Grimm Fandango
Member
Really? Which ones?
-
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
Really? Which ones?
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
Explain to me how it is greedy to want to protect your company.
You like to throw out sentences and phrases that have absolutely nothing to do with what you are trying to discuss.
Oh no, Valve sure is greedy! Wanting to keep all those video games for themselves!
GoofsterStud
Member
It is a monopoly do to market share.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Lol. Sorry but its a majority, not a monopoly. My goodness.
Indeed... Compare to Microsoft in Windows operating systems, which is at least legally considered a monopoly. Windows is on 89% of all computers. Steam is estimated to only have 70% of the marketshare for PC video games, a clear majority but not a monopoly. We are not even sure that doesn't count games that offer both a Steam Key and a DRM-Free download like the Humble Bundles do.
Even then, a monopoly alone is not necessarily bad... It is anti-competitive practices that are bad. So the question would be if Valve is using its majority marketshare with Steam to drown out competitors. This is not the case. In fact, Steam has gained competitors like Origin and UPlay in the last few years.
Weren't you saying there were tons of viable alternatives just a few pages back? What happened to that? If there are tons of viable alternatives it's not a monopoly. You can't have it both ways.
GoofsterStud
Member
You can have options and still have a monopoly.
I think two quotes should be enough to make a point, there are plenty more if you are curious.
Not really, the first is from brick and mortar stores complaining about digital lock-in on physical discs in general. Steam's just the biggest of the stores so it gets the focus, but EA and Ubisoft do that, too. Basically, the physical model has all but died on PC, and they are sore about that.
The second comes from someone whose game has sold six million copies on PC without even going anywhere near Steam. If he can be so successful without touching Steam at all, how could Steam then have a monopoly?
GoofsterStud
Member
....yet Steam supporters say it'd sell a lot more if he just released it on Steam. The fact that it's even debatable is a problem.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
... wait what?
1) you didn't quote anybody
2) Facts make points
Goof, you say you're a defender of consumer rights, when all you do is make unsubstantiated claims about Valve making a hard left in the future, accuse them of hacking into their user's computers, post headlines/thread titles as quotes, think that quotes alone are evidence, post about how they are maliciously deleting threads when you don't even bother to check to see if it is true, and say that spelling does not matter when trying to be taken seriously. I mean, how the hell do you expect to fight any kind of power with this kind of stuff as your only ammo? Lies, slander, and arrogance?
Even if I was frothing at the mouth over this, I would not want you in my corner.
diffusionx
Gold Member
Actually, 70% is considered a threshold of sorts for a monopoly. It's not the only requirement by a long shot, but it is a sufficient market share.
http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/reports/236681_chapter2.htm
DOJ said:
The annoying thing with PC games is that, outside of GOG and some indie developers, it's very hard to find a new game that isn't bound to "expire" eventualy.
Most physical retail games use some sort of online-based CD-key with activation limits. You can keep the game working indefinitely... as long as you don't re-install the OS or upgrade your hardware a few too many times, at which point the access to your purchase is still at the mercy of some company or another.
Most physical retail games use some sort of online-based CD-key with activation limits. You can keep the game working indefinitely... as long as you don't re-install the OS or upgrade your hardware a few too many times, at which point the access to your purchase is still at the mercy of some company or another.
Danny Dudekisser
I paid good money for this Dynex!
Microsoft, for one.
Hard to believe that Valve-GAF is even worse than Sony-GAF.
Anyone saying "what's the problem, Gabe is my friend! Valve would never do anything bad I trust them" is completely incoherent - they are doing something bad RIGHT NOW. That's the entire point of this thread.
This is like getting punched in the face by a guy then immediately claiming the guy would never punch you in the face.
Valve are good guys who would never do a scummy thing? Then why are they locking out users from the games they paid for, putting clauses in their EULA that allows them to ship broken games without legal repercussion, etc?
Those are not the actions of a faultless company.
At this very moment Valve is locking users out of hundreds of dollars of games they have paid for. That is a fact that cannot be ignored or dismissed.
Whether or not Valve does something even worse in the future is mostly irrelevant. There's no evidence that they won't, but locking users out of their games is already bad enough.
Anyone saying "what's the problem, Gabe is my friend! Valve would never do anything bad I trust them" is completely incoherent - they are doing something bad RIGHT NOW. That's the entire point of this thread.
This is like getting punched in the face by a guy then immediately claiming the guy would never punch you in the face.
Valve are good guys who would never do a scummy thing? Then why are they locking out users from the games they paid for, putting clauses in their EULA that allows them to ship broken games without legal repercussion, etc?
Those are not the actions of a faultless company.
At this very moment Valve is locking users out of hundreds of dollars of games they have paid for. That is a fact that cannot be ignored or dismissed.
Whether or not Valve does something even worse in the future is mostly irrelevant. There's no evidence that they won't, but locking users out of their games is already bad enough.
....yet Steam supporters say it'd sell a lot more if he just released it on Steam. The fact that it's even debatable is a problem.
No, those are Steam fanboys. I bet the Nintendo fanboys would go gaga if GTA ever appeared on their system.
Fair enough... So let's apply these standards to Steam. Looking over them, there are actually one very key point that should be noted.
Regardless of Steam's monopolistic marketshare, this second point actually shows that Steam is not a monopoly... The barrier of entry for digitally downloadable games on PC is very low. Practically anyone could make a game outside the Steam ecosystem and bigger game studios can market games that are outside the Steam ecosystem.
He probably would sell more if he was on Steam. He just doesn't need to be.
It might be principle not the money.
Steam's market power - I don't know if they've used it yet, I suspect the Greenlight thing they're trying is to deflect a potential antitrust- one of the complaints I've heard from some devs is that games got refused for arbitrary reasons, with some real justification.
I know of some good games that got rejected while some absolute turds have gotten onto Steam.
It might be principle not the money.
Steam's market power - I don't know if they've used it yet, I suspect the Greenlight thing they're trying is to deflect a potential antitrust- one of the complaints I've heard from some devs is that games got refused for arbitrary reasons, with some real justification.
I know of some good games that got rejected while some absolute turds have gotten onto Steam.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
It's exactly that.
http://www.minecraftforum.net/news/422-notch-gives-3-million-to-mojang-employees/
When you can just give each of your 25 employees $3 million....
CecilRousso
Member
No, they´re the good guys who do far less scummy things then others. They´re not faultless, I don´t think anyone are actually saying that, but if you do 15 good things and then 2-3 bad things, you can still be considered the good guys. Maybe not if you live like a Bioware storyline, but otherwise it´s possible.
Notch is the bestest boss. =P
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
They're only doing 'something bad' if you live in the US and don't want to waive your ability to participate in a class action lawsuit.
If you are happy to accept independent arbitrage (and, unusually, one where Valve will pay $10k of your costs towards it even if you lose) or if you feel confident that in a severe anti-consumer action the courts will over rule the EULA you accepted, then there is no problem.
It's more like signing a piece of paper saying if lots of people get punched in the face, I'll deal with it by myself rather than joining up with all those other guys.
Except signing a piece of paper is legally stronger than a EULA.
So maybe it's more like going to a concert and the manager of the venue standing on stage and announcing if anyone gets punched in the face they have to come talk to him personally afterwards, rather than the entire audience all jump in on a lawsuit.
Making that simile even close is very tortuous.
Except that selfsame clause is used by most every major games publisher now.
EA have it, Sony have it, Ubisoft have it, Microsoft have it, Nintendo have it.
It is a scummy clause, but it's like living on a street where there's a lot of crime; everyone else on that street have all barred their windows. You can see why not doing the same makes you an obvious target for the unscrupulous.
(Which if you read the blogpost is exactly their concern; they're not worried about individuals with issues - and to try and assuage peoples fears they are offering to pay your costs for arbitrage in the case of a problem, which no one else is doing.
They are worried about ambulance chasers and patent trolls going for pay day pay outs)
Indeed.
If someone bigger than Valve really wanted to they could take their marketshare by offering an identical bullet point featureset, and then something extra on top of that.
Most DD clients are still playing catch up.
:lol
You referenced a qualification that does give credence to the monopoly claim. Steam is a huge barrier to entry for competing services. There are a lot of things about steam that disincentivise switching. Friends list and Steamworks being the obvious.
The point of these services is make customers stick to the platform.
It is the ability to hold access to your games conditional upon your agreement that grates.
sakipon
Member
So... No need to bother our little heads with such stuff, let's just get back to playing games? Yeah, it would be nice to be a worry-free kid once again, trusting the world to take care of us.
When do you suggest people should get worked up about it?
MasterOfPastures
Banned
If you have a problem, get some traction to get that bullshit "no-sue" law out.
If you don't live in a democracy, that's a problem.
If you don't live in a democracy, that's a problem.
When they first joined Steam and needed to accept the agreement.
Right. So just completely ignore human nature and the reason companies put things in fine print in the first place, and assume people are unable to learn new facts and respond differently? Cool.
But to switch to something like Origin or GFWL, all one needs to do is download a free client. Hell, you can't play some games bought on Steam without also having one of those services. And that's just the subset of downloadable store applications for video games... If one gets into all video games on PC, you've got GOG, Desura (which also has a client), Amazon, and even websites like Notch's that sell the game directly. In fact, major competitor Origin has only been around for 2 years. There can be no barrier to entry when the cost to switch to the competition is zero.
The rest of your post is accurate, but this is false.
alexandros
Banned
Here's my take on the whole situation. Valve is moving into the big leagues this year. By adding non-game software, expanding into Linux, possibly creating a new platform and openly criticizing behemoths like Apple and Microsoft, Valve is setting Steam up to be an actual competitor to these companies' app stores. In the process, they have painted a big red target on themselves as they try and complete the move from quirky PC-oriented company to actual threat for the big dogs in the technology space.
My guess is that Valve is trying to defend itself from potentially destructive lawsuits instigated or "encouraged" by rival companies. I don't believe that they are trying to screw over the average Steam user,since they seem perfectly happy to pay the bills for any potential dispute. This is why I don't mind the recent EULA changes. It would be suicidal to leave the company open to such threats when every other competitor has already activated similar clauses.
TL;DR I don't have a problem with the new EULA because I believe it's not meant to hurt the consumer, just defend Valve from potential legal attacks from rival companies.
My guess is that Valve is trying to defend itself from potentially destructive lawsuits instigated or "encouraged" by rival companies. I don't believe that they are trying to screw over the average Steam user,since they seem perfectly happy to pay the bills for any potential dispute. This is why I don't mind the recent EULA changes. It would be suicidal to leave the company open to such threats when every other competitor has already activated similar clauses.
TL;DR I don't have a problem with the new EULA because I believe it's not meant to hurt the consumer, just defend Valve from potential legal attacks from rival companies.
Companies don't use class actions against other companies.
Delusibeta
Banned
Not since the Supreme Court made them absolutely useless, anyway.
I think you nailed it right there, human nature. It's human nature to just use things without knowing the possible consequences and rely on someone who does pay attention to spread the word before summoning up the outrage reserves. After they already agreed of course.
alexandros
Banned
Not directly, which is why I used the word "encouraged".
I think the thing that is troubling to some people is that we have no idea what we are agreeing to. If you bought a game on Steam last year, there was no arbitration clause. Now there is, but it doesn't just affect future purchases, and it doesn't just affect future access to a service, it affects past purchases too. To agree to the SSA is to agree that you are willing to accept literally any terms Valve may choose to set in the future, or you will lose the ability to use items you have paid for. That seems so unconscionable to me that I find it odd that anyone would think that it's ok.
alexandros
Banned
It's not ok but it's not the case here. Steam has an arbitration clause that was deemed legal by the US Supreme court. Valve can't update the SSA to say that you have to yell out "Hail Gaben!" three times every morning or lose your games because it's not legal and it would be shot down in court in an instant. Please try to understand the distinction. Steam added a clause that is considered legal in the US. They can't add illegal clauses. They acted within their rights.
Look at it from the other side. Let's say, hypothetically, that in the future the Supreme court rules that everyone on Steam should be able to sell their games (regardless of the game purchase being phrased as Licence, Subscription or whatever) and that Valve should amend the SSA to conform to that ruling. Do you think that Valve would have the right to say "ok but this goes only for new customers and not for those who are already on Steam because they have accepted the old SSA that says games are non-transferable"? Would people be ok with that? Valve would have to change the SSA for everyone. Not only for those who become members of Steam after the ruling but for everyone. It's the same principle here.
alexandros
Banned
double post, please delete.
Being legal and being good to your customers are two different things.
When you have near-monopoly power you can get away with plenty of stuff though
If Impulse or Gamersgate made this switch, the reaction would be angrier on here, and there wouldn't be any defenders of those services, they'd suffer financially.
When you have near-monopoly power you can get away with plenty of stuff though
If Impulse or Gamersgate made this switch, the reaction would be angrier on here, and there wouldn't be any defenders of those services, they'd suffer financially.
I'm very much aware of the Supreme Court's shitty decision. Im not aware of anyone whose response to that decision is to disable the previously purchased products of users who reject the new TOS. Hell, Sony even let their existing users opt out of the mandatory arbitration clause.
And your analogy isn't a very good one. The SC did not order Valve to do this. And if the SC ruled that Steam users could sell their games it wouldn't be Valve's choice as to whom the ruling it applies to.
If Amazon changed their TOS, and I didn't agree to that change, and they said I couldn't shop there anymore, they'd be well within their rights. On the other hand, if they responded by disabling my Bioshock DVD, we would all agree that is nuts, right?
OldJadedGamer
Banned
Yup. I don't see how difficult it would be to prevent the purchase of new games without accepting the terms, but to allow the playing of old ones.
As it stands, I'm just looking to see how many of the titles I purchased can run without Steam installed. Most of my Paradox published games can be moved and run without it. Sadly I'd not finished downloading The Witcher 2 before the change...
The sad part is they already have a method in place for locking accounts of out of future purchases while allowing access to old purchases.
If you need to download games you bought but don't wish to agree to the ToS, you can use the method I found (should work for Windows 7/Vista):
- Launch Steam from an icon pinned to your taskbar.
- When the ToS prompt comes up, right click the icon in the taskbar again and click Library.
- Mouse over the Steam icon in the taskbar until the preview windows come up, then hit the X on the preview window for the ToS prompt. If you use the X on the ToS prompt's window (as opposed to the preview), all of Steam will close. If you skip this step, the ToS prompt blocks all clicks and keyboard activity you try to send to Steam.
- Use Steam to download your past purchases. Use the game .exe files to play games. If you launch the game with Steam you get a different ToS prompt.
The point is that a mechanism already exists for preventing people from buying new things but giving them access to their previous purchases. Anyone using Steam in this manner would still be bound by the most recent ToS they agreed to (to whatever extent that ToS is deemed legally enforceable, of course).
I believe those people with restricted accounts still have to follow the EULA. Doesn't make any sense why the rules would still not apply to them.
Version 3.0
Member
Of course they can. Every EULA I've ever seen has illegal clauses in it. Some are illegal in some countries or states, but legal elsewhere, some are grey areas that won't be legal or illegal until they're challenged in court.
All "illegal" clauses are covered by the phrase that's present in every EULA, which simply states that anything listed that's not legal where you live isn't binding. There are EULA's which state you can't sell or even lend your physical game. That is not legal or binding. There are EULA's which state that, in the case of the company going under, you have to destroy your game. That is not legal or binding.
The problem with digital games is that these clauses, legal or not, are binding, because you have no choice about complying.
alexandros
Banned
It's not the same thing. Steam is a digital delivery service. If you refuse to accept the terms of the service then you can't have access to it. There is no other way to enforce this.
That is absolutely not true and you always have a real-world choice. If the clause isn't legal, it isn't binding and that's that. It doesn't matter at all if you click "I accept" or not. If a clause is blatantly illegal you can click "accept" safe in the knowledge that your acceptance will not matter at all in the case of a legal dispute. No company can use the reasoning that "the customer accepted our EULA" to justify an illegal clause.
They could give you access to your old games whilst restricting your ability to purchase new ones. The fact that they don't is strictly their anti-consumer choice.
This is ridiculous. How is anyone to know which clauses will be upheld? "I accepted because I figured it was bullshit" is a really bad defense.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Well in this situation, we don't know if this clause IS legal because it hasn't been tested in court. That is, a court hasn't stated if a company such as Valve is able to restrict customers from accessing purchase content simply because they refused to accept a EULA, SO, many are accepting the EULA with the mindset that such issue hasn't been answered yet.