(STEAM) Am I the only one?

[DoPo]

So....

What is the worst steam can do with the ToS?

Prevent you from playing your games and you wont have a counter measure? I cant see them doing anything worse than that with the power they have.

Soooooooo.... you decided to not give them that option.... by doing the worst possible scenario... to yourself....

Oh my god, I laughed so hard at this. "No, I will not let the really unlikely scenario of being deprived of my games come to pass. I will just force it on myself. That'll show them!"

 

[Signa]

I'm honestly tempted just to stick to my guns, but that would be the only benefit to doing so. Fact is, Valve has never done anything that made me even think that they deserved some form of retribution or punishment from a lawsuit. If this clause is a safety net so they can start, well, I'll just stop buying so many games. I've got plenty to last me forever.

 

[Rheinmetall]

You did the right thing. Seriously I wish all consumers were like you, actually reading the terms of the agreement that they electronically signed, and have the guts to say no to any blackmail.
Sadly I didn't show the same self-respect and didn't cancel my Steam account because I have three games bound with Steam that I would like to play some time in the future and I have given enough money to buy them, actually ignoring the fact that they are on Steam. I swear in the name of Solid Snake, the back cover of Elder Scrolls 5 didn't write anywhere that this game is on Steam. Otherwise I wouldn't buy it because I boycott Steam and every other DRM service. The other two is: Civilization V and Duke Nukem Forever at a time that I didn't even know what Steam is.

 

[chimeracreator]

You do realize that TOS and EULAs and whatnot are completely toothless, right?

Not true, while EULAs might not have much force in general courts have upheld contracts including TOS and EULA agreements that require arbitration rather than lawsuits as a dispute resolution mechanism so long as the arbiters are not unduly biased. To be honest courts like this a lot because arbitration costs a lot less and frees up their time for more serious issues.

Likewise Valve's agreement, which I did read through is pretty cookie cutter in that regard. If anything it is a bit more generous than some others because they agree to compensate you for the cost up to a certain reasonable amount so overall it seems fair. Here's the relevant text on the subject.

The AAA will administer the arbitration. It may be conducted through the submission of documents, by phone, or in person in the county where you live or at another mutually agreed location.

If you seek $10,000 or less, Valve agrees to reimburse your filing fee and your share of the arbitration costs, including your share of arbitrator compensation, at the conclusion of the proceeding, unless the arbitrator determines your claims are frivolous or costs are unreasonable as determined by the arbitrator. Valve agrees not to seek its attorneys' fees or costs in arbitration unless the arbitrator determines your claims are frivolous or costs are unreasonable as determined by the arbitrator. If you seek more than $10,000, the arbitration costs, including arbitrator compensation, will be split between you and Valve according to the AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules and the AAA's Supplementary Procedures for Consumer Related Disputes, if applicable.

So what does this mean:

1. For customers in the US the arbiter is a member of the American Arbitration Association and not someone working for Valve thus ensuring they are a neutral third party.

2. While most Valve customers in the US do not live in King County, Washington they can file these documents through means other than in person.

3. If you seek less than $10,000 Valve will cover your filing fee and your share of the arbitration cost so long as you aren't trying to pass of frivolous or fake costs to just screw them over. This happens after the proceedings end, but arbitration is a lot faster than civil trials so as long as you don't try to drag it out it should be over within a month or two.


So all and all I don't see the issue. The primary cause of action for any customer would be a game that didn't work or if their account was banned and if they either wanted it reinstated or wanted a refund for their purchases. Unless you're seeking a refund of over $10,000 then Valve will cover the cost of the entire process once it's over. That seems fair to me.

 

[Dogstile]

I'm going to accept, but it annoys me. I don't like how they can change their agreement and I have to hop to their tune or lose the 40 or so games i have on steam.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

Congrats on standing up for what you believe in!

 

[Worgen]

I have too many games on it to cancel it but your not the only one, the number of concurrent steam users per day dropped like half a million since the eula update. I had seen regular numbers of like 4,800,000 before it and since the update the most at once seems to be like 4,323,706.

 

[ChildishLegacy]

So to boycott them over their new ToS, you're going to not play the games you've already bought off them? You're going to deny yourself of the things you have already bought at no expense to them whatsoever? Way to send a message.

I swear people do this stuff just because they like to cause hassle and feel in the right, there is no good reason whatsoever to do this, if you disagree with it you can just stop buying games but cancelling your account (you could actually fucking sell it!) is just ridiculous.

I'm also willing to bet you've never filed a class action lawsuit, and never will. Why does everybody have to be so extreme about games? Just relax a bit.

 

[Nalgas D. Lemur]

I have too many games on it to cancel it but your not the only one, the number of concurrent steam users per day dropped like half a million since the eula update. I had seen regular numbers of like 4,800,000 before it and since the update the most at once seems to be like 4,323,706.

That number increased by a fairly significant amount during and shortly after the summer sale before starting to return to normal again. I don't have anything handy to cite, but it wasn't anywhere close to 4.8 million a month ago. I highly doubt that he's the only one, but I'd be equally surprised if that were the reason the number of people online at once had dropped, rather than that one of the biggest yearly game sale events in the world has just ended.

 

[Project_Xii]

Are you serious? You can't be serious. Is he serious? Jesus Christ, people are actually doing this? Did you REALLY do this, or were you just looking to see what kind of reaction we'd have to people stupid enough to do this kind of thing? I doubt you'd do it. No one would willingly throw their money and games away for some self righteous ideal of non-existent internet justice.

The main point of the new ToS seems to state that "you will take up all issues with us and not a third party law institution". Which means if you get banned, you talk to Steam. Chances are if you got banned, you were being a dick in a game, or attempting to do something dodgy. So the easy choice here is: don't be a dick or be dodgy. That seems incredibly hard for some people to do, I know, but I don't feel pity for things they reap upon themselves. Failing all this, Valve has the right to do whatever they want. Like any company you use a service with for as long as digital services have been around.

This really is nothing new. Origin has it. Xbox live has it. PSN has it. Any digital distribution service has it. Quit sitting in front of your computer screen like some kind of digital white knight, fighting for peoples rights for things you'll never probably need to worry about in your own lifetime anyway, and just play some damn games. I swear a large portion of gamers have degenerated into internet detectives who scrutinize the industry for anything possible to whinge about, and only actually play one or two games a year. And they probably have the nerve to pick on the casuals!

 

[Fr]anc[is]

I swear in the name of Solid Snake, the back cover of Elder Scrolls 5 didn't write anywhere that this game is on Steam.

I'm looking at my copy right now and it's got a red box right above the system requirements. Does yours not have that? Not calling you out or trying to be an ass, just curious.

 

[TheCommanders]

This is one of the things that worries me about steam. They haven't done anything bad yet. Even this ToS isn't any more drastic than anything any other company has done. The thing is... it's like if, say a toy company sold toys. Only the toys had strings tied around them that lead back to the toy manufacturer. The toys are awesome, and the strings never get in the way to much, but one day the toy manufacturer says you have to buy the items you have on layaway, or they're going to use those strings and take all the toys you already bought. You didn't really want the toys on layaway anyway so you let them go. Later, they say that they require you to fill out customer satisfaction forms for each toy you bought, or they will again, use the strings. Do you see how quickly this could start to go downhill. Steam, and by extension Valve own your games. They can do whatever they want with your games, and now, you can't even sue them if you think what they've done is unfair. I'm not saying Valve plans on abusing their capacity to screw us over, the fact that they could so easily is quite frightening. My advice? Don't put your eggs all in one basket, no matter how nice the basket looks.

 

[Darren716]

Um you do know that you could have just rounded up some people, boycott steam, and ask Valve to change the ToS and they might of actually changed it. Also where you actually planning on suing Valve in the near future? If you aren't then you just deleted probably a few hundred dollars worth of games for no reason.

 

[Radelaide]

I fail to see why everyone is getting upset? Seriously... What memo did I miss? I've read the whole "Oh, we'll cancel your account" thing and I can understand why they'd do that. You don't agree to their service, why would you keep using it?

Captcha: "If It Fits"

 

[octafish]

I know, I know. "You're never the only one." But this time, it actually feels like I'm the only schmuck out there who bit the bullet and cancelled[footnote]Rather, I'm in the process of trying to.[/footnote] my Steam account rather than agree to the onerous new TOS?

Eh, I signed up to Origin, and I knew this was coming to Steam. It is just the new laws US corporations have after frivolous litigants took AT&T to court and lost. I'm still blaming the US Supreme Court and the US Court System in general. Things shouldn't have gone that far.

Aside from the Class Action thing which should make no difference to UK residents (not applicable to them) and EU residents (No Class Actions in the EU for anyone, ever), the EULA is just Steam covering themselves for idiots doing what idiots do (Steam is no longer responsible for private information that users give out about themselves on Steam Chat, fair enough) and clarifying ownership for UK/EU users, (ownership starts when the game hits your library, not when you download it).

In short I can't see myself joining a Class Action Suit against Steam, although my lawyer friends say that if you were going to that much effort there is a good chance you could get the case heard here in Australia. The same lawyers also say that an organized mass of individual cases of arbitration would cost any company more than any Class Action ever could.

 

[Something Amyss]

I love the "I don't plan to sue Valve" responses. It's kind of like saying "I don't need insurance because I don't plan to have a fire."

Regardless, I agreed to the ToU, mostly because it almost certainly won't hold in court for long.

 

[Something Amyss]

So to boycott them over their new ToS, you're going to not play the games you've already bought off them? You're going to deny yourself of the things you have already bought at no expense to them whatsoever? Way to send a message.

Having a large user base is one of the things they count on. Continuing to play their games, even if you've already bought them, benefits them.

no self restraint, I swear.

 

[cerebus23]

as far as i read this was simply valve doing what everyone in the industry does before someone decided to sue them over their development times or something silly.

its called covering your bases and not leaving yourself wide open to some laywers to come in and gut the entire company because some people on steam have a hissy fit over something and sue.

go ahead and cancel your account if your so offended i am sure valve will not miss you or the 5 other people that have some moral outrage over this right you were never going to use anyway.

 

[elvor0]

I love the "I don't plan to sue Valve" responses. It's kind of like saying "I don't need insurance because I don't plan to have a fire."

Regardless, I agreed to the ToU, mostly because it almost certainly won't hold in court for long.

You still have to choose to sue valve to be fair. A fire just sort of happens, besides you're more likely to have a fire than you are to have a reason to /sue/ valve. Sure I expect a situation may arise where you attempt a refund or have to take an issue up with customer service, but I doubt you're ever going to need to sue them.

 

[kortin]

I'm going to accept, but it annoys me. I don't like how they can change their agreement and I have to hop to their tune or lose the 40 or so games i have on steam.

Yeah, kind of shitty, that.

I've been slightly worried about valve as of late (yes, yes, I saw that video TB made, but the worry was already forming before that), I'd say a good 90% of my current games all use steam, and if something were to happen to my account, I'd lose them all. That and the mere fact that 90% of my games use Steam. That alone is scary enough.

Other than that, no, I won't be cancelling my account any time soon...