Support NeoGAF

[boiled goose]

Well by all accounts we shouldn't think of them as games, but as game subscriptions. That's how Steam sees it and we should probably use that terminology when talking about Steam, in order to keep people from getting the wrong impression.

It would also help if Steam changed that "Purchase" button to say "Subscribe to this Game Service" instead, but then again we might stop to wonder what we're getting into.

I agree it should not say buy game.

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

Chacranajxy, I want to ask you about something you said earlier in the thread:


Could you elaborate on this? Why would an agreement that does not obligate one party to do something be inherently invalid?

Basically, to help make sure that contracts are actually fair, courts require that when you have a contract, both parties have to do something to hold up their end of the bargain. For example, you pay Valve money, and they give you access to a game. I brought it up 'cuz the wording of it makes it sound like Valve has no obligation of any sort, since they can just back out of the contract at any time just because they want to, rather than holding up their end of the bargain (which is providing you with the game you bought.) But keep in mind, I just skimmed the agreement.

Edit: if anything, I'd bring up unconscionability as a possible avenue, just because the whole "agree or we take everything" shit should not fly.


Aaaanyway, as for the class action stuff, I haven't dealt first-hand with any, but I've heard that people who start them either have a lot of money to burn, or, more likely, are funded from an outside source. Sometimes, loans. As far as I know, the company is forced to provide information so that the person who initiates the suit can contact those who might be interested.

 

[Zzoram]

I accepted it but that seems a little extreme if you ask me.

Legal stuff is always about covering your ass in the extreme situations.

 

[GoofsterStud]

Legal stuff is always about covering your ass in the extreme situations.

Not always. Sometimes it's about preparing to screw another party over for profit. That's more common unfortunately.

Think about this as potentially testing waters to a further clause that would involve a separate monthly or yearly subscription price to Steam itself.

 

[Raptomex]

Legal stuff is always about covering your ass in the extreme situations.

I guess. This is why I try to get a physical copy of my games at some point. So no matter what happens on Steam, I have a physical copy to back it up.

 

[Grim1ock]

The reason why I still buy physical copies of most games whenever I can! And also the reason why I do most of my gaming on the consoles.

Aye. One area where physical copies and consoles reign supreme. Frankly the idea of losing your paid games without any compensation is frightening.

And to think some folks wanted sony to replace psn with steam!

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Not always. Sometimes it's about preparing to screw another party over for profit. That's more common unfortunately.

Think about this as potentially testing waters to a further clause that would involve a separate monthly or yearly subscription price to Steam itself.

Lol.

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

Not always. Sometimes it's about preparing to screw another party over for profit. That's more then not is usually the intention.

Clearly, you know nothing about the law. That's all a part of covering your ass - the best way to cover your ass is to fuck everyone else until they are dead.

 

[GoofsterStud]

Clearly, you know nothing about the law. That's all a part of covering your ass - the best way to cover your ass is to fuck everyone else until they are dead.

I know corporations, I know my position, and I know what goes on at the table.

If you don't think that getting additional funds is being brought up to the table....

 

[papersleeves]

Steam: "Nice library of games you have there, shame if something happened to it."

Hahaha that borderline feels like blackmail.

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

I know corporations

They fuck you

I know my position

Bent over

and I know what goes on at the table.

They bend you over and fuck you.


I guess we're on the same page.

 

[faceless007]

Basically, to help make sure that contracts are actually fair, courts require that when you have a contract, both parties have to do something to hold up their end of the bargain. For example, you pay Valve money, and they give you access to a game. I brought it up 'cuz the wording of it makes it sound like Valve has no obligation of any sort, since they can just back out of the contract at any time just because they want to, rather than holding up their end of the bargain (which is providing you with the game you bought.) But keep in mind, I just skimmed the agreement.

But isn't language like that present in just about every online service agreement for anything? "We may terminate your account/cancel your subscription/revoke your rights to use the service at any time for any reason" as well as "We are not responsible if the service is down or inaccessible" (pretty sure my cell phone contract says something like that) ? That's how Amazon justified the remote deletion of 1984 from Kindles, because users only had a license to the book which Amazon revoked (although they've since modified their TOS to be more specific about how and when they have the right to do that).

I'm not arguing, if you're right that companies are obligated to hold up their end of an agreement despite language saying otherwise, that seems like a good angle from which to attack such TOSs. So I'm trying to find out more about how far this argument might go.

 

[GoofsterStud]

They fuck you



Bent over



They bend you over and fuck you.


I guess we're on the same page.

Not everyone bends over, but you've shown your true colors.

But isn't language like that present in just about every online service agreement for anything? "We may terminate your account/cancel your subscription/revoke your rights to use the service at any time for any reason" as well as "We are not responsible if the service is down or inaccessible" (pretty sure my cell phone contract says something like that) ? That's how Amazon justified the remote deletion of 1984 from Kindles, because users only had a license to the book which Amazon revoked (although they've since modified their TOS to be more specific about how and when they have the right to do that).

I'm not arguing, if you're right that companies are obligated to hold up their end of an agreement despite language saying otherwise, that seems like a good angle from which to attack such TOSs. So I'm trying to find out more about how far this argument might go.

When amazon takes back all your Movies, Music, Games previously purchased, sure. That has not happened.

 

[NullPointer]

Hahaha that borderline feels like blackmail.

I don't see which part isn't blackmail. You either positively agree (or through inaction passively agree) or you lose access to all of your stuff. Period.

 

[MasterOfPastures]

Change the law. If that's too though in the US, that's too sad.

 

[Ephidel]

Hahaha that borderline feels like blackmail.

There's not really anything borderline about it.

As a European the new clauses don't affect me, but I do think that people they do have an effect on should have the right to refuse to accept those clauses without losing anything they already acquired.
Yes, stop them from purchasing anything else, but their account as it currently stands should be able to remain that way, especially if banned accounts are afforded that 'priviledge'

 

[GoofsterStud]

There's not really anything borderline about it.

As a European the new clauses don't affect me, but I do think that people they do affect should have the right to refuse to accept those clauses without losing anything they already aquired.
Yes, stop them from purchasing anything else, but their account as it currently stands should be able to remain that way, especially if banned accounts are afforded that 'priviledge'

They could do what Origins did. Be a little more consumer friendly.



Note: The irony, I never thought I would see the day I could say that with a straight face...

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

When amazon takes back all your Movies, Music, Games previously purchased, sure. That has not happened.

Yeah, that's where the issue comes in - this is stuff you've bought before, not a simple discontinuation of service like with cell phones and such.

 

[faceless007]

When amazon takes back all your Movies, Music, Games previously purchased, sure. That has not happened.

Not yet, but I'm pretty sure their TOSs reserve the right to, which might be unconscionable.

 

[out0v0rder]

well fine. i will only buy 50 games instead of 100 this year, that will show em.

 

[GoofsterStud]

well fine. i will only buy 50 games instead of 100 this year, that will show em.

If everyone does that, there financials will show it. Especially if it was 50 origin price titles, but they kept the steam sales.

That's speaking with your money, at least it's something.

 

[staticneuron]

Change the law. If that's too though in the US, that's too sad.

From the other thread

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court gave corporations a major win Wednesday, ruling in a 5-4 decision that companies can block their disgruntled customers from joining together in a class-action lawsuit. The ruling arose from a California lawsuit involving cellphones, but it will have a nationwide impact.

In the past, consumers who bought a product or a service had been free to join a class-action lawsuit if they were dissatisfied or felt they had been cheated. By combining these small claims, they could bring a major lawsuit against a corporation.

But in Wednesday's decision, the high court said that under the Federal Arbitration Act companies can force these disgruntled customers to arbitrate their complaints individually, not as part of a group. Consumer-rights advocates said this rule would spell the end for small claims involving products or services.

For things to change it has to be fought over. IMO, I am not sure if this really matters. Class actions is normally a way for the little man to kick bigger companies in the teeth and for lawyers to get rich. The individual rarely gains something substantial. The issue is, these large companies have lawyers on their payroll who are very good at battling these things or dragging them out in court. I rarely see any Class actions harm companies.

I don't normally join those types of actions either, so I am not missing out on anything if I sign the new TOS.

 

[paolo11]

We own the games. It's not right Steam has to lock these games out. It's purchased by us. If they lock us out, that's instant lawsuit.

The only way to do is to file a complaint to BBB or

Inform the media like Game Informer or IGN. We gamers have to get louder. Don't be just stuck in the message board.

 

[Joseph Merrick]

Retail>digital confirmed.

steam games are sold at retail, as if they were the exact same thing as games with no drm. or games with drm you can activate and then deactive (and which doesn't all register under one all-inclusive profile and can't be unregistered again).

like big cross-platform releases on 360/pc/ps3. there is only a steam version available as the pc version, and the thing you are buying for pc is nothing like the thing you buy if you get the 360 or ps3 version.

Well by all accounts we shouldn't think of them as games, but as game subscriptions. That's how Steam sees it and we should probably use that terminology when talking about Steam, in order to keep people from getting the wrong impression.

It would also help if Steam changed that "Purchase" button to say "Subscribe to this Game Service" instead, but then again we might stop to wonder what we're getting into.

says nothing about being a subscription if you buy a "retail" copy of a steam game.

 

[GoofsterStud]

We own the games. It's not right Steam has to lock these games out. It's purchased by us. If they lock us out, that's instant lawsuit.

The only way to do is to file a complaint to BBB or

Inform the media like Game Informer or IGN. We gamers have to get louder. Don't be just stuck in the message board.

Don't forget Steam controls the games you purchased at other retails that have been activated on Steam as well.

Edit: I just got pwned by a Tingle Fan. >.>

<3

 

[paolo11]

Don't forget Steam controls the games you purchased at other retails that have been activated on Steam as well.

Edit: I just got pwned by a Tingle Fan. >.>

<3

So how can we file a complaint? What action must we take?

 

[GoofsterStud]

So how can we file a complaint? What action must we take?

Well, writing everyone is a good start. Letting Steam know you are doing so under duress and have it document isn't a bad idea. If someone starts a lawsuit I'd help organize a blog, wiki for the cause.

Local Attorney General is probably the best bet. If enough people write them, things happen. There are some states where certain terms don't work. If enough areas don't agree, or question it, then it can escalate into a US debate.

BBB, Dun and Bradstreet, and whatever else they are affiliated with is a good place to annoy them, and cost them a lot of money.

Honestly as you can walk into best buy and purchase a game that can only be activated on Steam, this is really becoming a court issue. Visa is giving people refunds for 6 months. I got mine, even the steam boards were full of how to get a 6 month credit on chargebacks. Valve got to the point on there forums they were deleting and banning people.

Still the banned people can play games but the consumers that didn't accept the terms can not.

Don't forget TV news, they love to report on these things if enough people complain. That will spread the word.

Write your local paper. Get people gathered together. Let people know what's really going on. The term purchase needs to be changed on the steam store. Going to the media is the perfect way to motivate someone to do it. There needs to be a disclaimer when purchasing a PC game that activating it on Steam give Steam control on if you can or cannot continue playing the game.

 

[NullPointer]

says nothing about being a subscription if you buy a "retail" copy of a steam game.

I haven't bought a boxed PC game in so long, some of them require a steam account? And if so, they don't mention any Steam terms and conditions?

 

[wildfire]

So how can we file a complaint? What action must we take?

Advice with multiple steps for escalation provided by our government.

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/general/gen07.shtm

 

[GoofsterStud]

I haven't bought a boxed PC game in so long, some of them require a steam account? And if so, they don't mention any Steam terms and conditions?

Nope... Well unless you open it, but then you can't return it.

....Ok this problem just keeps escalating.

I am looking at a game that I can activate on steam, but says nothing about the terms.

Wouldn't it be worse if the game had the old terms when you bought it, you open it, can't return it, can't activate it because you don't agree to the new terms but agreed to the terms printed on the box. LOL

This is crazy....

Here's a newer game:
Metro 2033
Nothing about Steamworks terms:
http://vgboxart.com/boxes/PC/38425-metro-2033-full.jpg?t=1280942824
Note: Resolution is to high, so I am just going to link it.

Warning...but seriously couldn't they do better?

It doesn't even say view Steam terms in older titles. These are inconsistent. >.>

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

Nope... Well unless you open it, but then you can't return it.

....Ok this problem just keeps escalating.

Alright, before we go down this road, ProCD v. Zeidenberg is the case that deals with this sort of nonsense, and it says that even though you can't return it, you're still bound by the terms of the EULA... even if they aren't on the outside of the box.

 

[GoofsterStud]

Alright, before we go down this road, ProCD v. Zeidenberg is the case that deals with this sort of nonsense, and it says that even though you can't return it, you're still bound by the terms of the EULA... even if they aren't on the outside of the box.

That has nothing to do with those who activated there retail purchases on Steam and now can't play them.

The "situation" is messed up.

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

That has nothing to do with those who activated there retail purchases on Steam and now can't play them.

Uh.... it has everything to do with that.

 

[GoofsterStud]

Uh.... it has everything to do with that.

It does not.

If a customer bought a game, activated and the next day Steam changes there terms and locks them out of the game the purchased at Best Buy. They are screwed. There currently is no easy way around this.

I know you are pro corporate bullying. It's still messed up.

It's not Squares that's denying me, it's Steam. WTF?

 

[NullPointer]

Alright, before we go down this road, ProCD v. Zeidenberg is the case that deals with this sort of nonsense, and it says that even though you can't return it, you're still bound by the terms of the EULA... even if they aren't on the outside of the box.

Not according to the wikipedia entry. Do you have a better source I can check out?

The court held that Zeidenberg did accept the offer by clicking through. The court noted, "He had no choice, because the software splashed the license on the screen and would not let him proceed without indicating acceptance." The court stated that Zeidenberg could have rejected the terms of the contract and returned the software. The court, in addition, noted the ability and "the opportunity to return goods can be important" under the UCC.

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

Not according to the wikipedia entry. Do you have a better source I can check out?

I don't, but the part you quoted is basically what I said. It does note that given the Uniform Commercial Code, the ability to return goods can be important, but in practice, this ability hasn't mattered.

It does not.

If a customer bought a game, activated and the next day Steam changes there terms and locks them out of the game the purchased at Best Buy. They are screwed. There currently is no easy way around this.

I know you are pro corporate bullying. It's still messed up.

It's not Squares that's denying me, it's Steam. WTF?

Yeah, they're screwed, but legally, that's how things work. All I've been saying this whole time is how things tend to operate given the laws as they are. But no, go ahead and tell me I'm pro-corporate bullying. I like when you talk dirty and shove license agreements up my corporate whore asshole.

 

[GoofsterStud]

I don't, but the part you quoted is basically what I said. It does note that given the Uniform Commercial Code, the ability to return goods can be important, but in practice, this ability hasn't mattered.

Time to make it matter. I hope this case goes to court, so much can be proven as unfair to the consumer it's ridiculous. It is time the US protects it's consumers like EU. I think this is the perfect example to get the ball rolling.

 

[whalleywhat]

Legal stuff is always about covering your ass in the extreme situations.

Like this one?

 

[Jintor]

Yeah, they're screwed, but legally, that's how things work. All I've been saying this whole time is how things tend to operate given the laws as they are. But no, go ahead and tell me I'm pro-corporate bullying. I like when you talk dirty and shove license agreements up my corporate whore asshole.

 

[NullPointer]

I don't, but the part you quoted is basically what I said.

You said:

Alright, before we go down this road, ProCD v. Zeidenberg is the case that deals with this sort of nonsense, and it says that even though you can't return it, you're still bound by the terms of the EULA... even if they aren't on the outside of the box.

I quoted:

The court held that Zeidenberg did accept the offer by clicking through. The court noted, "He had no choice, because the software splashed the license on the screen and would not let him proceed without indicating acceptance." The court stated that Zeidenberg could have rejected the terms of the contract and returned the software. The court, in addition, noted the ability and "the opportunity to return goods can be important" under the UCC.

That doesn't seem to be what you said at all.

EULAs along with 'service' terms and conditions have gotten way out of hand.

 

[JaseC]

It's not the same. Getting banned from a game is a violation of that game's Terms and Conditions, not Steam's in general. In this case you are refusing to use the service as a whole, so it isn't possible to retain access. It sucks, but I can't see how it would be possible to keep using a service, even in a limited way, when you don't accept the terms of that service.

You've misunderstood his post -- Valve no longer bans/disables accounts (an error on his part) and instead restricts their functionality to just download/playing and basic Community features. I mentioned this to you yesterday:

It's not as simple as you describe it. In order to use your already bought Steam games you will have to run Steam, the terms of which you have rejected. This would require a complete seperation of Steam games from the Steam client, ie the ability to start your games without running Steam at all

Account restriction (no purchasing, gifting/trading, or CD key activation) already exists for other cases, such as suspected fraudulent activity and unauthorised access[/account sharing]. It would take a little bit of work on Valve's part for the "I disagree" button to result in a restricted account mode, but the underlying support is certainly already there.

In other words:

Well, technically, the entire point of the account restriction system is that banning/disabling accounts is no longer necessary. But, yes, there is bitter irony in the fact that those who disobey the SSA after having agreed to it are afforded greater access to their account/s than those who'd prefer to decline.

 

[Zzoram]

You can keep using the last version of origins before the new terms.

And keep buying stuff? Or does it prevent you from buying stuff?

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

You said:


I quoted:


That doesn't seem to be what you said at all.

EULAs along with 'service' terms and conditions have gotten way out of hand.

Ah, I see what you're getting at. That's actually one of the more controversial aspects of the case. The court said that yeah, the guy could return it, but that's really not the focus of their decision at all. The precedent they set was simply that one is bound by the EULA even though they can't see the agreement on the outside of the box. But there's nothing in the case that mandates or really says anything meaningful about the actual ability to return the software. It's not saying that you can't return Valve games, so the EULA suddenly doesn't apply because you would otherwise have no recourse. It's saying that the EULA applies and... fuckin' whatever happens, happens as far as returning the game is concerned. They don't give a shit.

Also keep in mind that the ProCD case was from the '90s, back when returning opened software was actually a thing. That would explain why the court mentioned returning the software.

Hopefully that clears it up a bit.

 

[faceless007]

Alright, before we go down this road, ProCD v. Zeidenberg is the case that deals with this sort of nonsense, and it says that even though you can't return it, you're still bound by the terms of the EULA... even if they aren't on the outside of the box.

Was just reading about contracts of adhesion today (seems like this is a useful concept for this subject), and Wiki says that there's another case, Klocek v. Gateway that held the opposite. Yay for contradictory courts. This case would probably be useful to argue that EULAs viewable only after purchase (like most software on disc) are invalid because

Additional or different terms contained in the Standard Terms did not become part of the agreement because Gateway has not presented evidence that Klocek expressly agreed to the Standard Terms.
...
The court held that the contract formed at the time of the order and not five days after receipt of the computer. The terms that shipped with the computer were therefore not part of the bargain and the arbitration clause was not enforceable in light of UCC § 2-207.

I don't think this would be applicable to purchases made within Steam, however, since Steam makes you check off the SSA with every purchase.

 

[Dunan]

Above that line about how you must accept the agreement, it says that the game cannot be played in Japan.

Given that you have to go online once to accept the agreement, is this an IP-based region lock for a PC game?

If you wanted to play The Last Remnant in English, but lived in Japan, would you have to either physically carry your computer outside Japan to activate it, or use some kind of proxy?

"Regular" region locking has always been avoidable if you were willing to buy the console from the region whose games you wanted to play. A huge, unnecessary hassle, but at least it's possible. IP geolocation-based region locking is a step further and needs to be stopped.

 

[GoofsterStud]

And keep buying stuff? Or does it prevent you from buying stuff?

Prevents you from buying new stuff. As the new stuff will require a new version of Origins, the version you did not agree to. ;-)

 

[rCIZZLE]

If this was sony or microsoft everybody would be going apeshit. Even if Valve does more good for the community than not, this move right here sucks.

 

[Zzoram]

Prevents you from buying new stuff. As the new stuff will require a new version of Origins.

That's a better solution I guess.

Are people really that concerned about needing to class action lawsuit Valve in the future?

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

Was just reading about contracts of adhesion today (seems like this is a useful concept for this subject), and Wiki says that there's another case, Klocek v. Gateway that held the opposite. Yay for contradictory courts. This case would probably be useful to argue that EULAs viewable only after purchase (like most software on disc) are invalid because


I don't think this would be applicable to purchases made within Steam, however, since Steam makes you check off the SSA with every purchase.

Yeah. Courts still tend to use ProCD in these cases rather than Klocek, despite Klocek being the newer case, cuz it speaks more directly to the issue. And likely because Klocek was a district court level case and I think ProCD went to appellate courts.

 

[GoofsterStud]

That's a better solution I guess.

If you decide to change your mind you get the new version. If you decide not to, nothing changed from what was already owned. It is way better than locking people out.