OS: Windows 7 Home Premuim 64-bit
Processor:Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2410M CPU
Memory: 4096MB RAM
Graphics: 1696MB Video card
Hard Drive: 40.6GB of uncompressed Hard Drive space

Alright... It's a laptop. What graphics card does it have and if you don't know how to tell - What make and model is it? A link to the computer on the makers website would be great. If it's not to be found on the front page their support section might have it. You should also remove the bit about how you came to possess Skyrim the first time. The landlubbers here aren't very understanding in that regard. Is the game we are talking about Skyrim though? It's kinda hard to tell from the way you worded it.

... Also here's how I HAVE to boot up Steam, start Steam, log in, Steam closes and refuses to re-open. Start Task Manager, end process of Steam Bootstrapper Client, Start Steam, and now I don't have to re-login and steam works just fine.

Recently too Steam Bootstrapper Client has a habit of using 100% of my CPU for seemingly no reason...

Alright, I want you to reinstall Steam. In you Steam folder delete everything except the SteamApps folder (your games) and steam.exe. Then run steam.exe, have it reinstall and then see if you still have trouble with the Steam application.

This guy shows how it's done.

All of this is why I do not think it is the fault of my computer that this game refuses to run.

Still not sure if you mean Skyrim so I'll wait before looking up solutions for that until I'm sure. I haven't played it but I guess it would have higher specs than the min/rec-specs you mentioned.

Edit: If you have more than one Steam folder (I have 3 on 3 different drives, for example) delete everything but the SteamApps folder from the secondary Steam folders.

Edit2: Re-read it and it's not Skyrim.

 

[Exterminas]

I don't think nobody ever talked about limiting releases to a number of X games per month. There is no magical number to assure quality.

When people talk about limiting steam releases, they talk about limiting it to good games. And not crappy shovelware titles that have changed ownership six times in the lat decade.

Define a good game and shovelware to me?

It's easy. This obviously only applies to non-greenlight-games:

- Has the game been released more than ten years ago?
- Has the game changed ownership more than once in the last ten years?
- Has the game been in bargain-bins, computer magazines or off the shelves of most physical retailers?
- Does the game run on current operating systems?
- Are any devs still around to offer support and patching after release?

If three or more of these are answered with a yes, then that game should be routed to greenlight to see if the community is interested. If they are, all is fair game, but if they aren't, don't slap a ten dollar pricetag onto a shovelware game that has not been sold in any stores for the past decade.

 

[Exterminas]

I don't think nobody ever talked about limiting releases to a number of X games per month. There is no magical number to assure quality.

When people talk about limiting steam releases, they talk about limiting it to good games. And not crappy shovelware titles that have changed ownership six times in the lat decade.

Define a good game and shovelware to me?

It's easy. This obviously only applies to non-greenlight-games:

- Has the game been released more than ten years ago?
- Has the game changed ownership more than once in the last ten years?
- Has the game been in bargain-bins, computer magazines or off the shelves of most physical retailers?
- Does the game run on current operating systems?
- Are any devs still around to offer support and patching after release?

If three or more of these are answered with a yes, then that game should be routed to greenlight to see if the community is interested. If they are, all is fair game, but if they aren't, don't slap a ten dollar pricetag onto a shovelware game that has not been sold in any stores for the past decade.

-Disagree. Old games arent worse then new games.
-Disagree, this has no effect on game quality.
-Disagree, some of the finest games I have ever played were in a bargain bin. BTW, TLOU was in a bargain bin here... So dont agree.
-There are emulators and PC mods for that. Though I agree, most games should (and thankfully DO) work on newer OSes
-That again has nothing to do with the game. Most games, especially console games (but not only) recieve very limited support and are left to "die".
Thankfully, games cant die.

Of course these points are not valid when taken by themselves, which is why I think that only in combination with eachother they should be applied.

Also, please note that my position is not to kick these games out, but to send them through Greenlight instead. So if a golden oldie, like for example the Gothic Series, gets filtered out, it'll breeze through Greenlight! But most of the crap will be pulled out this way.

Keep in mind that controlling releases based upon what the community wants to play was the original idea behind Greenlight. It was NOT designed as an alternative to Kickstarter to fund early access titles. Right now you can put your game on steam, as long as you had a publisher somewhere down the line. And that seems like a bad system.