Support NeoGAF

[alexandros]

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.

You are continuing to use the service even if you don't buy new games. Since you are using the service you have to accept the EULA. There are no two ways about this. Not accepting Steam's subscriber agreement is not the same as getting banned from a couple of games.

This is ridiculous. How is anyone to know which clauses will be upheld?

That's what courts are for. If you think a specific clause that is enforced upon you is illegal, you take the company to court. The fact that you clicked "I accept" doesn't matter one bit.

 

[faceless007]

You are continuing to use the service even if you don't buy new games. Since you are using the service you have to accept the EULA. There are no two ways about this. Not accepting Steam's subscriber agreement is not the same as getting banned from a couple of games.

You're acting like this is an inherent naturally-occurring byproduct of the system that Valve is powerless to accommodate in any way. That's ridiculous; it's their fucking software, they can build it to do whatever they want, and they can write the EULA to be as restrictive or lenient as they want. They could make more than two ways about it if they wanted. The fact they don't is anti-consumer.

 

[Game Guru]

The rest of your post is accurate, but this is false.

You are right... The Origin as we currently know it has been around for a little over one year. I wrote the post when I was half asleep and saw the 2011 on Wikipedia, not thinking about the months involved. Sorry about that.

 

[alexandros]

The fact they don't is anti-consumer.

Never said otherwise. Anything that takes away choice from the consumer is a bad thing in my book. However, people need to understand that clicking "I accept" or "I refuse" is a trivial thing with absolutely no legal meaning when it comes to illegal clauses.

Clicking "I refuse" and losing access to your games is beyond stupid since there is zero reason to do so. You can click "I accept" and still take Valve to court over whatever you want. Why would any sane person click "I refuse"?

 

[faceless007]

Never said otherwise. Anything that takes away choice from the consumer is a bad thing in my book. However, people need to understand that clicking "I accept" or "I refuse" is a trivial thing with absolutely no legal meaning when it comes to illegal clauses.

Clicking "I refuse" and losing access to your games is beyond stupid since there is zero reason to do so. You can click "I accept" and still take Valve to court over whatever you want. Why would any sane person click "I refuse"?

Because nothing in the agreement is "blatantly illegal" as far as we know. The current state of the law regarding digital goods and terms of service is woefully unclear and out of date and no one really knows how the law should be written to accommodate this new age of digital goods, which means there's no reason to assume that taking any company to court over the matter will result in a victory. Your logic is circular: You're saying if I think a clause is illegal, I should agree to it and then take it to court to prove that it's illegal. But unless I can know ahead of time that will happen, I can't make that assumption.

In any case, agreeing to the new TOS immediately gives Valve a legal advantage in court in that they can argue I made the affirmative choice to read it and agree to it anyway, and if I thought it was illegal I wouldn't or shouldn't have agreed. Courts are much more more skeptical of those who are given the option to read a contract, sign it, and then try to take it back later, than they are of those who don't sign in the first place. By not agreeing, I at least reserve the argument that the new TOS is unconscionable and the consequences unfair to those who don't agree with it.

 

[Walshicus]

[*]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.
[/list]

I'll do this to finish DLing Witcher 2. Is it likely to *need* Steam installed to run? I know you could probably run it from the .exe anyway, but does that rely on a Steam registry entry or something?

 

[jcm]

You are continuing to use the service even if you don't buy new games. Since you are using the service you have to accept the EULA. There are no two ways about this. Not accepting Steam's subscriber agreement is not the same as getting banned from a couple of games.

You would make a marvelous bureaucrat. This is the way it works because this is the way it works.

That's what courts are for. If you think a specific clause that is enforced upon you is illegal, you take the company to court. The fact that you clicked "I accept" doesn't matter one bit.

I'm not claiming their policy is illegal. I'm claiming it's shitty, anti-consumer bullshit, which they are choosing to impose on the customers.

 

[Version 3.0]

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.

I don't mean legally binding. I mean in practice. You can't re-sell your Steam games, not because you don't have the right to do so (you do), but because you have no mechanism to do so. The same is true of XBLA, PSN, Wii Ware, etc. You can re-sell your games, legally, but not in a practical manner; you'd have to sell them all at once along with the machine. Though you have the legal right to sell, the publisher is not legally obligated to provide you with the means to do so.

 

[nexen]

I'll just leave this here..

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...major-ruling-upholds-tough-software-licenses/

"The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today ruled on a long-standing case involving used software on eBay, and it came to an important decision: if a company says you don't have the right to resell a program, you don't have that right."

Mind you this is for a physical copy resale. You are in even murkier legal waters for fully digital purchases.

Wishing something to be illegal does not make it so. If your contract says you are a subscriber or licensee then the first sale protections do not apply to you, so says the Ninth Circuit Court. I expect there will be many more legal challenges to this in the future but as the law stands right now - you do not own it and you are not legally entitled to resell it or even retain acces to it if you violate the terms of use.

 

[NBtoaster]

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.

Terminable licenses are standard practice for online software. I'm suprised so many people are only learning this now.

People who complain about their rights being infriged should have read the terms in the first place if they are so concerned about protecting them.

But will they now be careful about accepting EULAs in the future?

 

[Delusibeta]

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.

In this specific case, "no class action" clauses in the US have been approved by the Supreme Court, so they're 100% legal in the US, and so the majority of companies in America have included such a clause.

 

[alexandros]

In any case, agreeing to the new TOS immediately gives Valve a legal advantage in court in that they can argue I made the affirmative choice to read it and agree to it anyway, and if I thought it was illegal I wouldn't or shouldn't have agreed.

No no no, I have said many times that it doesn't work that way. If you go to court to contest a certain clause and it is found illegal, the fact that you agreed to it has absolutely zero meaning. Zero. Valve doesn't have a legal advantage just because you clicked "I accept" when it comes to illegal clauses. You can't be forced to sign away your basic rights by anyone. You can be forced to adhere to the laws of the country you reside in, which is what's happening here.

And I agree that digital distribution and consumer rights is a legally grey area at the moment. That doesn't mean that a consumer is unprotected, nor that companies are gods who have the liberty to impose anything on their clients.

You would make a marvelous bureaucrat. This is the way it works because this is the way it works.

Point taken, but I'm just trying to see what the alternative would be. If a person doesn't agree with Steam's Subscriber Agreement, the only way I can think of for him to have access to his games is if those games were completely detached from the Steam service. Valve would have to remove every trace of the Steam platform from the games. Is that even possible for Steam games, is it even legal for Valve to do so based on its agreements with publishers? The issue is much more complicated than it appears to be.

I don't mean legally binding. I mean in practice. You can't re-sell your Steam games, not because you don't have the right to do so (you do), but because you have no mechanism to do so.

This will have to be tested in court, as happened with the arbitration clause.

 

[Dead Man]

Terminable licenses are standard practice for online software. I'm suprised so many people are only learning this now.

People who complain about their rights being infriged should have read the terms in the first place if they are so concerned about protecting them.

But will they now be careful about accepting EULAs in the future?

Here's the thing. Buying a retail boxed game can end you up needed to agree to this to play.

I'll just leave this here..

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...major-ruling-upholds-tough-software-licenses/



Mind you this is for a physical copy resale. You are in even murkier legal waters for fully digital purchases.

Wishing something to be illegal does not make it so. If your contract says you are a subscriber or licensee then the first sale protections do not apply to you, so says the Ninth Circuit Court. I expect there will be many more legal challenges to this in the future but as the law stands right now - you do not own it and you are not legally entitled to resell it or even retain acces to it if you violate the terms of use.

So is software any different to any other retail item? Can car manufacturers now include license agreements on the cars(yes, I know, analogies ahoy)

 

[nexen]

Here's the thing. Buying a retail boxed game can end you up needed to agree to this to play.

So is software any different to any other retail item? Can car manufacturers now include license agreements on the cars(yes, I know, analogies ahoy)

For this particular example Valve has painted itself closer to a cable tv model. You are a 'subscriber', not an owner. Either party can terminate the subscription at any time for any reason, as far as I can tell.
A closer match for your car analogy I think is the Zipcar car sharing service. You pay them to gain access to their cars but you are bound by the agreements you make when you sign up for their service. If you violate the terms of service I'm sure Zipcar will terminate the agreement and you will lose access to the vehicles. You do not own them.

The only real difference that matters here is that people who buy software subscriptions from Valve are being tricked into believing that they own the software. They do not.

 

[Version 3.0]

This will have to be tested in court, as happened with the arbitration clause.

The sooner the better. We need to know what our rights are. I, for one, will never pay more than a few dollars for a game again, if it's ruled that I don't own it. The post that nexen made, for example:

"The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today ruled on a long-standing case involving used software on eBay, and it came to an important decision: if a company says you don't have the right to resell a program, you don't have that right."

If applied to games, this would put Gamestop out of business immediately. And it would put a halt to all my game purchases, immediately. And I'm a dream customer, buying mostly new, mostly full price. Except when I buy digitally, then I almost never pay over $10 - exactly because I know I might not be buying.

When it comes to games and other non-productivity software, we have basically no attention from the government. Obviously, all the same rights that apply to any physical item have been in practice for games since their invention. We buy them, sell them, trade them, lend them, etc - as long as they're on a physical medium. First Sale Doctrine clearly applies, or else we've all been criminals for 30+ years.

When we buy them digitally, we generally do none of these things. But, as far as laws are concerned, there should be no difference. How can the medium or delivery method change our rights? And yet we have this ruling.

Steam says you're a subscriber or licensee. So what? So does every EULA in hundreds of games on my shelves. But I've been free to sell them, if I wish, for 30 years (though I rarely do).

Honestly, our legal system needs to pay attention and let us know what our rights are.

 

[Walshicus]

For this particular example Valve has painted itself closer to a cable tv model. You are a 'subscriber', not an owner.

Thing is, that's never really been the image they've presented.

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

The sooner the better. We need to know what our rights are. I, for one, will never pay more than a few dollars for a game again, if it's ruled that I don't own it. The post that nexen made, for example:



If applied to games, this would put Gamestop out of business immediately. And it would put a halt to all my game purchases, immediately. And I'm a dream customer, buying mostly new, mostly full price. Except when I buy digitally, then I almost never pay over $10 - exactly because I know I might not be buying.

When it comes to games and other non-productivity software, we have basically no attention from the government. Obviously, all the same rights that apply to any physical item have been in practice for games since their invention. We buy them, sell them, trade them, lend them, etc - as long as they're on a physical medium. First Sale Doctrine clearly applies, or else we've all been criminals for 30+ years.

When we buy them digitally, we generally do none of these things. But, as far as laws are concerned, there should be no difference. How can the medium or delivery method change our rights? And yet we have this ruling.

Steam says you're a subscriber or licensee. So what? So does every EULA in hundreds of games on my shelves. But I've been free to sell them, if I wish, for 30 years (though I rarely do).

Honestly, our legal system needs to pay attention and let us know what our rights are.

Yo dawg, I ain't know what the Supreme Court was smokin' or what the case was about, but I know all ABOUT dat first sale doctrine. Fuckin' it's all up in that Disney v. Basmajian: http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19841212_0000605.SNY.htm/qx

If you are legally sold something, you can do whatevz the fuck you want with that as far as selling it goes. You can even write racial slurs on the cover of your PS2 copy of State of Emergency and pawn it off to some dopey elementary school kid.

17 USC Section 109, BIZATCH

 

[Wickerbasket]

They should really make it more clear that you aren't really buying the game when you go to checkout. Maybe have 'ADD SUBSCRIPTION TO CART' on the purchase button to make it clear that you don't really own the right to play the game at that price.

 

[nexen]

Yo dawg, I ain't know what the Supreme Court was smokin' or what the case was about, but I know all ABOUT dat first sale doctrine. Fuckin' it's all up in that Disney v. Basmajian: http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19841212_0000605.SNY.htm/qx

If you are legally sold something, you can do whatevz the fuck you want with that as far as selling it goes. You can even write racial slurs on the cover of your PS2 copy of State of Emergency and pawn it off to some dopey elementary school kid.

17 USC Section 109, BIZATCH

Once again, you weren't sold a game. You were sold a subscription. That is what makes this 100% different from buying a car or a computer. It is the crucial difference here and how these companies are getting rid of right of first sale.

You do not own any games on Steam.

You cannot have a 'right to resell' something you never owned in the first place.

If applied to games, this would put Gamestop out of business immediately. And it would put a halt to all my game purchases, immediately. And I'm a dream customer, buying mostly new, mostly full price. Except when I buy digitally, then I almost never pay over $10 - exactly because I know I might not be buying.

When it comes to games and other non-productivity software, we have basically no attention from the government. Obviously, all the same rights that apply to any physical item have been in practice for games since their invention. We buy them, sell them, trade them, lend them, etc - as long as they're on a physical medium. First Sale Doctrine clearly applies, or else we've all been criminals for 30+ years.

When we buy them digitally, we generally do none of these things. But, as far as laws are concerned, there should be no difference. How can the medium or delivery method change our rights? And yet we have this ruling.

Steam says you're a subscriber or licensee. So what? So does every EULA in hundreds of games on my shelves. But I've been free to sell them, if I wish, for 30 years (though I rarely do).

Honestly, our legal system needs to pay attention and let us know what our rights are.

I totally agree that this neeeds to be clarified by the Supreme Court and standards need to be adopted. I'd bet anyone good money that there will be massive, significant legal challenges to these restrictive EULAS in the very near future. We're heading for a massive legal clusterfuck with the state of things today. The consumers and the corporations are not even speaking the same language and lots of money is changing hands and the volume of currency is growing every day.

As for whether or not this applies to physical games - it all comes down to the specific legal wording of the EULAs you implicitly agree to by opening and using the software. If it says you are a licensee (and I believe that most software, enterainment or no, has said such since the mid 80s) then the ninth circuit court ruling does indeed apply. I'm sure entertainment lawyers have toyed with the notion of using it as a cannon to destroy the used game market but are probably worried that they would get their ass handed to them in the supreme court since Gamestop would likely take it that far and fund the battle very well.

Joe Gamer vs. Valve Corporation would be an entirely different matter, however.

 

[Wickerbasket]

Once again, you weren't sold a game. You were sold a subscription. That is what makes this 100% different from buying a car or a computer. It is the crucial difference here and how these companies are getting rid of right of first sale.

You do not own any games on Steam.

Doesn't the US have anything against false advertising? I'm sure the majority of people who 'own' games on Steam aren't actually aware that they're renting them.

 

[Duxxy3]

Maybe I'm wrong, but when i bought my copy of half life 2 a long ass time ago i don't believe it explicitly said that i was buying a subscription to a game.

Good luck in court valve, you'll be spending a LOT of time there soon.

 

[nexen]

Doesn't the US have anything against false advertising? I'm sure the majority of people who 'own' games on Steam aren't actually aware that they're renting them.

I think all of these EULAs are due for a day of reckoning. You should not be able to form a legally binding contract by clicking a button underneath a wall of legalese. Before we get to the point there is going to be a lot of consumer pain felt first though :\

Maybe I'm wrong, but when i bought my copy of half life 2 a long ass time ago i don't believe it explicitly said that i was buying a subscription to a game.

The Steam EULA clearly states that all your puchases are subscriptions. I'm sure you have clicked past it countless times without reading, as 99.999% of people using Steam (or any other digital purchase service) do.

http://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/

 

[faceless007]

Once again, you weren't sold a game. You were sold a subscription. That is what makes this 100% different from buying a car or a computer. It is the crucial difference here and how these companies are getting rid of right of first sale.

You do not own any games on Steam.

You cannot have a 'right to resell' something you never owned in the first place.

For approximately the five hundredth time, that's what software companies say, that doesn't automatically make it true. We as consumers should be pushing for courts to hold that it absolutely isn't true, EULAs be damned.

 

[Fantasmo]

This kind of stuff makes me WANT to take these people to court. Of course I won't, but boy oh boy will I be consuming more and more $.99 - $20 games now. And to be honest, I've been doing that for the past year.

Full price for a DD title just isn't happening, not when I'm just borrowing it and only on one type of device. These companies have been staring big money in the face for so long, and instead of cutting people some slack, they decided to get greedier in every way possible.

Whatever happened to the id Software's of the world? (Don't answer that literally, I already know the answer). Anyway, ugh!

Well, joke's on them. Prices drop pretty damn fast now.

 

[nexen]

For approximately the five hundredth time, that's what software companies say, that doesn't automatically make it true. We as consumers should be pushing for courts to hold that it absolutely isn't true, EULAs be damned.

My total point here is that the last major court decision on the matter UPHELD the EULA completely and voided first sale protections.
This was for a boxed copy resale, not even a full digital sale, which is even more legally problematic.

 

[faceless007]

My total point here is that the last major court decision on the matter UPHELD the EULA completely and voided first sale protections.
This was for a boxed copy resale, not even a full digital sale, which is even more legally problematic.

Yes, I think we all know that. All the more reason to fight it. Ninth Circuit isn't the SC, and even the SC gets things wrong. I don't understand your argument; half of your posts you're blindly accepting the definitions put forth by software companies and embracing their paradigm and the other half you're acknowledging it's problematic and anti-consumer.

 

[nexen]

Yes, I think we all know that. All the more reason to fight it. Ninth Circuit isn't the SC, and even the SC gets things wrong. I don't understand your argument; half of your posts you're blindly accepting the definitions put forth by software companies and embracing their paradigm and the other half you're acknowledging it's problematic and anti-consumer.

I don't think we all knew that, hence this thread. Everytime this subject comes up people are completely shocked.

I'm not embracing anything - I hate the current situation with the fire of a thousand suns. I'm only stating the facts as I currently understand them in order to hopefully get people behind the idea that shit needs to change.
We are having our consumer rights taken away from us and this will continue long as no one challenges them. How can someone challenge something they do not understand or even know about?

 

[faceless007]

No no no, I have said many times that it doesn't work that way. If you go to court to contest a certain clause and it is found illegal, the fact that you agreed to it has absolutely zero meaning.

Key word being "if." No one here can know for sure whether any court will rule that way. So why you are you arguing that it's a perfectly safe assumption that it will, and no one has anything to worry about by agreeing to the TOS?

You can't be forced to sign away your basic rights by anyone.

Pretty sure that's a common misconception but actually isn't true.

This will have to be tested in court, as happened with the arbitration clause.

Hopefully a different court than tested the arbitration clause.

 

[Dion Blaster]

I feel like a sucker for ever using Steam or any DD service. I hate the idea that you dont actually own the games, just the right to play them. Luckily I've only spent $100-$200. At least with Virtual Console I will always be able to turn on my Wii and play.

 

[Wickerbasket]

I feel like a sucker for ever using Steam or any DD service. I hate the idea that you dont actually own the games, just the right to play them. Luckily I've only spent $100-$200. At least with Virtual Console I will always be able to turn on my Wii and play.

Same, it makes me really nervous. I wouldn't like to lose access to all my games.

 

[Version 3.0]

You can't be forced to sign away your basic rights by anyone.

Pretty sure that's a common misconception but actually isn't true.

It is true. The only grey area is which rights fit the bill. For example, slavery is illegal, and no matter what you sign, you can never be legally sold into slavery or sell anyone else into slavery. No US court is ever going to uphold a contract that says anything of the sort. US citizens have the basic right of freedom. That's a right you absolutely cannot ever sign away.

Now, very far down that ladder are our consumer rights. Whether we can indeed sign them away with a single mouse click is the very heart of this matter.

 

[alexandros]

Key word being "if." No one here can know for sure whether any court will rule that way. So why you are you arguing that it's a perfectly safe assumption that it will, and no one has anything to worry about by agreeing to the TOS?

I'm arguing because I have some knowledge of legal matters, at least in the EU. I can't imagine that things are that different in the US. Illegal clauses cannot be enforced.

 

[Wickerbasket]

I'm arguing because I have some knowledge of legal matters, at least in the EU. I can't imagine that things are that different in the US. Illegal clauses cannot be enforced.

What I want to know is, if Valve decided to close up shop in the EU tomorrow, would there be anything anyone could do to stop them? As a US company, I'm unsure whether the EU laws would apply to them if they don't have a presence in the EU.

 

[Mudkips]

Just an FYI that the latest Steam update breaks my method of getting on, but I've got backups and I've blocked Steam from modifying the .exe or its various libraries, and can still get on.

 

[alexandros]

What I want to know is, if Valve decided to close up shop in the EU tomorrow, would there be anything anyone could do to stop them? As a US company, I'm unsure whether the EU laws would apply to them if they don't have a presence in the EU.

Sorry for the delayed response, I didn't see your question earlier. If you're from the EU and you're buying games from Valve, EU laws apply. It doesn't matter if Valve is US-based or EU-based, if they're selling their products to european customers they are bound by EU law.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

Sorry for the delayed response, I didn't see your question earlier. If you're from the EU and you're buying games from Valve, EU laws apply. It doesn't matter if Valve is US-based or EU-based, if they're selling their products to european customers they are bound by EU law.

And beyond this, even if you're in the US and this does apply to you, the legal concept of estoppel (as I've posted before in this topic) renders this EULA change effectively useless if you feel strongly enough about this that you are not going to purchase anything from Steam in the future and want to participate in anythign that's so fucking bad you need a class action lawsuit to sort it out.

If you accept it and then continue using Steam as normal for anything other than purchases under the previously stated contract, then you're tacitly accepting arbitrage instead of class actions (in the US where the law allows that) however.

 

[barugon]

The whole idea upsets me a bit, but then I realize that the average cost (not value) of a game in my library is probably in the vicinity of $8. All in all, they could cut me off now and I'd still have saved money if I had bought physical copies of a quarter of what I "own" on Steam. I realize that it's not much consolation, but it's enough for me as a CAG. Someone else compared Steam games to rentals, and I guess that's the way I'm starting to see it. I won't be professing a great love for Steam any time soon, but I'll still keep an eye on sales.

 

[Bittercup]

"vzbv mahnt Spielehersteller Valve ab"
(German consumer protection agency warns Valve over recent EULA changes)

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.vzbv.de/10293.htm
unfortunately most news are only in German. One of the few english ones: http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Va...Cease-Desist-Anti-Consumerist-EULA-47038.html
more links and translation:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/for...n-agency-warns-Valve-over-recent-EULA-changes

 

[Lancehead]

Well, that should get Valve to make some changes to SSA.