Valve Triumphs Over German Consumer Group

[Owyn_Merrilin]

.-Snipytisnip-.

And I'm sure the Rockefeller and Carnegie heirs were against anti-trust laws. Didn't make monopolies any less wrong.

Steam has monopoly as there are people using it. There are other sites and services slowly popping up, but sadly, steam has become that way because it just happens to have the best offering of materials. Hell even my father (Yes the father I talked of earlier) got Steam account to play "Ship simulator extremes"! And now my mother wants me to recommend her some games there - MY MOTHER (over 50 years old now) - because she is bored with the Wii game we got her!
If steam can attract people like these, then it is doing something right.
But being steam user for... 7-8 years now? I have seen that the garden has grown some weeds and desperately needs someone to sort the shit out. Because lately more and more material that is just bad, no excuses bad, unfinished and unsupported has been leaking through to it. No quality control.

And sadly yes currently steam is the one that defines the on-gong trends of video gaming.
But there are other services you can use, every major publisher has their own, GOG, Desura. Then there are the consoles. There are platforms for you to use. But yet steam keeps going as #1 for some reason.

If you are not happy with them - then do not use their service. Which sadly has been the best service for me.

You know, if Steam were the only offender, I'd be happy to boycott it. Unfortunately I'd need to boycott the entire industry. Seems like a better use of my time and money would be supporting organizations like the EFF and pushing for a change in/some actual enforcement of the existing laws. Which is why the EFF gets basically all of the money every time I buy a humble bundle they're involved in. I used the examples of Carnegie and Rockefeller not because Steam is a monopoly (it's not, at least not in the clear cut way, say, US Steel was), but because Carnegie and Rockefeller made their fortunes doing something that laws were later enacted to prevent happening again, because of how bad it was for everyone not named Carnegie or Rockefeller. The videogame industry (and the software industry as a whole, for that matter) is doing something similarly wrong right now. It's hardly just Steam.

 

[viranimus]

None the less, its near the end of my day and I dont like railroading any conversation. In closing just reasserting my point, While Steam has good people and motivations the simple fact is that their business practices are catastrophic not just for gaming but digital distribution all together. I challenge consumers to be responsible and think not only of what they buy but what impact their purchases will have not just on themselves but the entire industry. Why would anyone want to defend a company that has already shown anti consumer sentiments? We all know DRM doesnt work, so why should we as consumers continue to tell Devs we are OK with Steam as a form of DRM when there is no good reason for it? Why should we allow Steam to hold control over products they have sold as products after the transaction has been completed? Why should we abandon protections that took prior generations much effort and dedication to obtain, just so it can be taken away bit by bit in the slow crawl of attrition. Do what is right. Not just for yourself but for the industry we love, because we know beyond a shadow of a doubt the things steam does are NOT needed for a digital distribution system to work and there is no good reason to rob consumers of the value of their purchases to defend corporate profits.

Ive said my piece. Im done with my end of railroading and I am sure others will continue the conversation. Calling it a night, Enjoy the rest of the discussion.

 

[Sanunes]

really dont get the issue here. Valve is good to us, dont treat us like walking wallets or like brain dead twats. Why does no one go after EA for all the bullshit they pull over the consumer. Like the recent Dungeon Keeper "mobile game" THAT kinda out right shit should be taking to court. But i dont see why ppl are getting all pissy over steam.

I guess you haven't seen the article around here criticizing how Dungeon Keeper was done by EA, the reason why the courts don't go after them is they haven't done anything illegal. Its frustrating, annoying, and cheap but if they were to go after EA for what happened with Dungeon Keeper they would have to go after a lot of the Facebook, iOS, and Android game market for its all the same garbage of "give me money to play" when advertised as free.

With how Steam is handling refunds, Greenlight, and Early Access I feel they are treating me like a walking wallet because they are not protecting me as their consumer when they allow companies to delete comments they don't like and I can't find any other information out there because its a smaller game.

Add in the Steam Sales will trigger the some areas of the human brain to get you to buy more it gets a little murkier.

The link if you wish to read: http://www.psychologyofgames.com/2013/07/the-psychology-behind-steams-summer-sale/

 

[Ratty]

really dont get the issue here. Valve is good to us, dont treat us like walking wallets or like brain dead twats. Why does no one go after EA for all the bullshit they pull over the consumer. Like the recent Dungeon Keeper "mobile game" THAT kinda out right shit should be taking to court. But i dont see why ppl are getting all pissy over steam.

Except EA always does and will get shat on, Valves Steam does not allow you to own your games, sure you buy them but really they are tied to Steam like a service, if I bought a copy at GAME it would be mine and mine alone when money exchanges hands and yet valve don't understand that concept either like many online stores do, we are supposed to own our games not pay a shitty license to play them and have our value in money mean diddly squat.

Valve is not as pristine and clean and you think it is, if it's won a court battle in germany, who is to benefit from this?, the customers?, hell no Valve did a company did, not the customers, a company.

You hate shit like EA when they get away with that kind of crap the same should go for valve, no one gets to be excused, not in any market,not now and not ever.

Time to stop putting companies anyone likes on that golden pedestal.

Yep. It irritates me that I won't be able to leave the games in my steam library to someone in my will. And I'm not joking. Because I've essentially just bought a non-transferable license to play games rather than actual copies of them.

Steam is convenient and often has great deals (it's where I get most games because the catalog is bigger than GoG's) but no one should kid themselves- Valve is in this for the money, not some noble desire to better serve consumers.

 

[Auron]

Headline should read "Steam sales will remain a thing next year."

 

[RicoADF]

Do you like Steam sales?

It's disappointing that this failed, but I'm OK with it. I think it would be a lot harder to convince companies to sell their games as cheaply as Steam allows if a user could just resell it again when done with it. I'll take the 50%-90% off sales and watch my impulse buying over the right to resell the games.

How the heck do you get the wrong impression that steam sales are because of the fact your consumer rights have been taken away? Steam does sales because it costs them little to nothing per copy sold, however a sale increases the volume of items sold enough that they make more than the game at full price. They do sales because it's profitable, not because their generous.

Funny that you think that the sales are due to the fact you can't resell your games since last I checked I can get games for 75% off in stores (you know, the things you can walk into, buy a game and then sell the game to your friend if you decided you don't want it). How can they do sales then since you can resell the games? Gosh horror, it's because of the above mentioned volume of sales made earning more total profits than items sold at normal value.

 

[Ushiromiya Battler]

I like how people act like this is something new...
We've always bought licenses when it came to PC games. It's pretty much impossible to return a game after you've bought it, always have. You know why? Because you had a little code you had to tap in to install your game.
Reselling pc games? Sure to your friends maybe, but shops or stuff like that, not likely.
And with the advent of steams family sharing system, we wont even need to sell games to friends anymore.

Apart from that, I don't really give a shit. I can get refunds from shitty games through steam if I'm just persistent enough and reselling games have never really interested me.
I like to keep my games.

 

[Signa]

Do you like Steam sales?

It's disappointing that this failed, but I'm OK with it. I think it would be a lot harder to convince companies to sell their games as cheaply as Steam allows if a user could just resell it again when done with it. I'll take the 50%-90% off sales and watch my impulse buying over the right to resell the games.

How the heck do you get the wrong impression that steam sales are because of the fact your consumer rights have been taken away? Steam does sales because it costs them little to nothing per copy sold, however a sale increases the volume of items sold enough that they make more than the game at full price. They do sales because it's profitable, not because their generous.

Funny that you think that the sales are due to the fact you can't resell your games since last I checked I can get games for 75% off in stores (you know, the things you can walk into, buy a game and then sell the game to your friend if you decided you don't want it). How can they do sales then since you can resell the games? Gosh horror, it's because of the above mentioned volume of sales made earning more total profits than items sold at normal value.

How the heck do you think that your impression is the right one? Neither scenario is proven. The only thing I know for sure is that publishers are dicks. If Steam was one bit more consumer-friendly (like not being DRM at its core, or offering refunds/resells) then it never would have become the titan it is now. It's not a stretch of the imagination to picture Valve asking a publisher if they wanted to sell a game at 75% off, and having the publisher's analysts respond that it was too big of a risk, because they might sell only a few copies before the title hits the used market repeatedly. Do I know that this would actually have happened? No! But what proof do you have to say that it wouldn't have? None either, and you don't have the industry's recent history and moneygrubbing tactics as circumstantial evidence like I do.

I'd also like to see this 75% off sale at a brick and mortar store that even compares to the weekly sales that Steam offers, let alone the seasonal. Maybe if you're digging through the clearance bin at a mom-and-pop store, but not at an established national chain like Wal-Mart or Gamestop. Regardless, it's a poor, poor analogy, because a store can charge what they want for product they bought from a supplier, and liquidation is a thing in the retail market. Steam has to ask if it's OK to put a game on sale, and there is no inventory to liquidate.

 

[NoeL]

I think TotalBiscuit swayed me on second-hand video game sales - namely that he's against the resale and think publishers have the right to try and combat that.

Steam's control over used game sales is what allows them to sell games at ridiculously cheap prices, which is GOOD for the consumer.

I also agree with the courts that intangible data is not the same as a physical object. It doesn't suffer wear and tear through use, so a used game is of IDENTICAL quality to a new one. It makes no sense for a used game to be cheaper than a new one, since you're not getting an inferior product.

 

[thewatergamer]

*sigh* Thats just great news thanks for fucking that one up Germany...

Don't get me wrong I do love valve (at least when they were making games), but come on steam is really not as good as it used to be...

changes need to be made and one of those changes is the right to trade/borrow games...

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

Yep. It irritates me that I won't be able to leave the games in my steam library to someone in my will. And I'm not joking. Because I've essentially just bought a non-transferable license to play games rather than actual copies of them.

Steam is convenient and often has great deals (it's where I get most games because the catalog is bigger than GoG's) but no one should kid themselves- Valve is in this for the money, not some noble desire to better serve consumers.

Actually that's a good point, a good chunk of money we put into buying those games can never be properly valued since I can't give my games away like I would console or old PC games and that's now a new problem for me now that you've brought that to light.

heck if anything I'd love to give my games on Steam to other people who don't have them if I'm going to bite the dust, may as well go to someone else more deserving.

 

[Albino Boo]

And that is a major part of the problem with the understanding of this issue. Buying a copy of a game is not ownership of the intellectual property, it is ownership of something that was produced for mass consumption and distribution where in each copy is functionally identical to every other copy. Owning a copy of something, and owning the intellectual property of something are two completely and very clearly defined things.

For some reason those who defend Steams anti consumerist practices seem to not want to acknowledge and differentiate between the two. Buying a copy of something you are completely free to do with it what you want. However in doing so you are not free to take it, alter it, then try to resell it and claim it was your own creation, under the original name of the creation, and that it is a brand new product of your own design.

Imagine the painting of the Mona Lisa. You buy a canvas print of the painting. When you own that print, thats what you own, the print. Not the original product. You can repaint the whole thing so the colors match the scheme of your living room. You can even resell it (as used of course) as an altered print of the painting, but you cannot try to sell it as "THE" Mona Lisa. You cannot try to expect the same value of your alteration of a reproduction of the original as the original is worth. At the same time, Zombie Da Vinci cannot rise and demand all the money from the sale of your altered copy of the print because the print was produced for mass distribution. Each copy is its own entity and owning that copy is what one owns when they buy it, Not claim on the original work.

Now knowing this difference, which is honestly a clear cut and obvious distinction, Steam has no right to try to claim that what they sell is the service, because there is no service steam provides other than the distribution of the product. The only reason people come to steam is to buy the products they want. Steams service is that of distributing those products in a digital format. The fact it is in a digital format does NOT give them the right to claim they offered a service when none was provided but that is EXACTLY what they are doing and trying to cement because it is obvious, if you can change a product into a service, you are no longer governed by the laws of selling a product which comes with consumer protections, you are governed by the conditional laws of providing a service which can be terminated with or without your consent, with or without recompense for the individual transactions made.

If steam was an "access" Service, it would mean all games in the steam library would have to be accessible. THAT would be steam providing a service. Sort of the way Netflix or Amazon Prime or Hulu plus offer services of access. However where steam still sells the products as individual products they under no rational law of man or commerce have the right to claim what they sell is a service.

Is steam the only party guilty of this? Not by a long shot, From a corporate perspective its a great idea because it gives you all the control and power over the service, the freedom to stop the service as you see fit and leaves the customer with nothing if it is and no recourse if you do. The problem isnt that companies are trying to do this nearly as much as the real problem is that Steam has found a way to get people to willingly abandon their protections and allowing Steam convert the entire industry into transforming products into services. Thais why attention needs to be focused on Steam. Because they have managed to find that niche that is giving them the financial clout to forcibly transform products into a service and as they prove this business model viable they will continue expanding outward (Productivity software, Music and how long before Video comes into the steam fold) as well as giving other distributors ideas on how to emulate the same tactic.

That is the real problem here. We are honestly on the verge of an economic revolution thanks to digital distribution. The problem is that the rules of this new economic world are being written by corporations, in their favor and being voted into effect by way of financial support by an apathetic audience who simply does not care if everyone's rights are lost, so long as they get what they personally want. Even when want something that will end up not only hurting them, but everyone.

So lets use your TL;DR for a moment. If we let Steam write the rules today on what is the industry standard operating procedure for digital distribution today and run all companies who are doing digital distribution but still respecting that a product is a product off, what happens in 10-20 years as digital 3d printing takes off and we ARE buying cars via digital distribution? We let the rules be written that its a subscription. So just because you paid a boat load of money, your vehicle could be taken away at the distributors discretion because thats what you agreed to it.

Yuu have failed to understand the difference between buying on steam and buying retail. It does not matter how many words you write it will not change the fact that games on steam are only available via steam. You can only access the games via steam's service. Valve is not the rights holder, EULAs are still between the rights holder and the end user, valve has no part in that. Valve set the rules on what you can and cannot do on its service, steam. Valve are fee to set those rules in any way it likes within the law. This court case was not about the fairness or otherwise of steam rules but a foolish waste of money in an attempt to say steam is not a service when it plainly is a service.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

But the Court of Justice also ruled, in a more recent case, that the audiovisual components of video games means they are "not only computer software," and are thus covered by the European Community's general copyright directive rather than the more specific laws regarding computer software.

Oh, fuck off Court of Justice. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my entire life.

 

[Strazdas]

intangible copies of video games

that the audiovisual components of video games means they are "not only computer software,"

Erm WHAT?
when did videogames became intangible?
r when did software lost ability to have audiovisual components?

Games ARE software. games are SUBCATEGORY of software, more specifically - software made for interactive entertainment.

Let me shorten that title for you: Valve Triumphs Over Consumers

sounds about right.

Damn good thing Valve won. Or we might not see those sales anymore.

Do you see huge sales on console with the resale ability? Nooooooooo

Do you see huge sales on PC games that can't be resold? Yeeeeeees

We get huge sales because companies know the copy will only go to one person most of the time and not switch hand with 20 others.

you do realize that sales are the time they make the most profit right? How about every other sale where you can trade games? you dont see huge sales on console becuase MS and Sony knows they can ask extortionate prices.

I'd rather see a rule passed that forces companies to keep their products updated for new OS-Iteration / Hardware as long as the copyright of the product exists.

That's not directly workable, but I could get behind expiring the copyright a few years after the copyright holder stops supporting the product.

which si exactly why it would be a good thing. this means that a lot of old copyrights that are no longer supported will be forcibly dropped instead of sitting in abandonment for 90 years and modders can legally write fixes to work on new OS since they can legaly modify engine once copyright is down.

 

[Fasckira]

Good for valve, bad for us.
Peculiar choice of wording for the headline though.
I thought you were on our side.
Sensationalist and manipulative but kinda on our side.

You know, us, the consumers.
Your audience.

Ssssh, the resistance is not ready to take a public stand yet, comrade!

On another note (and this isn't a dig at Escapist), its a shame to see so many legal based articles around at the moment. In an age when we should be celebrating new tech, getting excited over new games, and oggling shiny graphics we are instead witnessing court battles, patent trolls and cease-and-desists.

We've lost our way, gaming world!

 

[BloodRed Pixel]

I'd rather see a rule passed that forces companies to keep their products updated for new OS-Iteration / Hardware as long as the copyright of the product exists.

That's not directly workable, but I could get behind expiring the copyright a few years after the copyright holder stops supporting the product.

which si exactly why it would be a good thing. this means that a lot of old copyrights that are no longer supported will be forcibly dropped instead of sitting in abandonment for 90 years and modders can legally write fixes to work on new OS since they can legaly modify engine once copyright is down.

exactly this

Like 1 to 2 Year after the support dropped because this is usually the official warranty period for products. And any longer would weaken the effect.

 

[Zefar]

How the heck do you get the wrong impression that steam sales are because of the fact your consumer rights have been taken away? Steam does sales because it costs them little to nothing per copy sold, however a sale increases the volume of items sold enough that they make more than the game at full price. They do sales because it's profitable, not because their generous.

Funny that you think that the sales are due to the fact you can't resell your games since last I checked I can get games for 75% off in stores (you know, the things you can walk into, buy a game and then sell the game to your friend if you decided you don't want it). How can they do sales then since you can resell the games? Gosh horror, it's because of the above mentioned volume of sales made earning more total profits than items sold at normal value.

If Valve where to allow resale of games we would have a major problem.
Because this store is visited by 6-7 million people at once.

People have bought up so many games from previous sales that they would be able to sell them for years to come. People would cut ahead of others with their price being better and it would lead to the scenario where games are worth a cent.
People wouldn't bother with sales if it's on the market for a hundred of it's price.

It would be the biggest game crash since that Atari crash. It's like you have no idea on the things that could happen.

Oh and store sales are on generally on copies that are several years old. You won't see a huge sales on games that has recently been released for console.

you do realize that sales are the time they make the most profit right? How about every other sale where you can trade games? you dont see huge sales on console becuase MS and Sony knows they can ask extortionate prices.

How blissfully unaware you are of the consequences of resale of PC games.

I know I've written it down just above that quote of yours but I'll say it again.

People would keep cutting the price to get their game sold before others and this would lead to games being worth a penny.
They would also cut ahead of whatever sale price the game is currently offering or no one would buy it.

Then we have this where a used PC game doesn't exist. It's the same as a original. So there is no loss in buying a used copy.


Like come on, THINK on what could happen.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

This is one of the tradeoffs of digital/virtual/intangible products. It's not perfect but no system is, and I consider steam to be a decent because it's practices are reasonably balanced,remember, things that overwhelmingly benefit the consumer are usually detrimental to the sellers...and vice versa. If you're platform is biased against sellers well guess what... no one is going to sell through you and thusly your business dies.

This.



In short:
Software ownership is complicated.
Valve and Steam do deserve criticism for their faults.
This is not a "win for Valve" or a "loss for consumers."

 

[Strazdas]

really dont get the issue here. Valve is good to us, dont treat us like walking wallets or like brain dead twats. Why does no one go after EA for all the bullshit they pull over the consumer. Like the recent Dungeon Keeper "mobile game" THAT kinda out right shit should be taking to court. But i dont see why ppl are getting all pissy over steam.

wave is not "good" to us. valve is a restricting DRM that some people like simply because they have better sales. You point to EA, but have you forgotten that EA who runs Origin already implemented a full refund policy quite a while ago?
Saying that Valve is good to us because it has sales is like saying that Wallmart is good to us because it has sales.

I sympathise with the 'Verbraucherzentrale Bundesve... [see next page]', but I agree that that kind of ruling can't be enforced without better clarity as to whether or not the consumer owns the 1's and 0's their copy of the game is made of. I;s a complex area. Owning said code is essentially useless for the purpose of reselling it, because you can't transfer content stored digitally, because that would constitute copying said content. It's impossible to "move" data from one place to another, all you can do is delete it in one place and build new, matching data in a new place.
All that aside, I'm not happy either, with the current licensing situation.

In accordance to EU laws the person owns the product. Terms of service agreements and EULAs are void and unless signed in writing BEFORE the buying occurs.There is nothing "complex" about it other than companies pretending that it is service and buying lawyers to argue the case.
You CAN transfer digital content. in fact, you do that every time you copy a file. anything that works in computers is copying. installing steam is copying. running steam is copying. running a game you downloaded on steam is copying the game to your RAM. such semantics are useless when it comes to PC.

GoG? Desura? Origin? Greenman? Battle.net? Humble Bundle?

Yeah, I'm counting a lot of direct competition there sweetie.

if that direct competition gives you steam keys, how is that competition? i am yet to see a humble bundle (granted i dont buy every one) that gives me something other than steam acess.
GOG is probably the best example, as they do not use any DRM.

Okay, no, you cannot use triumph for the friggin' bad guys. This is not a triumph, anymore than Hitler's invasion of Poland was a triumph. It's a gorram travesty.

technically, hitler trumphed over poland. "good guys" depend on whos side your on.

That is incorrect, when you buy a game from steam you are buying a License of that game, but really with this logic, why can i not sell the music i bought on itunes to someone else?

Im so sick of people saying that steam is so good one day, and then the next that steam is super Hitler.

because of the same reaons you cannot sell games you bought on steam - anticonsumer practices. you should be able to sell music you bought on itunes to somone else the same way you can sell album you bought to someone else.

Personally i have been saying steam is bad all the way since 2004, i agree that hipocracy is high with steam users though.

I don't see why people feel entitled to resell their steam library, when you purchase a game on steam, hell, when you install steam, you are presented their terms of use.

i dont see why people feel entitled to resell the car they bought 10 years ago. after all after you bought the car sometime within those 10 years the manufacturer told you that you either sign this agreement or we will not allow you to drive thecar you legally own.

We've always bought licenses when it came to PC games. It's pretty much impossible to return a game after you've bought it, always have. You know why? Because you had a little code you had to tap in to install your game.
Reselling pc games? Sure to your friends maybe, but shops or stuff like that, not likely.

you say it like this was ever actually true.

If Valve where to allow resale of games we would have a major problem.
Because this store is visited by 6-7 million people at once.

just like we have a major problem because people are allwoed to resell their, well, everything but videogames.
except, that, we dont.

People have bought up so many games from previous sales that they would be able to sell them for years to come. People would cut ahead of others with their price being better and it would lead to the scenario where games are worth a cent.
People wouldn't bother with sales if it's on the market for a hundred of it's price.

No they wouldnt. Because people want to keep games they like. and noone will bother selling them for 1 cent either. and if your game is SO BAD that so many people are going to get rid of it at 0,01 usd, then maybe you should make a game.

How blissfully unaware you are of the consequences of resale of PC games.

I know I've written it down just above that quote of yours but I'll say it again.

People would keep cutting the price to get their game sold before others and this would lead to games being worth a penny.
They would also cut ahead of whatever sale price the game is currently offering or no one would buy it.

Then we have this where a used PC game doesn't exist. It's the same as a original. So there is no loss in buying a used copy.

Like come on, THINK on what could happen.

Except reality has proven that this does not happen.

 

[Zefar]

No they wouldnt. Because people want to keep games they like. and noone will bother selling them for 1 cent either. and if your game is SO BAD that so many people are going to get rid of it at 0,01 usd, then maybe you should make a game.

But not everyone likes every game out there. They will also sell off titles they will never play again. I know I won't touch games that I love because I've played them to death.
People might also not be so keen on having a gigantic playlist that takes forever to look through.
Games that are gathered up in large enough numbers will go down in price so much that it will make Steam sales look like extortion rates.

Except reality has proven that this does not happen.

Except that Used game sales made up for 2 billion dollars for Gamestop and they got all of that money for themselves. Money that could have gone to helping game companies instead. Gamestop also doesn't like the notion of losing that part.

Games also can't exactly be compared to other stuff.
You have this item that will never degrade no matter what and always be the same.
Stores that sell used stuff only, can only carry a limited amount of stuff and most of the time they don't even sell the stuff and have to get rid of it.
Steam removes that part. They will be on the store for a life time. They can carry an infinitive amount of items. It'll be super easy to find the cheapest seller too.

You can see things dropping in price the moment there are too many of them. I'm willing to bet Half-Life 2 would be priced less than a dollar on the Steam market if resale was allowed. It has nothing to do with the quality of the game. It's all about how many of it there exist on the market. Too many and the price drops. Simple.

Then we also have VAC banned games or MMORPG games. You can't just sell those.