Not everything included in a TOS or EULA becomes automatically legal and binding. For instance, in Germany, an EULA is only binding if you sign or agree to it before you purchase a game, everything that pops up while installing said game is of no concern to you and can be ignored.Falterfire said:
Steam TOS Leads to Trouble in Germany
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
It seems just as equally wrong that Valve has the right to disable a person's Steam account and deny them access to their games just because they don't agree with the TOS.Twilight_guy said:
I love Valve and I love Steam but I shouldn't lose access to the games I purchased with my money because I don't want to agree with their new TOS. There has to be a neutral ground that can please both Valve and their consumers. Perhaps the people who don't agree to Steam's TOS can't purchase stuff off Steam but they can still play the games they already bought.
Good. As much as everyone likes Valve, that was a dick move. And that is why I like physical games. Because people can't just take them away without sending someone to my house.
Personally I would like to see Valve 'encouraged' (via legal bollocking if nothing else works) to offer a tier of service that only deals with the DRM-side of things - no multiplayer, no store, no auto-update, nothing but making sure I have a legit copy of the game I'm playing... and that they have no avenues of interfering with that.Insomniac55 said:
This is why I prefer services like GoG... sure, if I piss them off I lose their service (no more redownloading games in my library) but they can't stop me from playing the games I already have installed on my machine.
My absolute favourite service is the system used by the Humble Indie Bundle. I get Steam copies, which are always the ones I actually install. But I also get DRM free installers so I can back-up and save my games for whenever I want, on whatever machine I choose to install them on.RhombusHatesYou said:
Hey Germany? A friendly request from the rest of the collective humanity that represents sanity, can you guys take a look at Origin too?
Unless said 'physical game' uses an account based, online DRM system... such as Steamworks, Origin or UPlay... they can't take the physical media away from you but they can (and mostly do) set it up so that without an active account and constant online connection, you can't actually run the game...MeChaNiZ3D said:
Let's not forget that EA did get it's feet held over the coals for the Origins ToS in... hmmm, I think it was in Germany as well. Don't remember seeing a single tear shed for the EA.Bhaalspawn said:
Not the point. The point is if you don't agree, you lose what you've already paid for.lacktheknack said:
How is this even remotely difficult to grasp?
And I did laugh. Thanks for this! And come visit Cologne, it's awesome.teh_gunslinger said:
We actually did. Battlefield 3 got 4400 reviews on German amazon with 1,5 stars. Most reviews say "yeah, game might be nice, but ORIGIN!!!!"008Zulu said:
And who do you think made them change their TOS in the first place?
Though the implied direction the TOS is taking is troubling, I'm inline with your thinking.lacktheknack said:
I can't think of any cases in which I'd want to sue Valve via a class-action suit. Most of the legal complaints I'd want levied against them would almost unanimously involve small-claims court.
And, seeing as Valve would foot the entire bill in that case, I was okay with the TOS change.
Besides, despite what some people have been (incorrectly) assuming about having your account disabled if you declined the TOS change, the truth of the matter is:
This. While not true for every single game in the Steam library, especially those that require other online service access, if you're account is disabled you can still play the games you've purchased and downloaded. With few exceptions.SajuukKhar said:
.................................
Still, I think Valve needs to reconsider their stance on users ability to resell titles they have in their accounts.
Perhaps some system wherein someone can use the Inventory Trading feature to resell games from their library. They could set a minimum "used" price. As in, a price that must be matched or exceeded. (to avoid abuse) And, Valve could take a cut of the transaction. A cut that would be distributed between both Valve and the titles developer/publisher.
I know that's an extremely simplified idea, but I can't imagine it would be logistically impossible. Though, individual developers/publishers would need to agree to allow their products to be used in this way.
Valve saw that EA got away with "no class lawsuit TOS" and tried to do their own. Germany does not like this. Ergo the problem.
Its funny though, as since its TOS, its legally bining. Wheas EULA means 0 legally in EU.
And i still dont have steam and im still happy.
Its funny though, as since its TOS, its legally bining. Wheas EULA means 0 legally in EU.
And i still dont have steam and im still happy.
Nope. Germany, as well as many other countries with a civil law system (as opposed to the common law system of the anglosphere), doesn't even have class action lawsuits. The most similar thing is exactly what is happening here - the German consumer protection agencies like the VZBV can bring companies to court on behalf of the affected customers, usually first giving the company the chance to settle the case beforehand (the so called 'ultimatum' in the article).Strazdas said:
The whole case is not about the fact that Valve denies Steam users the right to pursue class actions lawsuits (which isn't possible in Germany in the first place, see above), but about the fact that declining the updated TOS locks you out of your account, including games you had purchased before the new TOS came into effect (which Valve flat out told to the customer if you read the article). That is most likely illegal under German and EU law.