I think this is wonderful news. I like Steam, but I've always had reservations about it and it's good to see Valve being held accountable for some rather unwarranted bullshit.
Steam TOS Leads to Trouble in Germany
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
False...anian said:
If this hits Steam, Origin and GoG and all other Platforms would take this as well.
All other platforms had to change their systems the same way, or they would have to pay large sums for everyday this is not changed, after a set period of time o'course.
This is a good thing. Even if Valve are great guys, they are a business, and threading new grounds which need to be properly regulated.
As is known, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The current online distribution grants a disproportionate amount of power to the publishers, which they will, wittingly or unwittingly, abuse.
It's not about saying Valve are bad or good, it's about making sure the rules of the game don't let them (or others, including consumers) cheat.
As is known, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The current online distribution grants a disproportionate amount of power to the publishers, which they will, wittingly or unwittingly, abuse.
It's not about saying Valve are bad or good, it's about making sure the rules of the game don't let them (or others, including consumers) cheat.
Like the no cd cracks of the past, it is essential to have a good source for no steam cracks; or the knowledge to make them yourself.
Why would GoG need to? GoG games aren't account bound because they don't have a launcher/gatekeeper/DRM software platform like Steam or Origin that you're required to have in order to access your software.balberoy said:
As much as I like Valve and Steam, this is a good thing and is badly needed. The only reason why Valve can do this at the moment is because digital distribution is still relative new.
It doesn't look like Valve is going to go bankrupt any time soon and neither to I believe that they would abuse their power but I still don't think any company should have so much power in this industry. Though I do think we're lucky that it is Valve but more importantly, the good guys at Valve won't be around forever. This isn't meant as an insult but for example, Gabe Newell isn't exactly the healthiest guy. Who knows how the company will be run in two or three decades.
It doesn't look like Valve is going to go bankrupt any time soon and neither to I believe that they would abuse their power but I still don't think any company should have so much power in this industry. Though I do think we're lucky that it is Valve but more importantly, the good guys at Valve won't be around forever. This isn't meant as an insult but for example, Gabe Newell isn't exactly the healthiest guy. Who knows how the company will be run in two or three decades.
okay, so Steam still insists it's a subscription, however please see the following http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-07/cp120094en.pdfyuval152 said:
Direct quote:
It is a right to use for an unlimited period given in exchange for payment. It is a full bought license and the only "subscription" is to the steam service itself, which coincidentally cannot coerce you into using it in order to continue access of goods bought under different conditions, that would flal under the trade description act in the UK amongst others and be very illegal.
EDIT: Further, where it states "limited" in the quote you gave, that is in reference to control, not length of ownership.
While I agree with the idea of keeping an eye on companies to make sure they don't abuse our trust, I'm not sure this particular individual will be able to make any headway.
First off, while I think the measures are kind of extreme, the Terms of Service is the legal document you have to agree to in order to use the service. If a user does not agree to the terms, they do not get the service. The issue here being that the terms changed after the user had already used (And paid for) the service. Technically, if the Terms included a line about having to accept future changes in order to continue access to the service, this user does not have a legal leg to stand on.
... Yep...
So basically by using Steam you have already agreed to accept changed terms of service. Of course, you can argue that such a thing is coercion, but since you already agreed to either accept changes or stop using your account, not sure whether or not you'll be able to push that through court.
A NOTE: Not entirely certain which side I agree with (But obviously I'm biased towards Valve) but I figured it might be useful to throw a few more pieces of information out there.
As for the VZDZ, I don't know what their end goal is.
If they want Steam to allow users to reject terms of service, obviously Valve is just going to shut down their service anywhere that ruling applies: As a business, they don't want to be stuck in a position where they aren't allowed to legally protect themselves with a ToS.
If they want Steam to switch to a 'I can sell my license' system, they'd have to persuade Valve it was worth it to completely renegotiate all of their deals with all the publishers they currently sell games from in order to obtain such permission (Since I'm almost certain their contract includes a bit about licenses being non-transferable once activated) and that's not likely to end well for the customers either since it would probably not apply retroactively. Most likely it would end with Steam, once again, just withdrawing their service from anywhere with such a ruling.
First off, while I think the measures are kind of extreme, the Terms of Service is the legal document you have to agree to in order to use the service. If a user does not agree to the terms, they do not get the service. The issue here being that the terms changed after the user had already used (And paid for) the service. Technically, if the Terms included a line about having to accept future changes in order to continue access to the service, this user does not have a legal leg to stand on.
... Yep...
9. AMENDMENTS TO THIS AGREEMENT
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.
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.
So basically by using Steam you have already agreed to accept changed terms of service. Of course, you can argue that such a thing is coercion, but since you already agreed to either accept changes or stop using your account, not sure whether or not you'll be able to push that through court.
A NOTE: Not entirely certain which side I agree with (But obviously I'm biased towards Valve) but I figured it might be useful to throw a few more pieces of information out there.
As for the VZDZ, I don't know what their end goal is.
If they want Steam to allow users to reject terms of service, obviously Valve is just going to shut down their service anywhere that ruling applies: As a business, they don't want to be stuck in a position where they aren't allowed to legally protect themselves with a ToS.
If they want Steam to switch to a 'I can sell my license' system, they'd have to persuade Valve it was worth it to completely renegotiate all of their deals with all the publishers they currently sell games from in order to obtain such permission (Since I'm almost certain their contract includes a bit about licenses being non-transferable once activated) and that's not likely to end well for the customers either since it would probably not apply retroactively. Most likely it would end with Steam, once again, just withdrawing their service from anywhere with such a ruling.
Nope. Limited may be in reference to control, but 'terminable' definitely means Valve can end it if they choose to.Mehall said:
While I don't disagree with the TOS, as it offers a layer of protection for valve against potential and pointless lawsuit fervor. I do strongly disagree with the consequences of refusing said TOS. Steam to me has always been a wonderful tool for managing games and connecting with other gamers. The content purchased should be considered owned not by Valve but by the user. Denying the user this content based on this disagreement feels criminal. Yes, deactivate the account, but please don't hold the content hostage Be that understanding company we respect and release this content to the user.
Legally nothings changed in the shift from physical to digital distribution. What you buy essential remains the same, a license. What can ant can't be done about them has change little and EULAs are enforcable (apart from where there terms contradict rights). Resale of commercial boxed copies has had legal issues for years now and the judgements saying it can be have been in the favor of its restriction as long as the software has been used. I suspect the reason companies have been moving into fucking about with such things in consumer grade software in the digital realm is pretty basic with a physical product they know its not proliferating, in digital worlds this is a tricky.Beryl77 said:
My own view is a system that allowed internal sales on a given DD system seems like a no-brainer. Cross dd system sales seems a lot harder logistically. Steam level DRM seems as fairly inevitable result, there needs to be some way of reassuring the devs/publishers/dd platform that the game is really being passed on and not copied.
Is it legal to give up your right to sue someone? I suspect not, and its just a currently ploy by legal teams to test the water, I'd suspect most of the illegal ones are the results of corporate lawyers trying to find whats legal, or what people will just accept.
I'm typically fiscally conservative and am sympathetic to corporations doing what they want with their property... but yeah... this sounds like out and out coersion or extortion...
Games you've bought (your property) provided through our service will be denied to you if you don't forfeit your legal rights when dealing with us.
I suppose its one thing if you hadn't bought into it yet, but taking away what you've already bought with a change in TOS is just down right wrong.
Games you've bought (your property) provided through our service will be denied to you if you don't forfeit your legal rights when dealing with us.
I suppose its one thing if you hadn't bought into it yet, but taking away what you've already bought with a change in TOS is just down right wrong.
Fucking good. I'm glad i wasn't the only person pissed off by that. "Agree to not sue us or you can't play online" (PS3) is a very different from "Agree not to sue us or we'll take away everything we sold to you" (steam).
No, you can't give me bullshit about purchasing a license, they don't advertise it as such. They advertise selling a game, their mistake.
No, you can't give me bullshit about purchasing a license, they don't advertise it as such. They advertise selling a game, their mistake.
This is so weird, on the one hand we have fucked up laws they prevent us from watching music videos on YouTube, on the other hand our extensive bureaucracy regarding consumer rights(or pretty much everything) can actually help people. It's a slow progress but at least it's something.
And while I love valve and steam we have to plan for the point when some business-school educated asshole who only cares about money takes over.
And while I love valve and steam we have to plan for the point when some business-school educated asshole who only cares about money takes over.
Yes, and you clicked a button saying you read the fine print. You may have been lying, but by checking the box saying you've read the license agreement. The same license agreement that says you have to accept any updated version of the agreement or forfeit your right to continue using the Steam service.dogstile said:
It's all spelled out and this is nothing new. If you never read it and are now being hurt by it, that's on you. Now you may be able to argue false advertising and get a favorable outcome there, but Valve taking away your software should you reject a change in the terms of service was already something that was (or would have been had you read the agreement) known to you when you purchased the software.
You can claim it was coercion, but you already agreed to this end result of your own free will before purchasing the software, so I doubt it would stick.
I'm interested to see how this ends up playing out, but as long as the Terms of Service is considered a legally binding document, the most likely outcome is a very angry former Steam user.
Fine print doesn't always make a case. Saying "I agree to changes" does not mean "If you want, you can bend me over and fuck me if you so chose". At the very least, because the EU has ruled that I can legally sell digital games, they could at least offer me the chance to sell my stuff back to them (at a heavy loss to me, i'm sure. That's how it works and i'm actually ok with that part) if I don't agree.Falterfire said:
But nope, instead they've gone with the "we've changed our TOS and you have to clap along" tune. Its bullshit and everyone knows it. At this point i'm less pissed off about the possibility of them winning this legally and more annoyed that people think this kind of shit is acceptable because its valve.
I was going to try and make a pun but I failed. I got on to steam being a gas and Germany and thought I should probably stop right there.Zachary Amaranth said:
Still, you go Germans! Do what the rest of us couldn't be bothered to do but probably should. I hope it's not all just a load of hot air.
You do indeed have an option. Instead of clapping along you can avoid using their service entirely. Since they do not hold a monopoly on game distribution, they are in no way coercing you to use their system. You ALREADY agreed to allow them to, in your words "bend you over and fuck you" simply by agreeing to the terms of service.dogstile said:
I also find it interesting that you bring up the point about selling digital games. That would be the government equivalent of suddenly changing the terms of service, only with even less warning. Since Valve's hands are already tied on that issue (Once again, I'm reasonably certain the contracts they have with the publishers include the non-transferable attachment to the licenses) the only business options they'd have left that didn't violate contracts with other businesses would be to either terminate service in affected areas or renegotiate all existing contracts. I'd like to believe Valve would at least make an effort with as many companies as possible, but even if they did you'd likely still see a large number of specific games be revoked in affected areas.
It would be trivially easy for Valve to restrict users who declined the new EULA from buying any new games while still enabling access to the games already purchased, as well as to the community features.
I think that's the most likely outcome of this case, as Valve won't risk going to court (they'd loose and potentially had to implement even more consumer friendly measures). Also, the whole idea of Steam pulling out of Germany is ridiculous and sensationalist nonsense, they won't risk loosing such an important market over such a comparatively minor and easy to get around issue (FYI, PC gaming in Germany is still very popular, and consoles aren't nearly as dominant as in other markets like the UK or US).
Edit:
I think that's the most likely outcome of this case, as Valve won't risk going to court (they'd loose and potentially had to implement even more consumer friendly measures). Also, the whole idea of Steam pulling out of Germany is ridiculous and sensationalist nonsense, they won't risk loosing such an important market over such a comparatively minor and easy to get around issue (FYI, PC gaming in Germany is still very popular, and consoles aren't nearly as dominant as in other markets like the UK or US).
Edit:
So what about games with Steamworks-DRM? Even if you buy them retail or from another digital distributor, you still need a Steam account and have to agree to the TOS/EULA to play it, resulting in, effeectively, a monopoly on those games (that concept alone is probably unlawful in Germany/the EU).