The reason they are saying it is because Sony, EA and Microsoft got loads of hate for doing this and they are just trying to bait the Valve fanboys on this site to say something bad about Steam.Agente L said:
Valve Wants Customer Disputes in Small Claims Court
- Thread starter Karloff
- Start date
*shrugs* hard pressed to bothered about this the way i was when heard about EA's.
which is the major difference, EA has a shit rep built on greed and disdain for their customers, so it looks like yet another dick move from a group known for dick moves
Valve has at least had the good graces to, at worst pretend they care enough to foster a lot of good will with their consumer base, so this doesn't look even half as bad as EA's
won't happen and the above is why
which is the major difference, EA has a shit rep built on greed and disdain for their customers, so it looks like yet another dick move from a group known for dick moves
Valve has at least had the good graces to, at worst pretend they care enough to foster a lot of good will with their consumer base, so this doesn't look even half as bad as EA's
*points up*Draech said:
won't happen and the above is why
subtlefuge said:
I'll try and kill two birds with one stone here, but I'm 99% sure it already did get tested in court in a case involving another company and courts upheld it which is why other companies began to follow suit. So you could try to file a class action suit in the US, but the courts will simply prevent it from ever happening because this stuff is entirely legal now. I don't know if any other countries have had this sort of clause tested in their court systems though.Worgen said:
I'm fascinated by how many people care about this in the first place. Do you expect to be suing Valve in the near future? For more than 99% of Steam users, this is utterly meaningless. If they start abusing it, I'll be annoyed, but right now? I have no grievances with Valve in the first place and I can't imagine them doing anything that would make me want to file a class action lawsuit anyways.
I hate how we obviously did, and yet so many people are saying "Meh, who cares if they take away my rights? I wasn't using them!" and "Well Valve has historically been a less awful company, so it's absolutely certain it will never screw ME in any way shape or form, even though they can deny my access to all games I bought through their system and have done so to some people already! Now excuse me while I cross this freeway with my eyes closed, since I've crossed it twice already and nothing happened so I know this is completely safe."Agente L said:
for the most part the difference between civil suit, class action suit, and arbitration is as followsEruanno said:
all of these are usually seeking financial reimbursement for damages done by the defendant. there is no actual limit to the amount on damages that can be sought by any of these means (so anyone stating that "this means Valve is just trying to pay less money" is ignorant, and needs to learn law).
civil suit, and arbitration can have any number of plaintiffs, but a class action suit has a minimum amount (that slips my mind at time of writing)
class action suits money is paid out to the group as a whole to be distributed to each (usually equally, or by percent difference of damages), but arbitration, and civil have damages paid out individually to each plaintiff, but can also have claims dismissed per plaintiff.
the bigger difference are:
that civil, and class action have an appeals process (which usually has anywhere from 3-7 levels that have to hear the full case), while arbitration is 1, and done.
civil can be heard in front of a jury of peers. while class action is a judge (typically can be a jury, but only in special circumstances), and arbitration is an agreed upon individual (usually with a law degree of some kind, but not necessarily)
civil, and class action are a matter of public record. while arbitration is considered a private agreement.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,015
- 3,881
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
It did and it stood, for now, but it puts me in the mind of sopa. Really you just need enough people to know about these kind of things for them to be challenged and changed. Consumers 'own' less and less of our stuff since we are moving more and more digital, it just takes one big company really screwing up and changes will happen and we will see new consumer protections.Vivi22 said:
Captcha: underpants (Step 3 is profit)
It means you're not allowed to go to court with all your friends and fellow gamers and seriously claim millions in damages in a single suit over emotional damages due to them not releasing ep3.Eruanno said:
For Valve the reasons for stipulating arbitration are twofold:
- It bars class action suits, where everyone would get paid if it won, in favour of a system where cases can be thrown out on an individual basis.
- Arbitration is statistically more likely to rule in favour of a company, while a jury tends to lean towards taking the customer's side.
Do keep in mind there is a "but" where it comes to the EU, as multiple jurisdictions might not consider these clauses legally binding, as they deny qualified legal assistance. There haven't been any cases on this so far in the EU, so we don't know for sure what'll happen when it eventually gets tested.
Judging from the fact that they explicitly brought up the EU in their message, I can't help but assume this is specifically to stave off a class-action suit over the fact that users can't resell their games. A class-action suit is pretty much the only way anyone could ever take them to task for what is now a blatant violation of EU law, and they want to stop it before it can happen.
Very clever. And stupid.
Very clever. And stupid.
Of course, as been pointed out before, when EA or Sony or Microsoft or any other companies does this, it is evil and they are the scum of the earth and they are horrible evil companies that want nothing more than our money. But when VALVe does the same exact thing, it's okay, even reasonable, laudable, and "I never cared in the first place, even when EA did this!" (a complete lie), and "this will never apply to me, so what does it matter?" (completely ignorant).
A violation of consumer rights is a violation of consumer rights no matter who does it. It is not VALVe's decision to restrict our rights to a class action lawsuit if we so choose. If I want a class action lawsuit, I should be able to bring a class action lawsuit to them whether they like it or not. They are restricting this ability because it is convenient for them, not because they want an easier time for the consumer. I am not aware of any previous class action case, or indeed any court case, that would cause this sort of precedent.
A violation of consumer rights is a violation of consumer rights no matter who does it. It is not VALVe's decision to restrict our rights to a class action lawsuit if we so choose. If I want a class action lawsuit, I should be able to bring a class action lawsuit to them whether they like it or not. They are restricting this ability because it is convenient for them, not because they want an easier time for the consumer. I am not aware of any previous class action case, or indeed any court case, that would cause this sort of precedent.
Kargathia said:
Two serious answers in one thread? On the internet? Gentlemen, I believe you both are entitled to some fancy top hats, a tray of cookies and a nice backrub.gardian06 said:
(For the record, I'm still not 100% sure what it means, but it is a little clearer. I think. Uh, maybe.)
