(STEAM) Am I the only one?

[targren]

I think it's not just bad style, it's poor decision making and actually loathsome to bite the hand that feeds you, even if it's just games. Sure, in return, I think the provider/publisher that tries to feed us bs or cast earthbind upon me as I decide to fly, fly away to rain money on some other provider is just as guilty of being a prick.

Ah, there lies the difference in philosophy then. I will never, EVER consider any company that doesn't actually pay me to be "the hand that feeds me." As their customer, *I* am one of the hands that feeds *them.* If Valve (or EA, or the entire video game industry for that matter) went out of business tomorrow, the difference that would make in my life would be marginal, at best. I don't know if you're older than I am, and can remember a time when companies actually valued and earned customer loyalty, or if you're younger and just haven't yet learned that they don't actually give a damn about you any further than where you keep your wallet.

I hate EA with gusto, and I only keep my Origin account to let it rot... but I don't think you can compare any game publisher to phone-plan-peddling folks. It's like comparing car salesmen to drug dealers, really.

Except it's a perfectly valid comparison, since it was the scumbags at the Cell Phone companies who hoisted this "mandatory arbitration" on us in the first place.

 

[targren]

[
It is just the new laws US corporations have after frivolous litigants took AT&T to court and lost.

You might want to stop parroting that lie. The fact is that AT&T is the one that lost, repeatedly, and THEY are the ones who appealed it all the way to SCOTUS.

 

[Stormz]

You know, I was starting to dislike Steam less and then they reverse my opinion completely. If I was a pirate I wouldn't even be effected by this because my games would be DRM free always.

oh well.

 

[octafish]

[
It is just the new laws US corporations have after frivolous litigants took AT&T to court and lost.

You might want to stop parroting that lie. The fact is that AT&T is the one that lost, repeatedly, and THEY are the ones who appealed it all the way to SCOTUS.

Shit, I had gotten turned around on this by others peddling the lie. I'm happy to be corrected.

I got taken to task a couple of times for blaming AT&T and the Supreme Court. Rather than depending on hearsay like I did, I've now checked. My initial response is correct. AT&T and the SCOTUS are to blame fair and square.

 

[Bostur]

I tip my hat to you, in recognition of your commitment to your principles. Personally I took the lazy way out and did what I always do, assumed that it has no practical relevance. I don't think I have seen a TOS or EULA for a long time that I could agree with. Around here laws are made by politicians and even fancy international companies need to abide by them.

 

[TimeLord]

What's the big deal with the new ToS? And even if they are stupidly restrictive, I've spent way too much money to give up my Steam account.

I've ony ever had one problem with Steam, and they sorted out my problem in a day. I have no beef with them

 

[Vivi22]

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.

Actually, there is usually some question of just how neutral an arbiter actually is. They're typically selected by the company, and while in this case their fees are paid by both parties, the fact that Valve will reimburse you for them means that they're basically paying the fees entirely which is often the case anyway. Now if you're opponent is selecting the arbiter (which many companies do) and is being paid by them, do you bite the hand that feeds you? There have been some arbiters that have been black balled by corporations because they sided against them a little too often. Arbitration is not inherently neutral, nor does one have any recourse if the arbiter decides against them, as they would if their case went to court. And the proceedings are never public as they are in a court of law.

Now I'm not saying that Valve would be actively involved in the shadier aspects of arbitration which some companies do actively engage in. In fact, I genuinely think that they would not only not involve themselves in it, but be actively opposed to it. But arbitration in place of litigation is neutral in neither fact nor appearance more often than not, and is absolutely an erosion of people's rights.

That said, I agreed to the terms in this case, in large part because I'm Canadian and I simply don't know if the arbitration clauses have been tested here. And regardless, the absolute worst thing Valve could do is shut down my account. So I lose quite a few games that I paid good money for over the years if that happens. It's not the end of the world and doesn't leave me out of pocket for anything right now since the only Steam games I play on a regular basis are Valve games.

Realistically, the amount the actual person would lose in such a situation isn't worth suing over since it will cost more than it would ever recover. The only time litigation would be useful would be if Valve simultaneously screwed over thousands of people at the same time in the same way, and I find that so unlikely that it's laughable.

 

[veloper]

Actually, the TS just might aswell BE "the only one" who would kill an entire Steam library of games.

I can understand when gamers take their future business elsewhere, but you still click accept.

 

[getoffmycloud]

I didn't cancel my account but I am not going to be buying from the service anymore

 

[MammothBlade]

It seems rather stupid to shut down your steam account just because you don't like the new ToS. You can't transfer your games, it's not like a bank account where they have to give you your money. Just stop buying games on steam if it bothers you that much, and make use of the ones you have. Their service, their rules. It's hardly slave labour you're agreeing to. They can't force you to buy anything.

I understand some people may be stubborn, but people don't leave that much personal info on steam. You can remove your credit card details. All that will be left if you choose to gut your account is records of your achievements, playtime, and games.

 

[Darkmantle]

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

A lot of people don't realize this. You cannot sign away your rights. At least not where I live, so the ToS usually ends up being useless.

 

[Kragg]

An am I the only one thread where the OP is actually the only one. I think I might faint.

such a fascinating development it actually made me smile

i wont cancel, though i only have 2 games on there. cause i saw the weirdness of having all your stuff being controlled by someone else. if they go super draconian, and sell your info to the devil or whatever everyone here will be stuck because they invested so much money into it and dont want to lose their stuff

 

[DRes82]

There are at least 9 billion humans on this Earth.

I'm pretty sure your not the only one.

Fuck that, there's not that many people on the planet yet. Can you imagine? 2 Billion MORE HUMANS? 9 billion has to be the tipping point. Zombies or plague or something.

Anyways, I'd say the OP is a rare breed. I sure as hell am not going to give up all the games I've purchased via steam on the off chance that something I do might conflict with their TOS.

 

[bafrali]

Such an overkill!!!


I don't think you would have much problem with the games you already have and content with(not to the extent of suing anyway).

I understand that it is a princible thing but you could surely buy no more games from steam as far as the solution goes rather than terminating your account and losing all the perfectly functuonal games.

If you have considered all the choices then i have got nothing to say but congratulate you for having the balls to stick to your principles.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

No you but I am not doing the same as you I am just trying to buy less games from Steam where possible and rebuying old ones from the likes of GoG.

 

[Rumpsteak]

Good sir and or madam, if I had been drinking I would have performed a spit take. The thought of how much I would lose by cancelling my steam account frightens me.

 

[NLS]

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.

Strange, at the back of my Skyrim cover it clearly says "REQUIRES INTERNET CONNECTION AND FREE STEAM ACCOUNT TO ACTIVATE" Followed by a notice that says that you are required to register the game with your Steam account and accept the Steam Subscriber Agreement, which it gives a link to and asks you to read through before you purchase, and that if you do not agree, you may return it unopened to your store.

 

[AD-Stu]

Disclaimer: I have no strong feelings one way or the other about Valve as a company. They've been largely irrelevant to my life as a gamer.

I've got bugger all games on Steam (all the ones I do have were either free or gifts - never spent a cent of my own money on there) and I haven't logged into it in months so I hadn't even realised this was happening. I'll probably agree to the new TOS when I finally do find a reason to log in because I've got nothing much to lose in either case.

What I find most interesting is how exactly they're applying a quirk of the American legal system to the entire world. Aside from that, from what I've just read it mostly sounds like it's a stupid law that needs to be fixed rather than something Valve should be blamed for.

Has anyone rooted around in the Origin ToS to see if it's got an equivalent clause?

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Change doesn't apply to me Being one of those dirty Euros, it turns out company's cannot take away our legal rights like they can with Americans (though I wonder if it would actually hold up if users genuinely brought a class action suit against them). eg. Would a judge or prosecuting lawyer conclude it's unlawful to bring the class action suit against them because it was forbidden in a EULA?

I don't understand how they can take away games you've already bought though. On the basis you purchased them under one set of conditions (which at the time both parties agreed to), which one party changed after the purchase. Any games bought prior to the change should continue to be made available under those conditions.

 

[Callate]

I didn't say no to Steam's new TOS, because it would effectively mean losing several hundred dollars worth of games. But I'll admit that I'm not happy with the new TOS, I'm disappointed in Valve for effecting it, and that agreeing to it makes me feel like a bit of a hypocrite.

The AT&T decision (on which basis Sony, EA, and now Valve have effected the "no class action suits" policies) ranks among the worst decisions made by this Supreme Court, which has made some doozies.

Valve argues that class action suits usually end up making a lot of money for the lawyers who bring them and very little for the claimants, and in that regard, they may have a point. But it's also true that sometimes such suits aren't entirely about bringing back a big award to those who pursue them; rather, they're the only effective way that individuals who can't bankroll legal teams on their own can bring to light when the behavior of large companies (who can and do keep lawyers on staff at all times) is deplorable, and needs to be addressed and if possible changed.

I'm more than a little unnerved that so many of the companies that have enacted these policies have done so after they've experienced major security breeches for which they might be found liable...

I will say, for what it's worth, that Valve's agreement to pay for legal costs related to arbitration still makes their policy a little better than some of the ones the likes of EA and Sony have tried to push. But I'm definitely unhappy with them.