(STEAM) Am I the only one?

[targren]

You know that the change they made is:

a) Probably illegal in most countries, and
b) Never going to come up anyway?

a) Not, unfortunately, in *this* country (the U.S.).
b) They don't seem to think you're right about this (otherwise they wouldn't have added it to the TOS), so why should I?

A far better solution would be to accept the new ToS and just stop buying new games on the account. I'm not saying be quiet about it, by any means. Sure, send their support guys a message. Say you will no longer be purchasing anything from them. But to just throw away a steam account seems silly.

Unfortunately, doing it your way DOES send a message: that you'll tolerate this kind of anti-consumer bullshit move. I personally think it's even MORE silly to gimp yourself and accept this sort of abuse for the sake of video games.

UPDATE: It took over a week of back-and-forth with support, but I finally got them to cancel the account. Valve can't be trusted, and now I'm done with them.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

You know that the change they made is:

a) Probably illegal in most countries, and
b) Never going to come up anyway?

a) Not, unfortunately, in *this* country (the U.S.).
b) They don't seem to think you're right about this (otherwise they wouldn't have added it to the TOS), so why should I?

a) Fair enough.
b) It's just good business. It's a "just in-case" thing.

A far better solution would be to accept the new ToS and just stop buying new games on the account. I'm not saying be quiet about it, by any means. Sure, send their support guys a message. Say you will no longer be purchasing anything from them. But to just throw away a steam account seems silly.

Unfortunately, doing it your way DOES send a message: that you'll tolerate this kind of anti-consumer bullshit move. I personally think it's even MORE silly to gimp yourself and accept this sort of abuse for the sake of video games.

Maybe in crazy land, it does. They don't care if you throw away your account, they only care if you keep giving them money. Don't cut your nose off to spite your face. Keep the games you have and just stop purchasing from them and, as I very clearly stated, let them know this.

But you can be insane if you want.

 

[Waaghpowa]

It's no worry to me as TOS's and EULA's don't hold up very well.

I do wonder if the $100 Ouya is going to smash them all anyway.

I'm all for the Ouya, and what it represents as an open platform, but don't expect too much from it. Afterall it's running the hardware equivalent of a decent tablet or high end smartphone.

 

[Smithburg]

Well you can disagree to new terms of service, then take it to court to get your games back. The law states you have to abide the terms you agreed with at the time of purchase, if they change it it's considered taking your purchases hostage.

Also, what did you disagree with? Because many people are disagreeing with the new terms not knowing the part they disagreed with has been the same for years.

 

[targren]

b) They don't seem to think you're right about this (otherwise they wouldn't have added it to the TOS), so why should I?

b) It's just good business. It's a "just in-case" thing.

So let me get this straight. It's "good business" for them to block the single effective deterrent to misbehavior "just in case" but it's "crazy" for me, as the other party in the SAME business, to object to that unless I actively planned a lawsuit? Your reasoning is hypocritical, at best.

Maybe in crazy land, it does. They don't care if you throw away your account, they only care if you keep giving them money. Don't cut your nose off to spite your face. Keep the games you have and just stop purchasing from them and, as I very clearly stated, let them know this.

But you can be insane if you want.

Your borderline-flamebait ad hominem notwithstanding, you're clearly missing the point. My entire objection is that I don't want to be bound by unacceptable contract terms. So, by your reasoning, the "smart" thing to do is to agree to be bound by those terms so that I can keep playing a few video games? If that were true, then there would be no reason to stop giving them money, either. That's completely ridiculous, especially since canceling my account carries the CERTAINTY of my not giving them any more money, AS WELL as protecting me from their obnoxious contract terms, while your way, they chalk it up to "typical gamer butthurt" that will be forgotten during the next big Steam sale.

I don't think I'm the one out of touch with reality here.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

b) They don't seem to think you're right about this (otherwise they wouldn't have added it to the TOS), so why should I?

b) It's just good business. It's a "just in-case" thing.

So let me get this straight. It's "good business" for them to block the single effective deterrent to misbehavior "just in case" but it's "crazy" for me, as the other party in the SAME business, to object to that unless I actively planned a lawsuit? Your reasoning is hypocritical, at best.

It's good business for them to force you into arbitration which is typically more corporation friendly than an actual lawsuit.

Maybe in crazy land, it does. They don't care if you throw away your account, they only care if you keep giving them money. Don't cut your nose off to spite your face. Keep the games you have and just stop purchasing from them and, as I very clearly stated, let them know this.

But you can be insane if you want.

Your borderline-flamebait ad hominem notwithstanding, you're clearly missing the point. My entire objection is that I don't want to be bound by unacceptable contract terms. So, by your reasoning, the "smart" thing to do is to agree to be bound by those terms so that I can keep playing a few video games? If that were true, then there would be no reason to stop giving them money, either. That's completely ridiculous, especially since canceling my account carries the CERTAINTY of my not giving them any more money, AS WELL as protecting me from their obnoxious contract terms, while your way, they chalk it up to "typical gamer butthurt" that will be forgotten during the next big Steam sale.

I don't think I'm the one out of touch with reality here.

If you cancel your account, then you'll have no reason in the future to sue these people. By cancelling your account, you're cutting all ties with a company so you can... interact with them further because of some unspecified thing that won't happen because you aren't their customer any more?

Tell me, how is throwing away a library of games for a ToS change that will never come up worth it in the slightest?

 

[targren]

It's good business for them to force you into arbitration which is typically more corporation friendly than an actual lawsuit.

Exactly. And "more corporation friendly" is "less consumer friendly." So explain to me again how it's NOT good business for me to refuse this.

If you cancel your account, then you'll have no reason in the future to sue these people.

Not necessarily true. Very often, class-action lawsuits are filed over things that happened in the past. So, even with a canceled account, if something they've been doing is determined to be actionable, the "class" may well be defined as "consumers with active Steam accounts between January 2010 and April 2012," for example.

Tell me, how is throwing away a library of games for a ToS change that will never come up worth it in the slightest?

Firstly, you don't know that it "will never come up." Valve hadn't convinced me that they're 'good guys' like they have so many others, and this move proves to me that they're not.

Secondly, some of us value not being treated like serfs more than some video games.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

It's good business for them to force you into arbitration which is typically more corporation friendly than an actual lawsuit.

Exactly. And "more corporation friendly" is "less consumer friendly." So explain to me again how it's NOT good business for me to refuse this.

You need to pick your battles. This is the last thing you should be fighting against.

If you cancel your account, then you'll have no reason in the future to sue these people.

Not necessarily true. Very often, class-action lawsuits are filed over things that happened in the past. So, even with a canceled account, if something they've been doing is determined to be actionable, the "class" may well be defined as "consumers with active Steam accounts between January 2010 and April 2012," for example.

Ok, sure. Anything happen to you during your life as a steam user that you think might warrant a lawsuit in the future?

Tell me, how is throwing away a library of games for a ToS change that will never come up worth it in the slightest?

Firstly, you don't know that it "will never come up." Valve hadn't convinced me that they're 'good guys' like they have so many others, and this move proves to me that they're not.

Secondly, some of us value not being treated like serfs more than some video games.

Again, can you think of anything that might motivate you to join a lawsuit at all?

Look, I get being angry about this, but it's just so narrow and irrelevant a change that it doesn't warrant such an extreme response.

 

[Stainlesssteele4]

Having spent over $1500 according to a steam account worth calculator, Valve would have to do something extremely heinous to make me 'cancel' my account. And nothing I could foresee them do, being a software distributor and game developer, could actually be enough for me to pull away from their service.
As Valve has stated, small claims are still liable; they just don't want to be screwed over by class action lawsuits. If you really feel like that is an extreme move on their part, I feel like there's some unjust entitlement on your end. And obviously, you'd have to own very few Steam games, or just not care about money.
Again, they are a software distributor. Nothing they could or would ever do should warrant a lawsuit. If they sell you a game you don't like, they'll refund the first one, anything passed that, you should research before purchasing.
Valve is providing you with a service that, in my opinion, is superior to its competition. They provide this service for free. You buy games, download them from a fast host, and they even provide awesome discounts.
The new ToS makes sense. I'm not sure why they decided to implement it, but its a logical step. If its enough to make you cancel your account, then you obviously didn't care too much about it anyway.

EDIT: Also, not to be that guy pointing fingers and shouting 'Prove it!', but, care to prove you've 'canceled' your account? An email from steam, anything really? If its not possible, then I guess that's fine, but most people have a lot invested in Steam, and I'm not sure how one goes about 'canceling' a Steam account.

 

[targren]

You need to pick your battles. This is the last thing you should be fighting against.

How do you figure? Every day in this country, corporations make more and more moves like this to try (and usually succeed) to put themselves on a level of the law above that of the consumers. Why the HELL would that be the "last thing I should fight against?"

Ok, sure. Anything happen to you during your life as a steam user that you think might warrant a lawsuit in the future?

No. But then again, I didn't know about the Class action against Nintendo in the late 80s for price fixing, either. Whether or not I'm personally aware of it has no bearing on whether or not it will come up later or not. On the other hand, there is the very, very slim chance that the U.S courts might pull their heads out of the corporate colon far enough to start slapping down some of this abusive DRM/licensing garbage. Possibly mass fraud/deceptive advertising since they use the words "purchase", "pre-purchase" and "buy."

can you think of anything that might motivate you to join a lawsuit at all?

Absolutely. Anything, in fact. Valve has never shown me any personal loyalty, and so I don't know them any. As of right now, my relationship with Valve and Steam has been a net negative. so the real question is "can I think of anything that might motivate me NOT to join a lawsuit against them." And the answer is "Not really."

Look, I get being angry about this, but it's just so narrow and irrelevant a change that it doesn't warrant such an extreme response.

You can keep repeating that all you want, it doesn't make it true. It might be irrelevant in your country where it's illegal. Here, where it's valid, it represents another corporation putting it's thumb on the balance plate, and I don't think giving up some video games is too "extreme" a response to counter that.

Exactly. And "more corporation friendly" is "less consumer friendly." So explain to me again how it's NOT good business for me to refuse this.

Less lawyer friendly, more like it. The consumer doesn't benefit from class-action lawsuits except in the abstract; most of the money goes to the lawyers with the plantiffs receiving a pittance.

And if the point of a class action suit was to benefit the consumer in concrete term, that old saw might have some relevance. In reality, it's just a sound bite put out by the corps themselves (and endlessly parotted by their apologists) to distract from the actual point: the main purpose of a class action lawsuit isn't to make money for the consumers: it's to *punish* corporations for poor behavior.

It's pretty much the only effective way to do so since individual suits (and especially the "small claims" suits that they so magnanimously "let" you keep) don't hurt them at all.

Secondly, some of us value not being treated like serfs more than some video games.

Serfs? Did I go back in time to the Middle Ages?

That seems to be the goal in the U.S. these days, with corporate entities "persons" as the new aristocracy and lawyers as the clergy.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

You need to pick your battles. This is the last thing you should be fighting against.

How do you figure? Every day in this country, corporations make more and more moves like this to try (and usually succeed) to put themselves on a level of the law above that of the consumers. Why the HELL would that be the "last thing I should fight against?"

As in this particular aspect. Not "GUISE STOP FIGHTING AGAINST GAME COMPANIES BEING DICKS," but class action prevention is just not that big of an issue.

Ok, sure. Anything happen to you during your life as a steam user that you think might warrant a lawsuit in the future?

No. But then again, I didn't know about the Class action against Nintendo in the late 80s for price fixing, either. Whether or not I'm personally aware of it has no bearing on whether or not it will come up later or not. On the other hand, there is the very, very slim chance that the U.S courts might pull their heads out of the corporate colon far enough to start slapping down some of this abusive DRM/licensing garbage. Possibly mass fraud/deceptive advertising since they use the words "purchase", "pre-purchase" and "buy."

a) DRM and licensing decisions are made by the publisher, not Valve.
b) You are purchasing a license, that could hardly be called deceptive advertising.

can you think of anything that might motivate you to join a lawsuit at all?

Absolutely. Anything, in fact. Valve has never shown me any personal loyalty, and so I don't know them any. As of right now, my relationship with Valve and Steam has been a net negative. so the real question is "can I think of anything that might motivate me NOT to join a lawsuit against them." And the answer is "Not really."

I'm not asking if you enjoyed your customer experience, buddy. I'm asking for an actual list of things that Valve has done to you that you believe is worth a lawsuit.

Look, I get being angry about this, but it's just so narrow and irrelevant a change that it doesn't warrant such an extreme response.

You can keep repeating that all you want, it doesn't make it true. It might be irrelevant in your country where it's illegal. Here, where it's valid, it represents another corporation putting it's thumb on the balance plate, and I don't think giving up some video games is too "extreme" a response to counter that.

How much money have you spent on your steam account? That's probably the dividing line here. As a person who's spent over $2000 [http://www.steamcalculator.com/id/sl33tbl1nd], Valve would have to do something really bad for me to cancel my account.

If you've only invested a small amount of cash into your account, whatever. I get you, you aren't losing much. I'm working on the assumption that you have a similar account, though.

Correct me if I'm wrong in that.

 

[Pearwood]

Christ I'd have thought the fact that Valve did it would make this place doesn't go insane over pointless details that will never hold up in court and would never even come up anyway.

 

[targren]

As in this particular aspect. Not "GUISE STOP FIGHTING AGAINST GAME COMPANIES BEING DICKS," but class action prevention is just not that big of an issue.

And there we disagree. To carry on my earlier feudalism metaphor, it's not all that different from the French Aristocrats banning the guillotine.

a) DRM and licensing decisions are made by the publisher, not Valve.
b) You are purchasing a license, that could hardly be called deceptive advertising.

a) How Steam DRM works is a decision made by Valve.
b) That's already been called out as bullshit doublespeak in several countries. Like I said, the chance is very small that this one follows suit, but stranger things have happened in the past.

Absolutely. Anything, in fact. Valve has never shown me any personal loyalty, and so I don't know them any. As of right now, my relationship with Valve and Steam has been a net negative. so the real question is "can I think of anything that might motivate me NOT to join a lawsuit against them." And the answer is "Not really."

I'm not asking if you enjoyed your customer experience, buddy. I'm asking for an actual list of things that Valve has done to you that you believe is worth a lawsuit.

And I told you. Their contract is a contract of adhesion (holding my purchases hostage), the utterly reprehensible (but somehow legal) bullshit of unilaterally altering contracts, this entire thread is based on their anti-consumer behavior, etc...

How much money have you spent on your steam account? That's probably the dividing line here. As a person who's spent over $2000 [http://www.steamcalculator.com/id/sl33tbl1nd], Valve would have to do something really bad for me to cancel my account.

If you've only invested a small amount of cash into your account, whatever. I get you, you aren't losing much. I'm working on the assumption that you have a similar account, though.

Correct me if I'm wrong in that.

Significantly less than you have. As I said in my original post, I held out on using Steam for YEARS, because I didn't trust them to be able to change the terms and hold my games hostage. I finally broke down and decided to give them a chance to prove to be the good guys everyone has always said they were, since they'd gone so long without pulling anything. The universe, it seems, is not without a sense of irony, since it was 2 days later that they went and pulled exactly what I'd been afraid of.

So no, I'm out less than $100. On the other hand, the only difference is that, if I had an account the size of yours, I would STILL have done what I did, but I would also be filing a lawsuit. It's small enough to throw away without bothering now, but even $2000 isn't enough to keep me, personally, from fighting against being bullied by some corporation.

As I've said before, the "it's not worth it" reasoning is perfectly valid. I don't agree with it or even necessarily respect it (which is different from respecting your right to hold it), but if $2000 or $200 or even $20 is worth more to you than fighting against it, that's a personal call.

What doesn't hold, and what I'll tear into every time, is the claim that it's "silly","stupid", or "insane", especially when based around one-sided, business-apologetic arguments.

 

[targren]

Christ I'd have thought the fact that Valve did it would make this place doesn't go insane over pointless details that will never hold up in court and would never even come up anyway.

Clearly, not everyone is so enamored of Valve that they're wiling to accept any action, no matter how obnoxious or abusive.

That seems to be the goal in the U.S. these days, with corporate entities "persons" as the new aristocracy and lawyers as the clergy.

Yes, yes, and you're obviously Martin Luther nailing your theses to Valve's doors.

Hardly. I'm just telling Valve et al where they can stick their TOS. I'm not trying to convince anyone else to do anything, I was asking if anyone HAD. Turns out, while it seems that I am the only one on the Escapist, others I've talked to elsewhere have, too. That was somewhat refreshing.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Significantly less than you have. As I said in my original post, I held out on using Steam for YEARS, because I didn't trust them to be able to change the terms and hold my games hostage. I finally broke down and decided to give them a chance to prove to be the good guys everyone has always said they were, since they'd gone so long without pulling anything. The universe, it seems, is not without a sense of irony, since it was 2 days later that they went and pulled exactly what I'd been afraid of.

So no, I'm out less than $100. On the other hand, the only difference is that, if I had an account the size of yours, I would STILL have done what I did, but I would also be filing a lawsuit. It's small enough to throw away without bothering now, but even $2000 isn't enough to keep me, personally, from fighting against being bullied by some corporation.

As I've said before, the "it's not worth it" reasoning is perfectly valid. I don't agree with it or even necessarily respect it (which is different from respecting your right to hold it), but if $2000 or $200 or even $20 is worth more to you than fighting against it, that's a personal call.

What doesn't hold, and what I'll tear into every time, is the claim that it's "silly","stupid", or "insane", especially when based around one-sided, business-apologetic arguments.

Understandable. Nice talking to you.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

[sub] Didn't read them. [/sub]
I wouldn't bother with a lawsuit anyway. Its not like they are going to do anything that will be worth my time.

 

[NotALiberal]

I just read page one.

I am just flabbergasted at how many people are more than happy to not have these rights, or just don't care about them.

Ok, sure, you're not going to sue Valve today, or even next week. But why should you sign something that says you're not allowed to? Why shouldn't players be allowed to do this again? Yeah, that was rhetorical, players should be allowed to if they so chose.

Start saying "Oh, btw, they signed this saying they can't do that" and people no longer have a way to settle their grievances... the legal way.

That's not the way it works. Valve's ToS won't do shit if you file a suit against them, it just stops greedy exploitation by scumbags looking to make a quick bug off some technical loophole with a frivolous class action suit (which cost both time and a lot of money). Which is very common in America.

I mean for fucks sake, they'll pay ALL the legal fees, win or lose, and then they'll pay you up to $10,000 (and as noted above, Steam's entire catalog isn't even WORTH $10,000), so please stop with the self righteous indignation.

Wow, just wow.

No, that legal system you're talking about has been around for a loooong time, and with the peoples help, has been made as fair as possible over the years. The solution to this mystical money grubbing exploit you're talking about, is not letting companies set up their own private legal systems. Jesus Christ.

That's a joke...right? Please tell me no one is possibly that dense. It ISN'T setting up their own "private legal systems", it's fucking arbitration as decided by a 3rd party with no ties to either Valve or the plantiff. Also, class action suits only really DO benefit litigation lawyers. In a majority of class action suits, the people suing get peanuts IF they win, while the lawyers get a big fat paycheck, add to the fact that many MANY companies use misinformation and ignorance of the people suing to avoid massive payouts, it's a joke of a "legal system".

Logic on this site, it doesn't even exist.

EDIT: I am referring to class action suits, not cases taken up by the Supreme Court or such.

 

[Darkmantle]

You know that the change they made is:

a) Probably illegal in most countries, and
b) Never going to come up anyway?

a) Not, unfortunately, in *this* country (the U.S.).
b) They don't seem to think you're right about this (otherwise they wouldn't have added it to the TOS), so why should I?

A far better solution would be to accept the new ToS and just stop buying new games on the account. I'm not saying be quiet about it, by any means. Sure, send their support guys a message. Say you will no longer be purchasing anything from them. But to just throw away a steam account seems silly.

Unfortunately, doing it your way DOES send a message: that you'll tolerate this kind of anti-consumer bullshit move. I personally think it's even MORE silly to gimp yourself and accept this sort of abuse for the sake of video games.

UPDATE: It took over a week of back-and-forth with support, but I finally got them to cancel the account. Valve can't be trusted, and now I'm done with them.

Actually, they don't make any money from you just being on their service, simply not buying anything from them sends the message. Hit them in the wallet, or just switch steam to offline mode and never turn it back to online man.