-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
If you don't wish to accept the new Steam Subscriber Agreement...
- Thread starter Gowans
- Start date
Live Free or Die
Banned
Glad I switched over to origin.
CecilRousso
Member
I really am having trouble to see the difference between ironic and serious posts in this thread.
dummydecoy
Member
Read through the whole thread. LoL, İ cant believe you guys actually believe you owned the games bought off the service. İ'm really glad OP got his money back, i wish everyone who disagrees with Steam's terms gets their money back. This is also why i will never ever go digital. The day they stop selling them on discs is the day i stop gaming.
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
It might be an overreaction to you, and i accept that different people have different tolerance levels, but can you see why this move can make people feel this way? Forget the content of the TOS for a moment.. the money people have put into Steam is being held hostage by this new agreement. Chances are high that most people angered by this would not have been so if Valve had presented things differently other than the Darth Vader "Pray I don't alter it any further" way.
All the more reason to buy used and pay as absolutely little as possible for any games ever.
butter_stick
Banned
Ownership is an illusion. Money is just something we give people to feel better about ourselves. The qucker people realise this the quicker they'll stop worrying about things as insignificant as Steam Subscriber Agreements.
Oh come on.
Delusibeta
Banned
Mark my words: people crying that they own retail games will be in for a shock next generation.
I'm definitely not throwing the baby out with the bath water. There are distributers, publishers and developers out there that are doing it right (CD Projekt, GoG, most if not all of the indies.) I will still support those that put there products in a consumer friendly format (DRM-free, and many allowing free re-downloads in case you lost the file.)
I also wish I could say I would be more principled and would not support the publishers that put their products on PC with DRM, but that probably won't be the case. I would still buy them on consoles.
I don't consider consoles as having/utilizing DRM as far as physical/box games go (although they technically do). Only online-activated software satisfies the term for me. Right to access the media I purchased should be with me.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Pending any licensing issues with third parties, chances are from this backlash they'll modify the refusal to accept to only lock the account for future purchases.
And for that hope, I still see the advantage in Valve. They move when they need to and when something doesn't work for the consumer out they figure out how to fix it.
People saying that this makes Origin more consumer friendly is hilarious. At least with Valve games I don't know for a fact in a year I won't be able to play online. If that's something you think is consumer friendly, then this Valve thing should be mild...
And for that hope, I still see the advantage in Valve. They move when they need to and when something doesn't work for the consumer out they figure out how to fix it.
People saying that this makes Origin more consumer friendly is hilarious. At least with Valve games I don't know for a fact in a year I won't be able to play online. If that's something you think is consumer friendly, then this Valve thing should be mild...
So will developers and publishers who insist we don't.
BadAss2961
Member
Steam is so convenient. But yeah, Valve is not perfect. They should be treated just like any other major company when it comes to this. Most of us have spent hundreds and thousands of dollars on their platform, yet we're still at the mercy of EULAs and being locked out of everything.
That support person in the OP is an ass for even bringing up an account removal. Pretty much sign the agreement or die!
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
For the good of gaming we can only hope. The faster the Proctor and Gamble people lose their fortunes in gaming the faster they will leave.
butter_stick
Banned
I'd understand this concern if Valve had ever done anything to lock anybody out of their purchases. The only time you ever heard of that is people getting banned, and even then I think they can still access their pre existing purchases.
mattiewheels
And then the LORD David Bowie saith to his Son, Jonny Depp: 'Go, and spread my image amongst the cosmos. For every living thing is in anguish and only the LIGHT shall give them reprieve.'
Indeed. People just have to vote with their wallets, and actually follow through.
Devs are already missing my money this gen by making all first-person games, shooters and shit. I probably spend $500 on retro games for every $100 I spend on new stuff.
And that all goes 100% to the reseller. Many people I know do the same. Gamestop, Disc Replay and eBay see more of my money than Best Buy, Steam and PSN combined.
Calavera520
Member
ugh. you knew the risks going in, and given that, relax, NO ONE IS TAKING YOUR GAMES AWAY.
As a few others have posted, other digital services have similar terms. I will gladly continue to buy games on steam.
As a few others have posted, other digital services have similar terms. I will gladly continue to buy games on steam.
I don't understand why anyone cares about this. You guys act like you read these TOS... They don't mean a thing. Ever read Apple's 45 pages of dribble? Do any of these changes change anything at all for any normal person...
Companies do what they want and we are just puppets on their strings.
Facebook steals our personal life
Dropbox steals our personal files
Google steals our personal mind
etc...
Just be fine with it all and use every service with the risks in mind.
Companies do what they want and we are just puppets on their strings.
Facebook steals our personal life
Dropbox steals our personal files
Google steals our personal mind
etc...
Just be fine with it all and use every service with the risks in mind.
Do what I did. Retro Gamer hardware guides - pick a platform or two - collect. Much less stressful than worrying about various platform holders today gutting your collection and stopping you from playing games you paid for on a whim.
Plus you get to discover gems you missed first time around.
iNvid02
Member
nobody in their right mind expects that
but disagreeing with these terms should let you retain ownership of the games you have bought, as well as the ability to play them.
sakipon
Member
If it's that simple, why do they need to restrict their customers? Class action lawsuits may aswell be allowed as no gamer is ever suing anyway.
BrokenEchelon
Banned
Because not everyone enjoys being short sighted and thoughtless about what current policy might imply about future policies.
Wendy said it well (quoting Vader): " I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."
I don't try for complete sets, but I collect stuff I like for various systems.
(I've reached the point where I need spreadsheets for my SNES/SFC and PS2 games, lol)
bigace33
Member
This is why I don't have a lot of sympathy for these giant gaming companies. We spend tons of cash with these companies and they still treat us like second class citizens, I can understand they have policies that they want to enforce, but not having access to your games if you willingly choose to not accept those stupid terms is unacceptable. You did not rent these games, you actually purchased them, some at $60 or more. They should have it so you can at least keep your .exe of your games even if you don't have steam. The one ugly wrinkle on DD. I love DD, but this is truly a travesty.
So Valve should come up with a way for people who declined the EULA to still download and play the games they already owned at the time the EULA went up? Seems like a lot of work for something that will affect so few, not to mention that they'd be doing this for people who will no longer buy stuff through Steam
The class action restriction sucks but it's an unenforceable EULA which generally means nothing in court.
Wait, are you guys hoping that Valve removes the DRM from an account that declines the EULA? Every single publisher in the world would sue for that.
Zuhzuhzombie!!
Member
Aww. And that guy with the Star Trek avatar finally convineced me that Gabe and Valve were the third coming of Jeebus.
Guess they're just abusive shitty assholes like everyone else.
Guess they're just abusive shitty assholes like everyone else.
Palette Swap
Member
There, that's the usual console wars bullshit rhetoric right there: us and them, if you don't agree you suddenly turn into a hater:
That's the kind of stupid dichotomy that doesn't allow for a middle ground or any kind of nuance in the debate.
And no, I'm not belittling anyone with a dissenting opinion given how I'm totally on the fence myself. I'll be the first to acknowledge how awesome Valve has been in the past, how they've essentially seemed to act on the belief that not antagonizing your consumer base creates value, and that good will has gone a long way towards making the PC market a better place in the past few years. At the same time, I really dislike seeing people giving them a free pass because that's exactly the kind of dronish mentality that will get us all fucked in the end.
And finally, there's the issue of ownership. While I still want to believe that the very reason for this thread is a dumb CS making a dumb CS answer, it does raise a lot of questions about you can or can't do with your library. This is just some FUD, these are legitimate questions that don't deserve a simple "deal with it, you agreed to it" answer. If only because, they don't seem so obvious from a legal standpoint.
They already have that other way for people with banned steam accounts who are still allowed to access their existing steam library. No reason why they can't do the same for users who refuse to accept this.
Ah, I forgot about that. If those people can still download games they owned before the ban, Valve should absolutely do the same for people who decline the EULA. Thread solved!
Revolutionary
Member
Yeah, it's a disturbing practice. Accept the new conditions or lose access to every license you've purchased on our service.
I had the new agreement screen up in limbo for a few days because of how torn I was, but eventually just said "fuck it" and accepted because I don't think I'll be suing Valve for anything.
I had the new agreement screen up in limbo for a few days because of how torn I was, but eventually just said "fuck it" and accepted because I don't think I'll be suing Valve for anything.
bigace33
Member
TheVoidDragon
Member
I don't see why people have a problem with this. Did people really expect to be able to disagree with the Terms and carry on like normal?
Valve aren't suddenly going to take away your games. You disagree to the new terms, you don't get to use steam, just like when you make a new account - you don't keep using the Old terms.
Valve aren't suddenly going to take away your games. You disagree to the new terms, you don't get to use steam, just like when you make a new account - you don't keep using the Old terms.
Digital Gaming is the future!
terrisus
Member
I know this has been pretty much the same discussion from the other steam thread, but, in the response from the email, this is pretty much the center of (what I see as) the main issue:
And this is why it sent up such red flags when they tossed in that clause about preventing class-action lawsuits.
Basically, what that reply is saying is, if for whatever reason they are no longer or are no longer able to provide their service, they do not have a way to make the games available separate from the account.
If all people view the games in their Steam account as is an extended rental, and what they paid for them is alright based on that, then it doesn't really matter I suppose. But, if anyone expected to be able to have long-term access and use to whatever they're buying on there, stuff like this should be sending up serious red flags.
Since, that email is stating it's "impossible" for them to make the games available separate from the account, and at the same time they put in a clause preventing class-action lawsuits, which is just the sort of thing which might happen if all of a sudden millions of people lost access to games they had thought that they owned.
And this is why it sent up such red flags when they tossed in that clause about preventing class-action lawsuits.
Basically, what that reply is saying is, if for whatever reason they are no longer or are no longer able to provide their service, they do not have a way to make the games available separate from the account.
If all people view the games in their Steam account as is an extended rental, and what they paid for them is alright based on that, then it doesn't really matter I suppose. But, if anyone expected to be able to have long-term access and use to whatever they're buying on there, stuff like this should be sending up serious red flags.
Since, that email is stating it's "impossible" for them to make the games available separate from the account, and at the same time they put in a clause preventing class-action lawsuits, which is just the sort of thing which might happen if all of a sudden millions of people lost access to games they had thought that they owned.
Look at that, the Valve Corporation partaking in corporate business decisions like this.
Shocker.
Look, Steam isn't the bane nor the savior of PC gaming. It's a popular DD platform. Nothing more.
People on both sides need to stop overexaggerating for gods sake.
We got: "Fuck Valve! Corporate monsters!! My rights this, and my rights that!" Pitchforks everywhere
And we got: "Deal with! Steam is the only way to go for DD! You agreed to it, and every other business does!"
Fuck. Let's all BREATHE for a moment. Situations like this tend to work itself out/become clearer.
Shocker.
Look, Steam isn't the bane nor the savior of PC gaming. It's a popular DD platform. Nothing more.
People on both sides need to stop overexaggerating for gods sake.
We got: "Fuck Valve! Corporate monsters!! My rights this, and my rights that!" Pitchforks everywhere
And we got: "Deal with! Steam is the only way to go for DD! You agreed to it, and every other business does!"
Fuck. Let's all BREATHE for a moment. Situations like this tend to work itself out/become clearer.
That's fucked up that Valve can just arbitrarily force you to either accept terms that screw you over, or lose access to your whole steam account. That's EA level of shadyness and is also the reason why I don't buy games on steam that are more than 5-7$.
lol juniors. When steam starts charging $5/month just to keep access to your multiplayer games perhaps you can start talking again.
lol juniors. When steam starts charging $5/month just to keep access to your multiplayer games perhaps you can start talking again.
Sentenza
Member
Nah.
People like this is why we get shit stuffed down our throats.
Yup. Where we don't have to pay to use our online. Oh wait...
Seriously, what a flame war sparking post. Please leave
ihearthawthats
Banned
correct me if i'm wrong, but quickly scanning through the thread, people are actually complaining about things that have been part of the service agreement for years. isn't the only new part of the agreement is the part where you can't sue? at least to me, that seems like a relatively minor detail.
the whole issue of "what happens to my games if steam goes under" has been discussed for as long as i can remember steam being popular. i'm not really sure why this new service agreement is making people panic. did people really not understand what steam was for all these years?