(STEAM) Am I the only one?

[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.

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.

I'm probably off by the numbers but there was certainly a noticeable drop after the eula update, I checked on it a couple days after it happened and there was a drop off from the day before it to the 2 days after.

 

[kortin]

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.

Not really, no. They're two different occurrences. No one ever HAS to sue anyone. Ever. I blame the mere existence on human idiocy. A fire kind of just happens.

 

[DEAD34345]

I accepted it without even reading it. I'm fairly certain that clauses in TOS which state the terms can be changed arbitrarily are invalid by law in England (making any changes they've made irrelevant), but even disregarding that, Valve and Steam have no real power over their customers in the first place. The worst they can do is unfairly take their sold games away from people, but the fact is that those games could be easily re-obtained at no cost anyway (and I doubt many would consider it immoral in this case, since the games were originally owned and paid for). All that would happen is that Valve would lose future income from the customer, and probably take a massive PR hit in the process.

 

[Vigormortis]

Well, seeing as if I ever need to sue Valve I would actually rather it be done in small claims court...AND on Valve's dime....the new TOS/EULA honestly didn't mean a damn thing to me.

So, you're not the only one OP, but you're certainly in a very, very, VERY small minority.

 

[Keltrick]

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.

No, not everyone votes, but its still not right to tell someone they can't. Not everyone owns a gun, but a lot of people feel its wrong to tell someone you can't. There are a lot of things I'll never do in my lifetime, but I sure as hell don't want to give up my right to. I'll probably never adopt a child for various reasons, but if any contract, from anyone with the power to deny me that, had it as a line in the fine print, you should count on me not signing away that right.

People have to weight their beliefs. To you put more stock in a considerable investment in games, or something you deem to be a personal right. Each person can decide differently whats worth more, but you can stand up for a right on principle and it means no less than if you wanted to sue them.

 

[Lilani]

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?

You do realize that TOS's and EULAs have a very poor history of actually holding up in court, don't you? It's so unofficial and arbitrary that they are rarely considered as serious as a contract. I mean think about it--no witness required, and no notary needed?

And even if that's true, you also realize they can't sue you either, right? So unless you think you want to sue them sometime, there really isn't much to worry about here. I accepted it, because I believe the chances of my wanting to sue Steam is next to nil, and if they did something that was actually illegal I know I would still be able to pursue criminal charges.

 

[LetalisK]

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?

....why? Really, what do you get out of it? I understand not purchasing any more games through them, but cancelling your account is just cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

[Signa]

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.

Where did you find that? This whole TOS blackmail thing has pissed me off because it's so unlike the Valve I've grown to love. However, this text you posted sounds like the Valve that I trust. I haven't been entirely up in arms about this because I figured Valve just wants to cover their ass from any punk who has a grievance, and this pretty much confirms they aren't interested in screwing over the non-punks that have a legitimate reason to be pissed.

 

[Tony2077]

with the amount of money I've put into the games on there, there is nothing they can do that will make do something stupid to lose them all

 

[Jamash]

The worst they can do is unfairly take their sold games away from people

That's not strictly true.

The worst they can do isn't take any their sold games, they can take away physical games that someone's bought at retail in a transaction that has nothing to do with Valve or Steam whatsoever.

This is the only thing that bothers me about this development, because although I have no intention of suing Valve, I had to agree to the ELUA to retain access to about 20 or so games that I bought at retail and have the discs for, which I would be denied access to by a company that had no part in their purchase.

Losing access to games you bought on Steam is fair enough, but potentially losing access to games that were bought at retail from the publisher via the distributor is a bit of a bitter pill to swallow when the company in the position to take away your games has never had any financial stake or interest in those purchases... or even a geographical connection to, I mean why should an American company control my access to a game developed in Turkey, published by a Swedish publisher, produced and distributed in Europe and sold in the UK?

I understand this is one of the bugbears of DRM and I can accept losing access to games if you've slighted the developer or publisher of those games, but it's not good that someone could potentially lose access to games they've bought at retail if they don't agree to the conditions dictated by someone who isn't the developer, publisher, retailer or distributor and who's service they don't even use, except for it being DRM bundled with the installer.

In cases of retail games, it's the publisher who is using Steam's service, not the customer and so it should be the publisher who is bound by the Steam Service Agreement and who should lose access to that game having DRM, not the customer who loses access to the game entirely.

I don't know for sure, but there are probably hacks and cracks that could allow you to bypass the Steam requirement for most games, but someone shouldn't have to go to those measures and perform actions of questionable legality to play games they've bought at retail and have the discs for.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I don't really care about the new TOS because I would never waste my time (or money) with a frivolous lawsuit anyway.

 

[targren]

What you did was stupid and you didn't think it through. Do you plan on suing Valve anytime soon?

No, but I also don't plan on giving them free reign to adopt even MORE abusive terms and being left with no recourse for it. All this pap about "Class action lawsuits only benefit the lawyers" misses one important point. They're not supposed to profit the victims, they're supposed to *punish badly behaving businesses.* Valve's new TOS basically tells me that they don't want the Sword of Damocles hanging over their head making them act properly.

Also, I don't believe you for a second.

I'd link you directly to the ticket, but it's hidden behind my login.

(Please forgive the selection of the wrong subcategory. There is none that matches this issue, and the system would not let me proceed without one)

In response to the change in the Terms of Service section 12


From (http://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/ as of 2012-08-01 14:05 EDT)
"12. DISPUTE RESOLUTION/BINDING ARBITRATION/CLASS ACTION WAIVER.

YOU AND VALVE AGREE TO RESOLVE ALL DISPUTES AND CLAIMS BETWEEN US IN INDIVIDUAL BINDING ARBITRATION. THAT INCLUDES, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO, ANY CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO: (i) ANY ASPECT OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN US; (ii) THIS AGREEMENT; OR (iii) YOUR USE OF STEAM, YOUR ACCOUNT OR THE SOFTWARE. IT APPLIES REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SUCH CLAIMS ARE BASED IN CONTRACT, TORT, STATUTE, FRAUD, UNFAIR COMPETITION, MISREPRESENTATION OR ANY OTHER LEGAL THEORY."

Also, the section stating that Valve may, at their option, provide "standalone" copies of purchased games on cancellation has been removed.

While this may be technically legal, it is still, in my feeling, a sleazy thing to do and I do not want to agree to it. As such, I recognize that my sole option is to terminate my Steam account.

(From the same document)
"Valve may amend this Agreement (including any Subscription Terms or Rules of Use) at any time in its sole discretion. If Valve amends the Agreement, such amendment shall be effective thirty (30) days after your receiving notice of the amended Agreement, either via e-mail or as a notification within the Software. You can view the Agreement at any time at http://www.steampowered.com/. Your failure to cancel your Account, or cease use of the Subscription(s) affected by the amendment, within thirty (30) days after receiving notification of the amendment, will constitute your acceptance of the amended terms. *If you don't agree to the amendments or to any of the terms in this Agreement, your only remedy is to cancel your Account* or to cease use of the affected Subscription(s). Valve shall not have any obligation to refund any fees that may have accrued to your Account before cancellation of your Account or cessation of use of any Subscription, nor shall Valve have any obligation to prorate any fees in such circumstances. "


What I would like to know is this: Will Valve, for the sake of fairness and goodwill, honor the previous version of the TOS that I *did* agree to and exercise their option to provide me with "standalone" copies of the games I've purchased?

Hello [My Name],

Thank you for contacting Steam Support.

Valve is a customer oriented company and we value our community. If you feel like you have a claim that you need to bring against Valve you can do that under the new SSA. We've just adopted better, more efficient ways to do so that will mutually benefit our customers and Valve.

On Steam, whenever a customer is unhappy with any transaction, our first goal is to resolve things as quickly as possible through the normal customer support process. In instances in which we can't resolve a dispute, our new SSA includes the option to use the consumer arbitration process. It's specifically designed to efficiently resolve consumer claims. The arbitration can be conducted online, by telephone, or in person if you prefer. If your claim is under $10,000 Valve will reimburse your expenses, provided that the arbitrator does not determine the claim to be frivolous or the costs unreasonable.

You can read more about the arbitration process here:

http://www.adr.org/aaa/faces/aoe/gc/consumer?_afrLoop=683404638704073&_afrWindowMode=0&_afrWindowId=145jk19r1e_1#%40%3F_afrWindowId%3D145jk19r1e_1%26_afrLoop%3D683404638704073%26_afrWindowMode%3D0%26_adf.ctrl-state%3D145jk19r1e_42

Arbitration is a good option. If you don't want to arbitrate for some reason, you can still bring your case in your local small claims court.

However, in arbitration and in small claims court, we agree that you will bring your own case on your own behalf, not as a class action case.

Restricting class action claims was a choice that we considered very carefully. In far too many cases class actions don't provide any real benefit to users and instead impose unnecessary expense and delay, and are often designed to mostly benefit the class action lawyers who craft and litigate these claims.

Here is our blog post that describes our thinking:

http://store.steampowered.com/news/8523/

We are not restricting your right to bring a claim against Valve. The SSA also does not prevent you from bringing your grievance to the attention of any federal, state, or local government agencies that can, if the law allows, seek relief from us for you.

Thanks for reading through our thoughts on these updates and for your continued use of Steam.

With all due respect, I do not need a civics lesson. I am well aware of what arbitration is, and what class action lawsuits are. Therefore, I do NOT agree that I waive my right to bring or join a class action. As such, I am exercising the only method allowed to me by the last version of the TOS(or SSA) that I agreed to, to express my disagreement with what I consider to be the onerous terms of the new TOS, and that is to cancel my Steam account. I am aware that this will remove my access to the games I have "purchased" from your online store/service, but I'm not left with another choice. I will not agree to the new terms as long as they require me to waive any rights to bring meaningful action in the case of Valve's wrongdoing. I cannot take it on good faith that it's simply "legal boilerplate" or "standard," because good sense says that one should always assume every term in a contract is there because it will be exercised.

Therefore, I ask again, please cancel my Steam account. I am well within the notification period, and I have uninstalled the Steam client from my computer with the new SSA not agreed to.


On a pragmatic note, when trying to craft an image of "a customer oriented company that values your community," might I humbly suggest that taking moves out of the playbook of cell phone providers may not be a step in the right direction.

 

[Kargathia]

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

Only in Europe - in the US law and jurisprudence agree with them.

OT: I'd be hard-pressed to come up with any circumstance where I'd be bothered enough to sue them. That, combined with the fact that there's a 50/50 chance that when tested in a Dutch court this clause will get thrown out, made me sign the damn thing without really caring too much.

I do note though that I disagree with their statements of it being in the best interest of their customers: it is not.

 

[triggrhappy94]

There's a new ToS?
I only ever go on for Company of Heroes, and I don't really need Steam to launch it.

 

[Solo-Wing]

[sub]I always thought the TOS was that long, boring, wall of text that everybody immediately scrolled to the bottom of to click "Agree."[/sub]

I want to bring up the Human Cent-iPad episode from South Park here... >w>

I personally believe we should boycott them. Just no more purchasing games. Whenever people want to sway the opinion of a large company they should go for the place it hurts most. The wallet.

 

[Phlakes]

This is literally every ToS ever. The only difference is someone along the way decided to make a big deal out of it (maybe not even intentionally) and then everyone blew it way out of proportion for some reason.

Seriously, not a single one of you would care about this if it didn't show up on Reddit or whatever. And not in a public-empowering awareness way, in a "corpurations r evul" way.

Now I think this is a little appropriate-

 

[Pink Gregory]

[sub]I always thought the TOS was that long, boring, wall of text that everybody immediately scrolled to the bottom of to click "Agree."[/sub]

I want to bring up the Human Cent-iPad episode from South Park here... >w>

I personally believe we should boycott them. Just no more purchasing games. Whenever people want to sway the opinion of a large company they should go for the place it hurts most. The wallet.

Valve, or indeed any large corporation, aren't going to radically change their business model due to a boycott, even a large, organised one.

The problem isn't with ONLY Steam at all, although being the market leader in digital game distribution, they have a large part.

The problem is still DRM simply not being effective against what it's supposed to prevent, the unfortunate truth is that piracy cannot be prevented, there's always going to be a minority of entitled little fucks who believe that they shouldn't have to pay for anything, ever; Valve's (or anyone else's) investors and shareholders are probably not going to accept that fact, EVER, so pretty much everyone loses; either development costs need to come down so drastically so that a few sales can afford to be lost to piracy without the developer/publisher spiralling into massive debt if sales don't make over 15 million or whatever (if anyone accepts that it can't be entirely prevented), or the impossibility of preventing piracy is accepted across the board.

Of course, the larger corporations need an incentive other than money, and for a large corporation there is no incentive other than money.

TLR - the problem isn't just with Steam, any amount of boycotting will effect no change without massive change in the incentives of who runs the industry.

 

[targren]

No offense, but thats straight up stupid, were you planning on suing steam? if not you just lost the worth of the games for nothing in return.

I'm sorry, but it's not "straight up stupid." There's a difference between "planning" to do something and keeping the option to do something, particularly when the "something" in question is the single punitive action that encourages companies to behave themselves. That's like saying it's stupid for a company to disband its army because its neighbor told them to, even though the country in question has no plans to invade.

You say I got nothing in return: you're wrong. Firstly, I was proven right about Valve and Steam[footnote]Seriously, check my posting history. I've always said that if they changed their TOS to something obnoxious, you were screwed if you don't like it. Go figure they do it right after I decide to think I might have been wrong about them.[/footnote]. That's not a lot, but it's not nothing, and it's a little depressing, too.

Furthermore, I also get to tell them "Fuck you" when they tried to further unbalance the playing field in their own favor. Part of the reason we, as consumers, constantly keep being forced to eat shit is because of attitudes like the ones saying my decision is "stupid" or "wrong." ("Not worth it," while a little sad IMO, is perfectly valid.) In order to keep their shinies, too many people are willing to just bend over when a company pulls the "I'm altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further," card to remind us of just who's boss.

This is literally every ToS ever. The only difference is someone along the way decided to make a big deal out of it (maybe not even intentionally) and then everyone blew it way out of proportion for some reason.

In this case, you're actually wrong about that. Until VERY recently, terms like this weren't often in user agreements, and if they were, they were very often shot down by the courts. What's changed is that, a few weeks ago, SCOTUS decided that this garbage was OK. So this is still a NEW development, so NOW is the time to make noise about it, before it becomes a "standard."

 

[00slash00]

um, last month steam sold me over 30 games and only charged me like a hundred or so dollars. i cannot justify leaving steam anytime soon

 

[Ganath]

Well, seeing has I apparently have 188 games on steam I'mma go ahead and say.

Nope, Nope, Nope, N--

OT: Not sure if that ToS thingie holds much ground in Europe. Even if it did, I've never even imagined suing anyone. I guess what I mean is, this ToS doesn't bother me one bit, neither did anything Origin pulled though.