Steam TOS Leads to Trouble in Germany

[oliver.begg]

the thing is that arguably you do own the games, BUT the right to use steam, which is a free piece of software could be said to be a privilege that requires abiding by the TOS.

sure you still own the games BUT your not allowed to use steam, which you never payed for in the first place.

and the idea that you can on sell a digital license and expect someone to carry the cost of the downloads is silly, if you give the buyer of your license you data they should pass it on, you have no obligation to give it to the third party, they didn't buy it from you.


ALSO; don't the TOS clearly state that the no class action part only applies in the USA, as its impossible to sign away your right to sue in most countries and any contract that beaks the law is null and void

 

[Strazdas]

Valve saw that EA got away with "no class lawsuit TOS" and tried to do their own. Germany does not like this.

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.

Well it is logical that if you deny the terms of service, you do not want to use this service under the terms provided, therefore you do not want to use your account. Since Steams service is providing games, you on your own free will cancel your games on that service by declining terms of service. Now of course the trouble is that people bought games before TOS changed, but that is simply a point of morale and not law.

 

[Lykosia_v1legacy]

Well it is logical that if you deny the terms of service, you do not want to use this service under the terms provided, therefore you do not want to use your account. Since Steams service is providing games, you on your own free will cancel your games on that service by declining terms of service. Now of course the trouble is that people bought games before TOS changed, but that is simply a point of morale and not law.

It is not about morale, but law. We have laws here to prevent companies from doing that. If this goes to court I'm quite sure that Valve will lose. ToS or Eula don't hold much weight in European courtrooms. We have seen this in the past (like the resale of used software case previously this year).

 

[Flames66]

This is good news. I actually had to click "agree" on my Steam account because of this blackmail. I hope they kick Valve's ass for this crap. Consumer protection is a valued good here and I am glad that they stand up for our rights.

I do wonder what would happen if they had to drop Steam in Germany, though. After all, tons of people supposedly "bought" games under false pretenses and misleading advertisement (now it's a "subscription service" and the words "buy" or "purchase" appear nowhere anymore last I've checked) and if Steam just goes down and takes all those games with them...

Would they have to recompense everybody then? Something like that could ruin a company.

Too be honest I hope they do have to. While I love Valves games and the Idea behind Steam, I believe they need to be held accountable for bad business practices. As they are the current industry leaders when it comes to digital distribution they should be held to higher standards.

I will have to contact Valve myself about this issue.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

And that is why I like physical games. Because people can't just take them away without sending someone to my house.

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...

Oh, right. Well there you go, thwarted again. And people just let this crap happen. 0_0

 

[Metalrocks]

i wasnt too happy either with the new TOS but i also dint want to lose my games since i do have a little amount on it.
i still like valve and steam but i have to admit. this is going a bit over the top. hope this will change in the future.

 

[Ishigami]

I hope something comes of this.
Finally someone is recognising the evil Steam is.

 

[Royas]

This is why competition can be a very good thing. If this goes down with Steam and EA capitalizes on this by making Origin's EULA more user-friendly than Steam's, even I would start using Origin and the DD industry would be encouraged to follow suit or provide some other incentive in order to compete.

Of course, this is EA here. The odds of them figuring out what user-friendly means are slim-to-none unless their entire upper management was replaced with competent people.

Their ToS is the same as Steam's and don't look now but they did have a massive sale on all the Battlefield games yesterday.

I'm not saying they might actually change for the better, but anything is possible.

I don't want to get into this argument or start a flame war over this, so I'm just going to avoid discussing whether or not they're the same. I will reiterate, though, that my point was that they could capitalize on this if they released a better EULA than Steam. With all the hatred for all the one-sided anti-customer EULAs in multiple industries, laxing the EULA on Origin a bit would make people feel like progress is being made and would probably help EA out on gathering the good will and respect that they so sorely lack right now. Unfortunately, as long as they are being ran by people like John Riccitiello and Peter Moore, that's highly unlikely to happen.

Captcha: "down pour" I don't know why, but that seems fitting.

** Dammit, I messed up my quotes again. This was meant to be a reply to Falterfire, again. I'm a little doped up on pain pills from a motorcycle accident yesterday, I seem to be making mistakes with details lately. Please excuse the error.**

Given that the EU has generally strong consumer protection laws (my understanding only, not in the EU myself), I would hazard a guess that Valve's response may be forced upon them. Regardless, I don't know if the TOS is actually illegal or not, but if what I am being told is true (namely that the German courts are inclined to treat things like Steam licenses as products, as it should be) then Valve may not legally be able to cut off access to previously purchased games. Again, as it should be. TOS or not, consumer protection must take precedence in this and in all situations. From the point of view of the average consumer, a sale on Steam feels in all ways like any other kind of sale. That should, and in some cases, will override the TOS. Ethically, all I can see Valve as being allowed to do is refuse to sell any more games to accounts that will not update. Cutting people off from their already purchased games is morally equivalent to theft.

 

[Dogstile]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The EU passed that law for the precise reason of stopping us getting fucked over like this. That way, if a company tells you that they have to clap along to a tune you don't like, you should be able to sell your shit and get the hell out of there rather than be trapped. That was the entire point. That's not changing the terms of service for valve, that's ensuring they can't abuse the system they've got over here.

If the licenses are non-transferable, then valve can foot the costs. They certainly have enough money to do so and I no longer take up space on their servers.

And on a final note, the TOS here does not allow me to sign away my rights. American law might, which somebody else has mentioned to you, but EU law would not. Of course it is coercion, they've forced me into a situation where I either have to nod or lose a lot of my property and before you say it, under EU law digital games are my property. Doubly so considering they advertise it as "purchase this game!" and not "Purchase this license!".

 

[V da Mighty Taco]

This is why competition can be a very good thing. If this goes down with Steam and EA capitalizes on this by making Origin's EULA more user-friendly than Steam's, even I would start using Origin and the DD industry would be encouraged to follow suit or provide some other incentive in order to compete.

Of course, this is EA here. The odds of them figuring out what user-friendly means are slim-to-none unless their entire upper management was replaced with competent people.

Their ToS is the same as Steam's and don't look now but they did have a massive sale on all the Battlefield games yesterday.

I'm not saying they might actually change for the better, but anything is possible.

I don't want to get into this argument or start a flame war over this, so I'm just going to avoid discussing whether or not they're the same. I will reiterate, though, that my point was that they could capitalize on this if they released a better EULA than Steam. With all the hatred for all the one-sided anti-customer EULAs in multiple industries, laxing the EULA on Origin a bit would make people feel like progress is being made and would probably help EA out on gathering the good will and respect that they so sorely lack right now. Unfortunately, as long as they are being ran by people like John Riccitiello and Peter Moore, that's highly unlikely to happen.

Captcha: "down pour" I don't know why, but that seems fitting.

** Dammit, I messed up my quotes again. This was meant to be a reply to Falterfire, again. I'm a little doped up on pain pills from a motorcycle accident yesterday, I seem to be making mistakes with details lately. Please excuse the error.**

Given that the EU has generally strong consumer protection laws (my understanding only, not in the EU myself), I would hazard a guess that Valve's response may be forced upon them. Regardless, I don't know if the TOS is actually illegal or not, but if what I am being told is true (namely that the German courts are inclined to treat things like Steam licenses as products, as it should be) then Valve may not legally be able to cut off access to previously purchased games. Again, as it should be. TOS or not, consumer protection must take precedence in this and in all situations. From the point of view of the average consumer, a sale on Steam feels in all ways like any other kind of sale. That should, and in some cases, will override the TOS. Ethically, all I can see Valve as being allowed to do is refuse to sell any more games to accounts that will not update. Cutting people off from their already purchased games is morally equivalent to theft.

Wow, hope you're doing alright. If it makes you feel any better, I AGREE! *drives away*

 

[lacktheknack]

I guess I'm the only one who agreed with the terms because I found them acceptable.

They don't take away your right to sue, they even will PAY YOUR LEGAL FEES if you take them to small-claims court. They just don't want a class action lawsuit. I'm OK with this.

Not the point. The point is if you don't agree, you lose what you've already paid for.

How is this even remotely difficult to grasp?

It isn't.

I grasped them when I signed up YEARS ago. How did it become an issue just NOW?

You see, I trust Valve to not put up vicious terms. And if they do, I'll accept them and just not buy anything from them. Easy.

And if they wish to change the terms to mess with my already bought games? They won't. They're not idiots.

 

[lacktheknack]

I find it funny thins is a problem... especially considering Valve changed how account disabling works some time ago to allow you to continue playing your games even if your account got disabled.

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.

This makes my standpoint even easier to defend. If I refuse the terms, then I win. I don't see the problem here.

 

[Twilight_guy]

So they're demanding that the company changes its policies or they'll sue them. You do realize this is a bad precedent for every other company. What keeps them from saying that any other business practice is bad and suing them until the business bends to their will. Valve is a monopoly and holds you like a spider over a fire. You knew that when you bought from them, and you agreed to it. Demanding they change after the fat isn't right.

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.

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.

Actually as part of their old TOS I'm fairly certain that at their own discretion they can disable your account without a refund already. I think its usually used for people who did something really bad, like you know try to hack their servers or something, but its standard practice to pretty much say they can do it whenever without explanation in order to protect themselves from any possible threat that they didn't foresee. So, yeah, even if people don't agree to the new TOS, they can be kicked by way of the old TOS. It doesn't seem right, but 'I don't think that's fair' is not a valid legal defense.

So they're demanding that the company changes its policies or they'll sue them. You do realize this is a bad precedent for every other company. What keeps them from saying that any other business practice is bad and suing them until the business bends to their will. Valve is a monopoly and holds you like a spider over a fire. You knew that when you bought from them, and you agreed to it. Demanding they change after the fat isn't right.

If it were Activision or Electronic Arts being sued, you wouldn't be talking about setting a bad precedent. You would parrot the news from the rooftops as the second coming of Christ.

So let's not have a double standard between asshole CEO's. One standard will do just fine.

Actually if it were EA, I'd be groaning over the Escapist publishing another damn EA story that is just going to get spammed with 2 pages of mindless quips and jabs.

 

[Lord_Gremlin]

You know, Valve ARE turning evil. Regional restrictions, you buy not games, but subscriptions... They will become the biggest evil this industry ever seen on PC. Especially once Gabe is no longer in charge...
And yes, Gabe is mortal just like we all. I fear will suffer from the monster he created. Imagine that in 2046 EA buys Valve and has it's way with Steam.

 

[Epona]

Another terrible article from The Escapist's resident terrible writer, Andy Chalk.

The "response" to the Steam TOS change is muted because there has been no change. The TOS, like EVERY other service, is "subject to change". Do you use Google Play? Do you use the App Store? Amazon Prime? All these content delivery services have the same type of "we can change the TOS at anytime, for any reason, and you don't get a say except to stop using our service", for better or for worse this is SOP, standard operating procedure.

It is not just content delivery services, but even your bank has these types of conditions. The class action lawsuit issue is the court system's fault, or our legislator's fault, depending on how you view the decision reached by the Supreme Court in AT&T Mobility vs. Conception, in which by a 5-4 decision it was decided that existing federal law superseded state laws that prohibited clauses disallowing class action lawsuits.

So now everyone has rushed to put in clauses disallowing class action lawsuits into their TOS. The policy of closing your account if you don't accept their TOS is the way it has always been. This is not news. Instead of reporting on this, you should be reporting on the whole TOS clauses barring class action status, which is an interesting story that needs to be debated. Not the painfully obvious, "if you don't accept the TOS, you can't use Steam".

But Andy either does not any of the background, or he just wants to stir up the poop pot. I suspect a little of both is going for poor Mr. Chalk.

You seem to be saying "well, it's been that way for a long time so that automatically makes it ok".

 

[Stu35]

Well, I don't have a problem with a company changing their ToS, thats their right. Same as it's our rights as consumers to then decide to no longer buy those products if we don't agree with the ToS.


It does seem, however, a little harsh, to remove content already paid for simply because someone does not accept the new ToS. I don't know where they stand legally on it, it just seems a bit shitty to turn round and say "well, you bought our products, you're not happy with the terms for any new products, so we're going to take the old ones that you did buy as well".

Of course, I may be mis-reading the whole situation.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Finally, I like Valve but this TOS is complete bullshit, not to mention threats to take away all of your products.
Like I said before Steam is getting too big for it's own good, they stomp on things simply because of their mass and they aren't phased by it one bit.

Someone had to bust some skulls on this and I'm glad it's someone with enough pull to make it matter.

 

[Skratt]

Holy shit. I just accepted it because I didn't care what it said. I had no clue if I said no I'd lose PERMANENT access to my games. I would have figured I'd only lose access up until the point I said yes. Really Gabe? Fucking prick. One click no and done forever? Fuck you Gabe, fuck you.

 

[kburns10]

I'd really hate to see Valve pull support in Germany. Somehow, I don't see them changing their new TOS though. I'll be following this to see the outcome.