Polygon said:
Good Guy Valve worked hard to make us believe that willingly installing surveillance and control software onto our computers was a morally benevolent, perhaps even righteous act ? and we swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
The way this is worded makes Polygon act like Steam is spyware that can potentially hijack your computer, and not a DRM platform.
Polygon said:
ExtremeTech said:
Doug Lombardi said:
This is for authentication/anti-piracy purposes. Once this has been completed, the owner of either the retail or the Steam version can play Half-Life 2 single player in offline mode.
Nope, not seeing anything wrong here. Internet connection in 2004 was pretty standard, and an always-online connection to Steam has never been required to use its products, merely to download/update them and browse the online store, which would be really difficult to do without internet. This might've been the start of DRM internet trends, but it's far from a bad one, and in an internet-heavy world a quick online verification is still fine so long as it remains unintrusive, which Valve managed to do.
Polygon said:
We also didn?t want anything else once we were comfortable with Steam, which is a big problem for anyone who doesn?t want to give Valve a third of every sale.
Brand recognition means that larger cuts can be claimed from the developers. A 30% cut for selling on one of the world's largest gaming platforms seems completely fair, especially given that, compared to other industries, a studio is still generally making out with at least half of the money they put in, after paying for the publisher, platform, and engine costs. By comparison it's not uncommon for musicians, comedians, and other stage performers to get a single-digit cut of event profits, album/recordings sales, ad revenue, and merchandise. Louis CK, who now independently books his own events, has done an amazing critique of the woes of stage performance pay and contracting.
Polygon said:
EA launched its Origin client in 2011, and demanded that we install it if we wanted to play Battlefield 3. Our collective Stockholm Syndrome for Steam kicked in en masse, and we rained hellfire on this ?greedy corporation? for its temerity.
No, pretty sure that's because Origin requires an internet connection whereas Steam does not, and Origin's features are limited by comparison. Not to mention that a lot of EA IPs, even indie titles, are held hostage to Origin, and EA is a shitty company as a whole for various reasons. My personal issues with EA as a company started when they removed in-client matchmaking for Battlefield 3, and started enclosing the maps and introducing mechanics that made it much more a twitch shooter than a tactical one. Good thing Planetside 2 is going strong, since that's more or less BFBC2 that's still updated.The other issue is that there have been multiple EA games with official server shutdowns only a few years after release. Any multiplayer game supported by Steam can be still played as multiplayer, dead communities notwithstanding.
Polygon said:
a forum post from two years ago
Oh my god, I'm dying. This is hardly worth mentioning as a point but holy shit, you can find something more credible than a forum post. If an opinion can be imagined, it exists on the internet. You can at least look for something that LOOKS credible to link to your article.
Polygon said:
Valve had all your information and was tracking your data, but it would be wrong for other companies to do so.
This is the second time I've seen this mentioned. Source that says Steam is spyware, please?
I get that your gameplay data is tracked and your saves are kept in a cloud, but I'd like to see anything that says that they're monitoring save data in any way or are somehow distributing gameplay analytics of private/hidden accounts.
Polygon said:
We were used to buying our PC games in stores, and we had recourse if they didn?t work. We could go talk to someone. Steam never provided that luxury, and it still doesn?t.
Pretty sure that Steam's human support staff is still human, and when a game bumps minimum requirements on you past what you can actually run the game at, you're entitled to a refund outside of the existing 14 days owned / 2 hours played window, which is enough to determine whether you want to refund a purchase anyways.
Polygon said:
Players began noting that was Valve was doing was wildly illegal, pointing out quite accurately that under European Union law, consumers were entitled to a refund on all purchases ? even for something as simple as changing their mind.
Because, logistically and legally, it's somehow easy to return money that's been sent to a publisher (if not indie), developer, and Valve themselves. What happens if a refund request is made and only one or two parties agree that it should be given? Do you give a partial refund again? Do you force the parties that do agree to pay more? Do you force the third party to shell out too in a majority-wins situation? Google's having the same issue with monetary distribution of ad revenue to various networks and content creators because, frankly, companies generally can't afford to have dedicated digital rights lawyers on their payrolls, especially given that not many lawyers are dedicated to that field.
Polygon said:
Valve, backed into a corner and hissing like a cat that doesn't want to go to the vet, pulled out all the stops to avoid providing the required financial information ? to the point where a seemingly infuriated and exasperated Judge Edelman blasted Valve for ?overkill? and issued the most politely worded legalese version of ?go to hell? that anybody has ever committed to paper.
From what I'm reading in this, Valve didn't want this information public because they believed it would sway public opinion and thus make the ruling on them biased- that if people saw that Valve was highly profitable they'd push harder for refunds. This next part is just conjecture, but assuming that Valve wanted to avoid further financial/logistical/legal issues, it's fully within their right to not release information, as the public has no inherent right to the affairs of a private company, so long as they're legal, and the word "confidential" means that the information is only withheld from the public, not from authorities, which is the wording that the article Polygon's link uses.
Polygon said:
Even when Valve finally did get around to launching a refund program [...], many people quite accurately and angrily observed that the default refund option was in Steam credit
I've returned money to my bank from a refunded purchase before. It can be done, meaning that this argument completely falls through the floor. "The default option" isn't "the only option".
Polygon said:
Valve said:
European law principally provides a right of withdrawal on software sales. However, it can be and typically is excluded for boxed software that has been opened and for digitally provided content once it has been made available to the end user. This is what happens when you make a transaction on Steam: The EU statutory right of withdrawal ends the moment the content and services are added to your account.
At the same time, Steam voluntarily offers refunds to all of its customers worldwide in a way that is much more customer-friendly than our legal obligations.
TL;DR: "Most publishers on our platform do not support the EU's refund policy, and we don't want to deal with the legal shit of forcing them to accept these laws on our platform, so instead we make them accept our own, identical refund policy which we can make them agree to without raising any legal or ethical concerns."
Besides, didn't you literally just say that this was illegal? Why is Valve claiming, then, that digital products are exempt from this? Doesn't this violate your earlier point?
Polygon said:
But in the world of Good Guy Valve we give that marketing away, for free, to a billion-dollar corporation every year (sometimes twice a year, if he asks nicely), doing our bit to help that corporation make more money during a sale event.
So it's Valve's fault that Valve is a meme and they're evil for being it? I literally don't understand the justification behind this point. Can someone explain the logic here?
Polygon said:
Valve themselves eagerly trumpeted that they had paid more than $57 million to Steam Workshop creators over four years ? an enormously impressive figure until you realize that it's only 25 percent of the sale price, which means Valve just made $171 million profit from ... setting up an online form where you can submit finished 3D models.
I thought CSGO was only like $20 and Dota 2 is free, so these games were very specifically set up on their MTX systems, which have worked to enormous success. So that $171 million Polygon's claiming goes to a form alone, ignoring that these modelers are getting paid massive amounts of money on MTXs for a game in which they played no part of the development process? K.
Polygon said:
This is called ?speculative work? in the industry and it's hugely frowned upon as exploitative and unjust.
I feel bad for whoever thinks that they'd actually make a living off of this. Valve's not going around to designers telling them to spend their hard-earned time and effort to make models for a fraction of the fees. They're not trying to convince to-be grifters to sell knives door-to-door for a commission fee. Art's a labor of love, and people make fan work all the time for various things. This encourages that work and gives it a chance to pay off. I'm sure Valve isn't sourcing out their game to the community to develop in its entirety like Unreal Tournament is doing.
Polygon said:
We emailed Valve for a comment on this issue before publishing the story, and have yet to hear back. After all, if you don't say anything, you can't tell a lie to the internet, right?
It's generally a matter of journalistic integrity to leave "X has not responded to questioning." at that and that alone. It irks me to see them to go straight to assumptions as to why Valve hasn't responded.
Polygon said:
A company which will spend what has to be millions on legal fees to avoid having to pay you $15 in refunds, but which isn't ?evil.?
Seems unfair to be accusing Valve of opinions based on a policy decision that was changed two years ago to the consumer's favor, especially since that $15 in refunds assumes (A) you're the only person asking for a game refund in the entire world, (B) you're refunding a single game, and (C) Valve's ability to refund at the time was unanimously supported by the developer and publisher of the game.
I do think that the undercutting of Dota 2 content creators was a massive mistake and something Valve shouldn't have ever considered doing. That was certainly shitty. But I'm hoping that the community keeps them in line with this as they have with paid mods, and that Valve's occasional rough patch in their overhead decisions get better.
But no. Since you can play your games offline, if you've got your digital games backed up in an external hard drive, they're yours to play FOREVER without question. The only time you can't is if you wanted to play multiplayer or the game was multiplayer-only and the servers went down, and even then Valve still supports LAN play after Blizzard (under the oversight of Activision), once king of the LAN party, has now given that up entirely due to claimed anti-piracy concerns. Valve is not spyware. Valve's 30% cut is fair. Valve's 75% cut for Dota 2 and CSGO items are fair, though the means of distributing those microtransactions since 2016 has been really shitty and I hope they fix it.