Valve Wants Customer Disputes in Small Claims Court

[Snotnarok]

A thought out answer, I was hoping for one of these rather than "cause it is stoopid". I guess I can see where you're coming from but I can't imagine this sorta thing holding up really considering it literally just says you can't sue us. Then again I'm no lawyer, I just don't see how something like that could even stick.

Either way thanks for the decent answer so I can stroke my beard and nod, get a decent idea why someone would be upset, yadda, yadda.

Yeah I guess those kinds of lawsuits do have a bit of a bad rap given they always seem to be tied to someone who stubbed their toe and because the company didn't have a "Warning don't stub your toe on the stairs" they get hundreds of people with stubbed toes who can't work anymore. ...I hope that came across the way I was trying to.

I understand why people hate class action lawsuits cause let's be honest there is always someone being a complete ballard and abusing rights or manipulating rights not how they were intended to be used. Also for a good deal of people when they actually question the justice they receive when the class action lawsuit is ruled in their favor there is no feeling of dramatic change that affects their life or any meaningful restitution to all the hardship they had to endure and yet get angry when they find out the monetary amount the lawyer made in relation to the small check they receive. These people often forget that justice doesn't always result in some big payout and we do honestly wish for that financial justice that would change our lives.

The best way to look at class action lawsuits is really like everything else, on a case by case basis. After all in each class action lawsuit I always had the opportunity to opt-out or opt-in and a form of contact. Some class action lawsuits are idiotic and some are actually good while others are a necessary evil.

But to be able to have the right to any sort of legal process is most important be it class action or small claims because it is the the judicial system we trust to ensure that opportunity to justice instead of a different set of rules set by a private company to where their profit and survival as a business relies on contracts to be hired by said companies that act on the companies behalf instead of getting justice from our government. While there is certainly a need for arbiters the Supreme court ruling effectively started to make our judicial system not needed yet a good deal of cases will often result in a negotiation not requiring an actual trial to occur.

As for my bias, I'm more pissed that when the ATT v Concepcion case was happening I am still outraged at the family and lawyer that kept appealing despite losing over and over again yet constantly getting warnings that their case did not have the right setting for the consumer to win as the thirty dollars was a tax that the family didn't want to pay. And losing that case on the federal level made a bigger impact to our justice system and society in favor of extreme capitalism than most people will ever realize.

Only good thing for me is that I can honestly walk away from Steam because while I own 54 games they were all games I bought on sale and honestly wouldn't miss if I had to jump ship because I beat about 90% of the games I purchased. It's the same reason why I won't agree to the TOS of microsoft's live service because while Valve may only do video games for now, microsoft does A LOT more than games and agreeing to that TOS is related to all of microsoft and not just the Live service. I may someday decide to waive my rights but for now I wanna wait a while and see what comes of it and if there is any legal challenges that will demand such change.

At least there is Gamer's Gate and I'm sure I can find other digital platforms for PC gaming if I look hard enough.

I've no real clue on class action lawsuits and had no real opinion either way, just knew they were abused a bit, but what isn't? Seriously what isn't abused now a days?

I was going to sue my previous employers for not paying, however it was stacking to not be worth it. Only thing annoys me is they're still using the label I designed and worked hard on but got nothing for.

I don't see myself jumping ship on valve because they're not dumb, they'll see this kinda reaction and change it. I'm sure there's a reason they did it and it's not just because they don't want to get sued, they don't operate like a normal company and I'm half suspecting they're doing the usual-testing the waters.

 

[robert01]

The only people this clause really effects is their American Customers. My understanding is that the EU has consumer laws in place, many provinces in Canada have laws in place that stop this, and even fucking Brazil has consumer laws in place that stop this.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

A lot of people are saying that they'll stop using Steam because of this. Which is fair enough, but it's much harder when you have more than $1000 worth of shit on there. Or you use it as your IM of choice. It's times like this I wish the Steam storefront and the Steam client were better separated as entities, but I guess that's the whole point, isn't it.

I love Valve. They've done a lot of good for PC gaming and they definitely seem like smart people, and they no doubt care for their customers. But everything they do, all I can think is that the only reason they care is because that's more profitable for them. It doesn't personally effect me that they've written in a clause like this, but it's still pretty awful that it's there, and it does paint a fairly scary picture overall. I trust Valve with this - they've earned my trust - but that doesn't mean they can do no wrong, and it certainly doesn't mean they can't abuse that trust.

I'm approaching this subject with trepidation. Y'all should too.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Yeah they're only doing this because of the new EU decision. This really shows it when they add in several clauses on the resale of games specifically for the EU and I'm not happy about them stopping people from the region locking thing either. I'm not a fan of charging more because you can unless there is a reason such as VAT levels.

I'm not going to stop using Steam but I am going to be buying less games on Steam whenever possible and try buy for Gamer's Gate or GoG. I have no problem waiting. That said Valve does have my trust for being smart with what they do with the sales so I'll see how this goes before I decide to completely stop with Steam.

As well as that I understand a lot of money in those goes to Lawyers when it shouldn't but I don't agree with stopping people from having the choice to do it.

 

[viranimus]

Why is this such a hard thing to understand.

It is absolutely no different than if Valve demanded you give up your right to habeus corpus in order to continue accessing your legally purchased licenses, and then hijacking your account and holding it hostage until you agree.

It does not matter in the slightest if "valve would never do that" because Valve just did that. Its the fact that your rights are being taken away if you agree, and more to the point if you agree your also taking away MY rights as well as every other gamer because your giving this traction and allowing them to do it.

Despite how many times it has to be said... Here we are. This is no slippery slope argument. This is the edge of the glacier and Valve is the latest to try to push the gamers over the edge.

First, every gamer needs to contact valve support and demand a full refund for their entire library of games because of the actions valve has taken against an account in good standing.

Then there needs to be a class action suit over this just to drive the point home.



I cannot stress this enough.. if you are a gamer, you need to get off your ass and do something about this. It effects you... even if you cannot comprehend how it does, it effects you and every gamer you know. Period. Doing nothing only ensures that every gamer loses.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Valve is going to pay for your dispute, no matter the outcome? That's awfully generous. I wouldn't wouldn't be surprised if they get sued over people not being able to have class action lawsuit though. Luckily, I trust most gamers are lazy/incompetent so i can see where that would be going:

Spoiler

 

[BartyMae]

I'll be honest - I love Steam and all of its upfront services. The way it handles games, sales, friends, events, etc. is awesome. But all this background stuff - while not really affecting me - is beginning to worry me. Lack of fair prices, lack of region free games, silence on their whole supposed "we'll patch the games to be Steam free in the case of company failure" policy, and now this. Again, doesn't really affect me, but still worrisome.

 

[Baresark]

Lotta drama on this thread.

First, class action suits don't benefit consumers at all. The right to sue individually is much better for the consumer. It's really a mixed basket. It's more work to pursue, but Valve will foot the bill so long as it's not considered frivolous by the judge.

Second, them footing the bill is more likely to get them to change an internal policy than a class action suit would be. It's set up so they foot it no matter what, even if they win. In a class action, that is not he case at all. It's footed by the lawyers but they stand to make a sweet and tidy profit from all of your nerd rage.

Third, it's like negotiating your own contract: it's more work, but you benefit much more from it. You are not stuck to what others decide is fair compensation, you can decide that for yourself, at least to a greater degree.

And finally: they did not say you could not pursue legal action, but if 500 people got a problem they can pursue it individually, which is actually much much much harder on Valve, as opposed to a class action suit which they only need one team of lawyers to conduct business on.

But, I get where people are coming from. You are responding to them telling you that you are not allowed to do something. But people need to think more about this before jumping the gun.

Edit: When all of this is said and done, if a group of people decide to pursue a class action lawsuit against valve, even after the new EULA, no one can stop them. And a judge could decide that isn't legal and void the contract themselves.

But, people are welcome to freak out.

 

[Naqel]

Please explain this logic to me.

Sony only did such a change to protect themselves from hundreds of unhappy people after the PS3 update that removed Linux compatibility. They were left with no other choice following the mistake that they made.

EA not only has a history of being dicks, they also saw the potential to cover their ass in case someone ever got really upset over the other stupid stuff they've been doing(like having you install spyware).

Valve is pretty much built on consumer loyalty, and goodwill. As a company, they do everything a company can do to help the medium go forward, and just about the only flaw they have people ever hear or care about, is that Half-Life 3 isn't out yet.

I mean, sure, all three cases is basically the companies covering their asses, but whereas Sony had to use it's hands in a hurry, Valve did it with a sheet of cloth, while EA did it by shoving it's ass in our faces, so we get a better smell of their shit.

 

[Xanadu84]

It sounds to me like Steam is clarifying how to handle disputes in a way that is most beneficial to them as a company AND most effective for the consumer. And they are effectively offering to pay to settle those disputes out of their own pockets. It seems to me that EA eliminates class action lawsuits because that is the only method by which consumers could fight back against them. Does EA offer to pay court costs, win or lose? That alone seems to indicate that Valve wants a system that will ultimately favor there customers, while EA wants to screw them over while keeping plausible deniability.

If this characterization of the respective companies is wrong, then Valve is merely much better at PR and communicating with it's customers. If it's right, it's further evidence that Valve has earned the trust that is has received, while EA has earned it bad reputation.

 

[IamQ]

I must've missed something. Why do I have to hate this again?

 

[mateushac]

And THIS is probably the greatest part of being a Brazilian citizen. Unfair ToS like this will never reach me!

 

[Twilight_guy]

Valve is going to pay for your dispute, no matter the outcome? That's awfully generous. I wouldn't wouldn't be surprised if they get sued over people not being able to have class action lawsuit though. Luckily, I trust most gamers are lazy/incompetent so i can see where that would be going:

Spoiler

Read it again. They will pay IF they find the claim legitimate and IF it is under 10,000 dollars. If it is OVER 10,000 dollars then you the plaintiff will have to play for yourself, the arbiter and VALVE. Gotta read that fine print. Valve is not playing nice here as much as people think or how the Escapist and a lot of game websites are posting.

Still better then your average company which will always pay 0.

 

[lacktheknack]

I get the feeling that Richard Stallman entered this thread when we weren't looking...

So they've reduced use of my freedom to take them to court, a freedom I won't use for many, many reasons. I also didn't realy care when EA did it, or when Sony did it. Why should I feel obligated to flip out because a company wishes to not lose a huge amount of money?

 

[Sansha]

Wait... why are we angry at this again?

i have said it already and ill say it again, fuck you valve, for taking away consumer rights, i will not be buying anymore games from you.

I'm curious, why this reaction? Can you explain your stance?

 

[Space Jawa]

I mean, sure, all three cases is basically the companies covering their asses, but whereas Sony had to use it's hands in a hurry, Valve did it with a sheet of cloth, while EA did it by shoving it's ass in our faces, so we get a better smell of their shit.

Which, in spite of the reason they're 'covering their butts', makes me wonder where the logic is in giving Valve a pass while Sony and EA (EA especially) are all but declared the unholy spawn of evil companies when all three are supposedly doing the exact same thing.

 

[CD-R]

Meh.

Sony did it cause they got burned.
EA did it cause they're dicks.
Valve dose it cause it's smart.

I mean, I would have to be really hard pressed to even consider malicious intent on Valve's side.
EA on the other hand are made of nothing but greed an malice.

Not sure if trolling or just Valve Fanboy mental gymnastics.

 

[chadachada123]

Sony did it cause they got burned.
EA did it cause they're dicks.
Valve dose it cause it's smart.

I mean, I would have to be really hard pressed to even consider malicious intent on Valve's side.
EA on the other hand are made of nothing but greed an malice.

One's Evil and one isn't for doing the same thing?

Please explain this logic to me.

Valve will pay for the cost of arbitration even if Valve wins, as long as you aren't being 'frivolous' or 'excessive.'

EA makes you pay for arbitration (unless you claim that the fees are excessive or claim that you're unable to pay).

Barring this, EA EXPECTS class-action lawsuits and wants to limit them. Valve doesn't expect class action lawsuits and appears to be preferring arbitration to make it easier for customers, not harder. EA expects people to give up if they can't use class-action and have to use arbitration. Valve doesn't appear to have the same motives, and appears to actually want to satisfy customers.

Edit: To clarify, the last paragraph describe what appears to be true. The first two paragraphs are factual and not based on opinion, only the last one is.

 

[Aeonknight]

Sony did it cause they got burned.
EA did it cause they're dicks.
Valve dose it cause it's smart.

I mean, I would have to be really hard pressed to even consider malicious intent on Valve's side.
EA on the other hand are made of nothing but greed an malice.

One's Evil and one isn't for doing the same thing?

Please explain this logic to me.

Valve will pay for the cost of arbitration even if Valve wins, as long as you aren't being 'frivolous' or 'excessive.'

EA makes you pay for arbitration (unless you claim that the fees are excessive or claim that you're unable to pay).

Barring this, EA EXPECTS class-action lawsuits and wants to limit them. Valve doesn't expect class action lawsuits and appears to be preferring arbitration to make it easier for customers, not harder. EA expects people to give up if they can't use class-action and have to use arbitration. Valve doesn't appear to have the same motives, and appears to actually want to satisfy customers.

Edit: To clarify, the last paragraph describe what appears to be true. The first two paragraphs are factual and not based on opinion, only the last one is.

It doesn't matter if Valve's gonna pay your lawyer fees to sue them. What matters is that you weren't given a choice in the matter of giving up class action lawsuits (which are a bigger threat to the company, even if the lawyers are the only ones who walk away with any type of victory at the end of the day.)

And what's better, they held your Steam library hostage to do it. Does that sound like a company acting in the interest of it's customers?

 

[viranimus]

Ok because people keep asking "Why should I care again"

Ill simplify this.

A: They are taking away your rights. Doesnt matter which ones, the fact they are taking anything away should have you up in arms. They are taking them away and holding your purchases hostage unless you give them up in voluntary compliance.

B: Because allowing them to do this, hurts ALL gamers (and technically all consumers) because this will not be the end of it. By doing nothing, your giving them permission to take more.

Edit: Why do the want to do this? divide et impera.