So apparently Steam was selling a game that was clearly dead.

[Rob Robson]

Same thing for "Delve Deeper!", a fundamentally unplayable game that crashes five minutes into any game for the vast majority of users. Not only is it still being sold, they are still pushing it with sales. Scum.

 

[J.McMillen]

How is some games having ghost-town servers relevant?

Wouldn't you feel ripped off if you bought a multi-player game only to find out nobody was playing? Whether there are available servers or not, most people will feel like they got ripped off if they bought a multi-player game if there is nobody to play with.

It's called personal responsibility. As a consumer of anything, it's up to the buyer to do any research on whatever it is that person wants to buy. Now I can understand those who bought the game right before the servers were shut down may have valid complaints. But the servers were apparently shut down some time ago. A simple 2 minute search of the games forum would reveal multiple threads about the game being dead, most on the first page.

 

[Infernal Lawyer]

How is some games having ghost-town servers relevant?

Wouldn't you feel ripped off if you bought a multi-player game only to find out nobody was playing? Whether there are available servers or not, most people will feel like they got ripped off if they bought a multi-player game if there is nobody to play with.

What? Did I ever imply I wouldn't be? I'm honestly not sure what your point is.

It's called personal responsibility. As a consumer of anything, it's up to the buyer to do any research on whatever it is that person wants to buy. Now I can understand those who bought the game right before the servers were shut down may have valid complaints. But the servers were apparently shut down some time ago. A simple 2 minute search of the games forum would reveal multiple threads about the game being dead, most on the first page.

As I said before, you're taking "consumer/personal responsibility" way too far. There's being disappointed with a product because it wasn't quite as good as you thought it would be, and then there's being mad that you bought something that's CLEARLY not suitable for the purposes advertised by any stretch.

I should not have to spend two SECONDS to find out if a game is even possible to run, I have every damn right to assume that will be the case by default, regardless of how many patches or fixes I may end up having to deal with, regardless of how dissatisfied I may end up with the product, or even how many threads there are saying "game's dead" (because why isn't the STORE PAGE saying that?). That's not just my opinion, that's just how the LAW works. That's the PUBLISHER'S responsibility, not the consumer's.

I'm sorry if I'm coming off as aggressive, I just find the idea that it's the consumer's job to see if a product acts even remotely as advertised incredibly offensive.

 

[Doom-Slayer]

The fault lies with the consumer for trusting Valve on anything. They are greedy scumbags and everyone knows it.

Completely don't agree. Here's a simple comparison to explain why. Imagine you walk into a retail store, buy a toaster or something, it breaks, and you find out that that specific product has a widespread fault. You have ever right to go to the store and ask for a refund, but saying the store are "greedy scumbags" is pushing the line really hard.

They are distributes, they should definitely be informed of the fault and stop selling the product, but complaining the fault rests on them is wrong.

Problems with products rest on the shoulders of the companies that make the products, problems with distribution rest on the distributors. So calling them slightly inept for not taking the product down is correct, calling them greedy? not so much.

 

[Atmos Duality]

The fault lies with the consumer for trusting Valve on anything. They are greedy scumbags and everyone knows it.

Because one broken game out of thousands of functional games is clearly grounds to damn everyone who ever used Steam.

 

[Fsyco]

Contrary to popular belief Valve doesn't dictate the prices, the publishers do.

Explain to me how, using that logic, I can buy launch games cheaper on Amazon and GMG than I can on Steam. The entire publishers set the price schtick is a load of garbage and we all know it. Publishers set the base price, but anyone can put that price at whatever the hell they want with few, if any, repercussions.

Fully agreed.

Customer friendly is a marketing tool and nothing more. If being customer friendly costs too much then companies will cease being customer friendly. Its a cold hard fact. Treat steam and Valve like you would any company that sells a faulty product. Demand your money back.

As has been pointed out above, the distribution of digital goods differs from that of physical ones. With physical copies, the merchant pays to have the physical games so they can resell them at whatever price. Digitally, Steam isn't actually buying anything from the publisher, and therefore the publisher has much more input over the price of the game.

I agree that people should stop treating Steam like some kind of saint, though. I never really understood that mentality in the first place. Steam has always had these problems, but maybe they've just gotten worse since more people are using Steam and Valve hasn't expanded their customer service options?

 

[senordesol]

I'm surprised at the amount of ire this thread has sparked. Seems like a simple solution to me.

If a game doesn't work as advertised at the time of purchase, it shouldn't be sold.

If it was sold, and the client complains it doesn't work as advertised; the client should get a refund and the game taken off the shelves (virtual or otherwise).

If it is advertised as allowing online multiplayer, and that is not supported, then people should be getting their money back; it's not up to the consumer to verify that the features advertised are -indeed- features included because theft is illegal.

 

[J.McMillen]

As I said before, you're taking "consumer/personal responsibility" way too far. There's being disappointed with a product because it wasn't quite as good as you thought it would be, and then there's being mad that you bought something that's CLEARLY not suitable for the purposes advertised by any stretch.

I should not have to spend two SECONDS to find out if a game is even possible to run, I have every damn right to assume that will be the case by default, regardless of how many patches or fixes I may end up having to deal with, regardless of how dissatisfied I may end up with the product, or even how many threads there are saying "game's dead" (because why isn't the STORE PAGE saying that?). That's not just my opinion, that's just how the LAW works. That's the PUBLISHER'S responsibility, not the consumer's.

I'm sorry if I'm coming off as aggressive, I just find the idea that it's the consumer's job to see if a product acts even remotely as advertised incredibly offensive.

I can assure you that assuming everything out there will work as advertised is shortsighted and will lead to years of disappointment. Companies will always try to hype the good and gloss over the bad. Would you buy a car without reading reviews? Would you buy a house without researching the neighborhood? If you're rich enough to just spend money without bothering to do a little research, good for you. But for most people these days, money is tight and it's really not that much to ask people to be a little responsible with their choices.

So why in the world would anybody buy a multiplayer game without at least making sure that people are still playing it? Especially since it would have taken less than 2 minutes in Steams own forums to see that the multiplayer was dead. Is two minutes of someones time too much to ask so they aren't disappointed?

 

[Infernal Lawyer]

As I said before, you're taking "consumer/personal responsibility" way too far. There's being disappointed with a product because it wasn't quite as good as you thought it would be, and then there's being mad that you bought something that's CLEARLY not suitable for the purposes advertised by any stretch.

I should not have to spend two SECONDS to find out if a game is even possible to run, I have every damn right to assume that will be the case by default, regardless of how many patches or fixes I may end up having to deal with, regardless of how dissatisfied I may end up with the product, or even how many threads there are saying "game's dead" (because why isn't the STORE PAGE saying that?). That's not just my opinion, that's just how the LAW works. That's the PUBLISHER'S responsibility, not the consumer's.

I'm sorry if I'm coming off as aggressive, I just find the idea that it's the consumer's job to see if a product acts even remotely as advertised incredibly offensive.

I can assure you that assuming everything out there will work as advertised is shortsighted and will lead to years of disappointment.Companies will always try to hype the good and gloss over the bad. Would you buy a car without reading reviews?

I stopped reading here.

I'm sorry, I really am, I'm trying to have a rational debate and stay calm. But you are constantly trying to compare "general overhyping" with "outright lying that a broken product is functional".

If I bought a car and it turned out it wasn't as fantastic as the salesman claimed it would be, then yes, it would be my fault because I didn't do my research. However, I paid for the car, got in and it instantly feel to pieces cartoon-style around me, I have every fucking right in the world to expect my money back.

There's overhyping, and then there's false-advertising and outright lying, and then there's selling a product that simply DOES NOT DO ANYTHING. If you honestly do not see the difference after I explained it three times, then I'm afraid I can't explain it to you and I have no interest in continuing this discussion.

 

[Someone Depressing]

I always do research on games before I buy them, but only because I'm a neurotic bastard.

This, though, could easily be a problem for less OCD-inflicted customers

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

No i am not suggesting that at all. What Steam are selling is the software, not the service you use the software with. A better comparison would be if a retail chain started stocking Betamax players. They aren't under any obligation to check whether their customers can access the movies they would watch in Betamax format, what they are selling is the device and as long as it functions they have discharged their legal requirements. In the same way Steam are selling the software, they are under no obligation to ensure the server that the software connects to is still running as long as the software itself functions. It is even still technically possible to play the game without the servers as I understand it can also be played over LAN.

As i said in my initial post, I don't approve, and I think the decent thing would have been to notify the customer of the nature of the functionality they could expect to enjoy. However, the majority of the blame sits with the consumer.

So, I can get hold of old Betamax tapes (were they tapes?). Can I get hold of the old servers to play this game, or are they more tightly tied to this specific game than individual Betamax tapes (?) are to the Betamax player?

I can, for instance, source my tapes from a variety of suppliers and can watch a variety of those tapes. Where can I source my server? I should also point out the massive difference between a relatively well-known and no longer used technology that everyone knows is out of date and a modern multiplayer game that one would assume in playable on account of it being available for sale at the present time.

I'm not going to pursue this further, because I like to avoid being rude and we're clearly on different sides of a fence. I feel Valve have been negligent rather than dishonest, I just don't understand why people would defend a business practice that is so clearly wrong.

So you don't like the Betamax comparison, what about selling an analogue TV in a territory where they no longer broadcast an analogue TV signal?

But thank you for making my point for me when you point out the key difference that "everyone knows" Betamax is out of date. Yes they do, which is why no one would buy one. But the ignorance of the consumer cannot be held up as a failing of the seller. The information that the Fray servers are no longer operational is a matter of record and easily accessible.

Please don't misunderstand me, I am not on Steam's side here. I think this whole incident is symptomatic of bigger issues with Steam, both in terms of it's customer service and it's quality control procedures and I very much hope the outcome will be that people think twice about what they buy from Steam in the future. However, what i take issue with is the fact that two often, poor practice on the part of a business is used to completely absolve consumers of their failure to consume responsibly. It is high time consumers discarded this victim complex and accepted that their purchasing decisions are what drive the evolution of business practice, not the other way around.

You're a gamer and you're honestly asking that question? Analog TVs have more functions than just playing over the air broadcasts. For one thing cable companies in most if not all regions that have ceased analog broadcasts still send out an analog signal[footnote]in fact, it's more robust than the digital one. Case in point, it's storming here and there was a brief outage this morning. The analog set in my bedroom came back up before the digital one in the living room. Most of the minor outages we get drop the digital cable, may drop the internet, but the analog set just keeps on trucking.[/footnote]. For another, there's all sorts of non-broadcast or cable sources that work with an analog TV set, from videogames to those betamax players you were just talking about. And VHS, laserdisc, DVD, HDDVD, Blu-Ray[footnote]Not only can those latter two output an SD compatible signal, supposedly they look slightly better than DVD doing it, due to more accurate colors.[/footnote]...

Point being, that kind of equipment still has a use, specifically because it wasn't designed to self destruct when it stopped getting a signal from the mothership. Games that are online only with no LAN support or option for user hosted servers actually /do/ self destruct when they stop getting that signal. So do games with always online DRM, for that matter.

Edit: Heck, analog sets can even handle digital TV, you just need either a converter box (for over the air signals) or a set top box, which you need to use any of the non-resolution bound features that make digital cable better than analog to begin with.

 

[softclocks]

Obviously this is Valve being purely motivated by greed.

The 2-3 top dogs over at the Steam headquarters are sitting together in a boardroom laughing manicaly at the 5 geniuses who thought it would be a good idea to get a 25% metacritic rated multiplayer game without doing any research beforehand.

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

Not gonna lie it's kinda off saying it's steam's fault where if someone were to buy a online only game on a console for gamestop would it be gamestop's fault?

Edit:
Now granted I think this is a odd legal thing because most online games have in it's EULA that they can shut down the service when they want. I think they should have told Valve that their online only game is not going to function anymore and valve should have pulled it. That should be part of the agreement to publish a game, if you turn off the multiplayer aspect you MUST tell valve so they can put a warning that it won't work. And if it's multiplayer only they have to pull the game.

 

[inlinefourpower]

I see this as a store that's selling a product. Someone brought up the example of being able to buy a screw or cheese with the reasonable expectation that it will work without doing research, I agree. Just like they should be able to sell Swedish meatballs assuming they are as the manufacturer THEY bought it from is also what they ordered. Remember retailers are only a middleman to facilitate you dealing with a producer. When it turns out those meatballs have horsemeat in them they have a responsibility to rectify the situation as prescribed by the law, and if they want to foster an image of being caring about their customers they can go above and beyond.

I don't think every store should have to open every package of screws they get or cheese they receive to make sure the product is actually as they expect it to be. They should be able to trust that manufacturers are doing their job.

In this case I think valve should offer a refund but the real scam comes from the developer who certainly knew their game didn't work and knowingly sold it. It would be akin to selling walmart cheese that was actually yellow rubber and still taking their money.

Now, the real question that I hope someone can answer... How did a game that doesn't even get past the login screen get a 27% on metacritic? Aren't they the real mystery here?

 

[Infernal Lawyer]

Not gonna lie it's kinda off saying it's steam's fault where if someone were to buy a online only game on a console for gamestop would it be gamestop's fault?

Edit:
Now granted I think this is a odd legal thing because most online games have in it's EULA that they can shut down the service when they want. I think they should have told Valve that their online only game is not going to function anymore and valve should have pulled it. That should be part of the agreement to publish a game, if you turn off the multiplayer aspect you MUST tell valve so they can put a warning that it won't work. And if it's multiplayer only they have to pull the game.

If you buy a physical product that doesn't work, don't you usually take it up with the store you bought it from?

That said, I'll agree it's one thing to say "we can shut down our servers whenever we want", it's quite another to continue selling a game when your servers are dead. Even if you're going to make out that games are a service rather than a product, if your 'service' can't serve anyone you shouldn't be trying to charge money for it.

 

[J.McMillen]

Not gonna lie it's kinda off saying it's steam's fault where if someone were to buy a online only game on a console for gamestop would it be gamestop's fault?

Edit:
Now granted I think this is a odd legal thing because most online games have in it's EULA that they can shut down the service when they want. I think they should have told Valve that their online only game is not going to function anymore and valve should have pulled it. That should be part of the agreement to publish a game, if you turn off the multiplayer aspect you MUST tell valve so they can put a warning that it won't work. And if it's multiplayer only they have to pull the game.

If you buy a physical product that doesn't work, don't you usually take it up with the store you bought it from?

That said, I'll agree it's one thing to say "we can shut down our servers whenever we want", it's quite another to continue selling a game when your servers are dead. Even if you're going to make out that games are a service rather than a product, if your 'service' can't serve anyone you shouldn't be trying to charge money for it.

But, as Bored said, what if you buy a used online multiplayer game from Gamestop that is no longer supported. That's not the developer or publishers fault. They probably stopped making the game a long time ago. I don't know what Gamestop's return policy is, but if the disk actually loads the game, they'll probably say there's nothing wrong with it.

Hell, you can still find brand new copies of Halo 2 on Amazon, but XBL no longer supports it so you can't play online multiplayer. So would you blame Amazon for selling you the game if all you wanted was the online multiplayer.

 

[J.McMillen]

I stopped reading here.

I'm sorry, I really am, I'm trying to have a rational debate and stay calm. But you are constantly trying to compare "general overhyping" with "outright lying that a broken product is functional".

If I bought a car and it turned out it wasn't as fantastic as the salesman claimed it would be, then yes, it would be my fault because I didn't do my research. However, I paid for the car, got in and it instantly feel to pieces cartoon-style around me, I have every fucking right in the world to expect my money back.

There's overhyping, and then there's false-advertising and outright lying, and then there's selling a product that simply DOES NOT DO ANYTHING. If you honestly do not see the difference after I explained it three times, then I'm afraid I can't explain it to you and I have no interest in continuing this discussion.

Don't insult me. I know the difference between over-hyping to outright lying. And I've been around long enough to know that it's up to the consumer to figure out which one it is, preferably before they buy it. Maybe in a perfect world every publisher would be completely honest, but that's never going to happen. So sometimes the consumer has to do a little on their end to make sure they are getting what they are paying for.

That's the reason I've yet to be disappointed in any of my Steam Purchases. I'll look at the screen shots, watch the videos, and read the publishers description. But before I'll even add it to my wishlist, let alone buy it, I always check the forums to see what people who have bought the game are saying. Believe me, that has saved my money time and time again when I find out that there are major issues with the game.

 

[senordesol]

I stopped reading here.

I'm sorry, I really am, I'm trying to have a rational debate and stay calm. But you are constantly trying to compare "general overhyping" with "outright lying that a broken product is functional".

If I bought a car and it turned out it wasn't as fantastic as the salesman claimed it would be, then yes, it would be my fault because I didn't do my research. However, I paid for the car, got in and it instantly feel to pieces cartoon-style around me, I have every fucking right in the world to expect my money back.

There's overhyping, and then there's false-advertising and outright lying, and then there's selling a product that simply DOES NOT DO ANYTHING. If you honestly do not see the difference after I explained it three times, then I'm afraid I can't explain it to you and I have no interest in continuing this discussion.

Don't insult me. I know the difference between over-hyping to outright lying. And I've been around long enough to know that it's up to the consumer to figure out which one it is, preferably before they buy it. Maybe in a perfect world every publisher would be completely honest, but that's never going to happen. So sometimes the consumer has to do a little on their end to make sure they are getting what they are paying for.

That's the reason I've yet to be disappointed in any of my Steam Purchases. I'll look at the screen shots, watch the videos, and read the publishers description. But before I'll even add it to my wishlist, let alone buy it, I always check the forums to see what people who have bought the game are saying. Believe me, that has saved my money time and time again when I find out that there are major issues with the game.

I don't think any is arguing that it doesn't behoove the consumer to do their research -that you won't have to deal with swindlers that much if you do- however, while we can agree on that fact; it still doesn't excuse selling a broken product at (assumed) full price.

If someone is paying you good money for a product or service, it is your responsibility to ensure that the product or service they purchased is (roughly) in-line with what was promised. If one parties a swindler and the other's a fool; that the second is gullible enough to believe the first, does not excuse the swindler as he played an active role in the deceit.

If you were promised online multiplayer as a primary function of the product and that function does not and will not ever work; you were falsely advertised to and should get your money back. Now, if you did your research: yes, you'd have avoided that headache in the first place which makes it a good practice either way. However, if someone sells you something that flat-out doesn't work; you should get your money back.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Honestly, while I do hope Steam takes the game down, to me it's your responsibility to make sure that you can run the game, which is precisely what this is. The game runs fine, but the servers are down and it's a multiplayer only title. I don't consider this too much different than buying a game that you don't have a good enough graphics card to run.

To put it into perspective, you can still buy copies of ?Battleforge? on E-bay, even though 90% of that game is multiplayer and the servers have been down for years. So if someone buys it from there and then realizes that the servers are down, I don?t have a ton of sympathy for them.

It's also worth nothing that, sometimes (thought very rarely), games servers actually get re-established. This happened with Myth: The Fallen Lords and Myth 2: Soulblighter, where Bungie shut the servers down, but a group of dedicated fans managed to open up new ones.

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

Not gonna lie it's kinda off saying it's steam's fault where if someone were to buy a online only game on a console for gamestop would it be gamestop's fault?

Edit:
Now granted I think this is a odd legal thing because most online games have in it's EULA that they can shut down the service when they want. I think they should have told Valve that their online only game is not going to function anymore and valve should have pulled it. That should be part of the agreement to publish a game, if you turn off the multiplayer aspect you MUST tell valve so they can put a warning that it won't work. And if it's multiplayer only they have to pull the game.

If you buy a physical product that doesn't work, don't you usually take it up with the store you bought it from?

That said, I'll agree it's one thing to say "we can shut down our servers whenever we want", it's quite another to continue selling a game when your servers are dead. Even if you're going to make out that games are a service rather than a product, if your 'service' can't serve anyone you shouldn't be trying to charge money for it.

Err most high end physical products I buy normally say "Send it back to the company who made it not the store", for cheaper stuff yes I would take it back. But to say I'm going to blame a store like Wal-mart because I bought old software/hardware that doesn't work anymore (Which they do http://consumerist.com/tag/raiders-of-the-lost-walmart/) is kinda on your head for not being sure. BUT like I was saying for selling old and or useless services (like a online game for example) the store that sold said product should honor the refund and stop selling it. I'm not blaming the seller for not knowing, just they should look into it and if proven said game is unplayable should issue a refund. If steam wants to be proactive they should do what I suggested and have then alert Valve of shut off online services and if they don't can't publish a game on their service for X number of years.