• 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.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

If you don't wish to accept the new Steam Subscriber Agreement...

Gowans

Member
Sep 28, 2006
21,039
1
0
South Shields, UK
twitter.com


I know this is expected but don't you love the way Steam Support put it here.



In the UK/EU I believe it can be ignored as I don't think this can hold up with our consumer rights.
Just like the fact you can get a refund on any digital download in the UK 7 days after with no explanation or even after that if it's not as intended. (I've used that a few times.

FYI: TLDR Version of Steams New Agreement
 

markot

Banned
Aug 21, 2008
18,838
0
0
Well, its something all companies are going to start doing. Dont blame Valve, blame the Supreme court. Also you can 'hey hey ho ho' your politicians into changing the law to make these kind of clauses illegal. But I think they prefer the company of AT&T to you low life commoners.

It was clear you didnt own your digital shit when they say you cant resell. Its a license at most. Same goes for music and movies.

Id love to sell, hell give away, tonnes of the crap on my steam backlog.
 

Crayons

Banned
Nov 27, 2009
10,182
0
0
I don't know why everyone really cares about this. I never knew so many people planned on suing valve in a class action lawsuit. Valve is not the first and definitely not the last company to do this. No one cared when other companies did this. Valve is the most trustworthy company I know, and I know Gaben would never wrong me.
 

Crayons

Banned
Nov 27, 2009
10,182
0
0

I stand corrected. However this doesn't really change anything, the people in a class action lawsuit don't get anything, it's all given to the lawyers. Valve was just protecting themselves as a company.

The idea of signing away a right for no reason other then it benefits one party is kinda shennanigany. No matter who the company is. This 'abuse of class actions' disgusies the fact that most class actions are brought on to right wrongs, and only are able to be done because they are class actions. Screwing people for $5 isnt much, but when its 1 million customers it is, but who is going to sue over $5?

The problem is the government allowing these rights to be taken away, not Valve for just copying clauses that have been used for years.
 

markot

Banned
Aug 21, 2008
18,838
0
0
I don't know why everyone really cares about this. I never knew so many people planned on suing valve in a class action lawsuit. Valve is not the first and definitely not the last company to do this. No one cared when other companies did this. Valve is the most trustworthy company I know, and I know Gaben would never wrong me.

The idea of signing away a right for no reason other then it benefits one party is kinda shennanigany. No matter who the company is. This 'abuse of class actions' disgusies the fact that most class actions are brought on to right wrongs, and only are able to be done because they are class actions. Screwing people for $5 isnt much, but when its 1 million customers it is, but who is going to sue over $5?
 

JaseC

gave away the keys to the kingdom.
Jul 30, 2009
73,799
7
1,030
Western Australia
I don't know why everyone really cares about this. I never knew so many people planned on suing valve in a class action lawsuit. Valve is not the first and definitely not the last company to do this. No one cared when other companies did this. Valve is the most trustworthy company I know, and I know Gaben would never wrong me.

I'd wager it's not so much the lawsuit clause that has people up in arms, but rather the fact you lose access to your account should you click "I disagree". There's no valid reason why Valve shouldn't instead restrict the accounts of those who refuse to accept an updated SSA.
 

GoofsterStud

Member
Mar 22, 2007
5,838
0
0
tistats.com
It's messed up that a company can get away with this. I haven't installed or downloaded most of my Summer Sales, yet they won't refund me if I cancel for a service not provided. Nothing was provided if you didn't even download the game.

It's just messed up.

I stand corrected. However this doesn't really change anything, the people in a class action lawsuit don't get anything, it's all given to the lawyers. Valve was just protecting themselves as a company.

Sheep will be sheep...anyone who believes Arbitrators are in the best interest of the consumer needs a reality check. It'd be like hiring a security guard that constantly gives you tickets....that you have to pay too....
 

KDR_11k

Member
Sep 2, 2011
3,633
0
0
I don't know why everyone really cares about this. I never knew so many people planned on suing valve in a class action lawsuit. Valve is not the first and definitely not the last company to do this. No one cared when other companies did this. Valve is the most trustworthy company I know, and I know Gaben would never wrong me.

As a European I don't really care about the new terms (AFAIK the only new term is banning resale which is absolutely unenforceable as the ECJ ruling that prompted it specifically forbade such terms) but waiving a right permanently is never a good thing. You may not need the right to class action now but who says you will NEVER need it?

On the other hand you can just file an individual lawsuit instead and have everybody else do the same, while that'll get far fewer people actually involved because most are lazy that would still be significantly more damaging than a class action because it's practically a legal DDoS (the defendant would need to fight every case individually).

IMO the severability clause must be banned, it's unacceptable that they can just write bogus terms into their agreement that a layman could not tell from a real enforceable term.
 

Darryl

Member
May 3, 2011
10,541
4
525
Yea, this is pretty shitty. It's nothing that I didn't already expect, though. I'm curious as to how this stuff is even legal.
 

JaseC

gave away the keys to the kingdom.
Jul 30, 2009
73,799
7
1,030
Western Australia
It's messed up that a company can get away with this. I haven't installed or downloaded most of my Summer Sales, yet they won't refund me if I cancel for a service not provided. Nothing was provided if you didn't even download the game.

It's just messed up.

The refund policy not extending beyond pre-purchases is because Valve can't know if you've used the key outside of Steam. Obviously (most) Steamworks keys can be used on Steam and Steam only, but the waters are muddied when you consider third-party solutions such as GFWL or uPlay, which require a valid CD key.
 

Arksy

Member
Aug 5, 2011
7,172
12
695
Yea, this is pretty shitty. It's nothing that I didn't already expect, though. I'm curious as to how this stuff is even legal.

It's not.

Edit: Depending on your Jurisdiction. If you're in Australia you can probably force a refund.

The refund policy not extending beyond pre-purchases is because Valve can't know if you've used the key outside of Steam. Obviously (most) Steamworks keys can be used on Steam and Steam only, but the waters are muddied when you consider third-party solutions such as GFWL or uPlay, which require a valid CD key.

Not true. If you go to Account Settings > Account History it comes up with a list of all the items redeemed in Steam and the source of that item.
 
Sep 5, 2011
4,405
0
0
You know how everyone seems to believe that if Steam goes under, they will remove the DRM?

How about now? They can't even do it for the few people who disagree with the updated agreement.
 

GoofsterStud

Member
Mar 22, 2007
5,838
0
0
tistats.com
How many people were actually planning to sue Valve anyway?

It's the point that they want us to give away one of there given rights while not refunding you for services not provided if you disagree.

That's what I am mad about. I would say no. My civil rights are not worth the sales I just bought, and stealing my money (taking my money while not providing a service) is just as wrong.


Note: The initial contract is void, as now you are talking about civil liberties, otherwise you might as well give your first born to Steam, as there terms could change to that at any point. Perfect legal right.


The refund policy not extending beyond pre-purchases is because Valve can't know if you've used the key outside of Steam. Obviously (most) Steamworks keys can be used on Steam and Steam only, but the waters are muddied when you consider third-party solutions such as GFWL or uPlay, which require a valid CD key.

Then they need to set up a way to facilitate that. As of right now they robbed me.
 

JaseC

gave away the keys to the kingdom.
Jul 30, 2009
73,799
7
1,030
Western Australia
You know how everyone seems to believe that if Steam goes under, they will remove the DRM?

What some don't seem to realise is that quote was from before Steam began selling third-party titles. I don't doubt that Valve would remove the Steam leash from its games should the company go under, but the matter of the remaining games would be something left up to their respective publishers.
 

Ken

Member
May 27, 2010
34,761
0
0
All they need to do now is to release a Steam Subscriber Agreement allowing them to deactivate one's account to tell who does and doesn't read those things.
 

Arksy

Member
Aug 5, 2011
7,172
12
695
Most EULAs state that they're only applicable to the extent the local laws of the user allows (it would be that case even if it didn't say so). To what extent do you think the Subscriber Agreement is valid? I picked up on 7 different areas that would be completely invalid under Australian law. I don't know American consumer law so I can't really comment but if these terms were valid under local law then you guys have some serious reforming to do.
 

Kokonoe

Banned
Dec 2, 2011
14,574
88
655
Ridiculous. I can understand possibly the not letting you play online or whichever, but taking away the games you purchased isn't right.
 

Tallshortman

Member
Jul 31, 2008
6,446
1
770
hey remember how monopolies were good?

As echoed before, I'd love a legal expert's opinion on this situation. Even if we are paying just for the license to play, they're essentially changing the terms of the original agreement and threatening to cut off paid for products unless the other party agrees to the new terms.
 

IrishNinja

Member
May 12, 2009
40,052
9
1,150
not that i necessarily agree with all this, but...aren't we talking about a legal measure nearly every other online service offers, and a common response to asking the very same question of their respective TOS's?

So we're not really owning our digital games? I quit gaming.

good fuckin' riddance, amirite

please keep us up to date on bombas, i follow your twitter <3

You know how everyone seems to believe that if Steam goes under, they will remove the DRM?

How about now? They can't even do it for the few people who disagree with the updated agreement.

realistically, no one should believe this, though. it's not in any way feasible.
 
Sep 5, 2011
4,405
0
0
What some don't seen to realise is that quote was from before Steam began selling third-party titles. I don't doubt that Valve would remove the Steam leash from its games should the company go under, but the matter of the remaining games would be something left up to their respective publishers.

...and there is no way most publishers are going to let Steam release DRM free copies of their games. Ah, but too many people still say "well if Steam goes under Valve has promised us that we won't lose our games".

I do wonder though if it's legal for them to take your games away because you don't agree to UA change. Wouldn't it make more sense that this policy doesn't apply to games bought before before this UA? If you object, couldn't they let you keep your account but not be able to buy more games?
 

GoofsterStud

Member
Mar 22, 2007
5,838
0
0
tistats.com
hey remember how monopolies were good?

As echoed before, I'd love a legal expert's opinion on this situation. Even if we are paying just for the license to play, they're essentially changing the terms of the original agreement and threatening to cut off paid for products unless the other party agrees to the new terms.

Except they don't even have to provide the service to do it, keeping the license you cant access that you never used to themselves.

"well if Steam goes under Valve has promised us that we won't lose our games".

Do people still believe this? They'll just change the terms on you, where you can't accept and thus can never play your games or use your license in the future, like they are doing to those who say no now.

ROFLOL
 

Xilium

Member
May 20, 2009
2,112
26
1,025
I stand corrected. However this doesn't really change anything, the people in a class action lawsuit don't get anything, it's all given to the lawyers. Valve was just protecting themselves as a company.

I'm not a expert in the subject but I think class action lawsuits are less about getting large sums of money for the individual victims/plaintiffs and more about forcing companies to pay a significant amount of money in damages to cover everyone in the suit that would otherwise be a drop-in-the-bucket if it were just a single person/handful of people.
 

VALIS

Member
Jan 3, 2005
12,752
0
0
49
You know how everyone seems to believe that if Steam goes under, they will remove the DRM?

How about now? They can't even do it for the few people who disagree with the updated agreement.

Bingo. You don't buy games on Steam (or other DD marketplaces*). You buy licenses to use them on the platform for an unspecified amount of time. It should make anyone just a tiny bit paranoid.


*except GOG. GOG are the fuckin' champs.
 

Cameron122

Member
Sep 30, 2011
6,167
0
0
28
Dallas, Texas
I mean, Valve's recent legal loophole shenanigans has not deterred me from using their service in the least...But I'd like to know how it is legal.