That can't be what he's referring to, though, because he said "Waive your [right to a class-action law suit] so we can keep screwing you", and the loss of account access occurs when you don't accept the SSA.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Valve faces legal challenge over Steam EULA
- Thread starter MRORANGE
- Start date
That can't be what he's referring to, though, because he said "Waive your [right to a class-action law suit] so we can keep screwing you", and the loss of account access occurs when you don't accept the SSA.
Germany is such an incredibly large market that they would be stupid not to change to conform to the rules. Not to mention if this catches on in Germany it might pave the way for legislators in other Jurisdictions to follow suit.
Glass Rebel
Member
That was one thing. Valve has changed their policy on bans over the years with the limited accounts and all that.
That can't be what he's referring to, though, because he said "Waive your [right to a class-action law suit] so we can keep screwing you", and the loss of access occurs when you don't accept the SSA.
Yeah, this.
WrenchNinja
Member
I assumed it was poor wording. His entire post is about people losing access to their games that don't want to lose their ability to be part of a lawsuit.That can't be what he's referring to, though, because he said "Waive your [right to a class-action law suit] so we can keep screwing you", and the loss of account access occurs when you don't accept the SSA.
Delusibeta
Banned
American company follows the ruling of the American Supreme Court, people are surprised.
A key question that the courts will need to decide is whether the individual game licenses are severable from the overall Steam account license.
The court ruling stated that if a customer purchases a multiseat license, it is not allowed to split the license up into parts and sell them separately. So does this also apply to the Steam account?
If I were Valve, I'll concede the point about modifying the EULA to allow for the transfer of the entire Steam account but argue strongly against the ability to transfer the individual game licenses piecemeal. Valve should argue that those licenses are the responsibility of the publisher, not Valve.
The court ruling stated that if a customer purchases a multiseat license, it is not allowed to split the license up into parts and sell them separately. So does this also apply to the Steam account?
If I were Valve, I'll concede the point about modifying the EULA to allow for the transfer of the entire Steam account but argue strongly against the ability to transfer the individual game licenses piecemeal. Valve should argue that those licenses are the responsibility of the publisher, not Valve.
crazygambit
Member
If we're talking about DRM free, then how does allowing digital resales affect anything? If they're gonna pirate, this whole thing makes no difference.
If there's some form of DRM (which I believe it's the case with Steam) they can simply make your key not work anymore after you resell your digital game. Seems pretty simple to me (and something Steam is already capable of).
What I find interesting is what that would do to the market and how would you would go about putting your old games for sale. Since the product is entirely indistinguishable from a new copy there shouldn't be such a huge difference in price. However if the difference is too small you might as well buying new from Steam. It would be interesting to watch.
Castor Krieg
Banned
It was obvious the class-action bit was illegal under European law. Good for Germany for stepping in.
You buy a new license every single time you buy a game so that's not an issue.
That doesn't work. That would be like your retailer telling you that they cannot do anything about your broken PS3 (let's say it broke a week after you've bought it) but that you should go to Sony with your problem. Then Sony could send you to whoever supplied them with the part that's broken. That's not how it works.
In my example, you go to the retailer and everything else is up to him.
The class action provision does not apply the European EULA, only the American one.
That first article has conflated the two EULAs which do have separate provisions.
Danny Dudekisser
I paid good money for this Dynex!
Y'know, the first thing the US has to establish is what the hell Steam games actually are. Are they goods? Are they a service? Valve obviously thinks it's the latter, but I dunno...
But it's pretty tough to say what consumers' rights are or what laws even apply (as in, does UCC Article 2 apply?) until we actually have a definitive statement on what digitally purchased games actually are.
So that's kinda frustrating right now. Well, not frustrating since I'm too busy playing Torchlight II to care that much, but uh... mildly bothersome.
But it's pretty tough to say what consumers' rights are or what laws even apply (as in, does UCC Article 2 apply?) until we actually have a definitive statement on what digitally purchased games actually are.
So that's kinda frustrating right now. Well, not frustrating since I'm too busy playing Torchlight II to care that much, but uh... mildly bothersome.
Which is whats funny because how is your account held hostage if you are not actually under those rules anyways. Seems like you could just accept it without a care and play your damn games. Only Americans should be upset.
Also in what case would most people be suing them anyways? Hell even the UK can get their games refunded without a problem.
Wouldn't that entirely depend on the terms of the warranty?
Because your Steam account was "held hostage" if you didn't agree to the terms of the modified European EULA as well
But you know, consumer rights etc. etc. etc.
In fact, the European EULA became MORE BENEFICIAL for the Steam user as the terms were changed so that legal actions against Valve could be brought in either the home country of the user or Luxembourg (Valve's EU HQ) depending on which was more beneficial for the user rather than solely under Luxembourg law as was the case previously!
alexandros
Banned
It's good to hear that the proper authorities are taking action on this.There are still a lot of grey areas when it comes to digital distribution and they need to be cleared up as soon as possible.
Zuhzuhzombie!!
Member
Nope.
Valve has every right to screw you over in the USA.
They're categorized as licenses.
RealDeadOne
Member
Because in that case with Steam, one person could play his games, trade it to his friend for 1 cent, who trades it to his friend for 1 cent, who trades it to his friend for 1 cent, who trades it back to the original owner for 1 cent.
So four people got to play a game, use all of its online features and utilize the full Steam functionality, and three of those people didn't pay a cent to Valve or the game's publisher or developer for using their service. It would actually be cheaper for Valve if they pirated it because they wouldn't have to pay server costs for freeloaders.
I'm not gonna say that a consumer just shouldn't have the right to do that, since they can with physical copies already, but it absolutely would affect Valve's business model. To me it doesn't seem fair to rip the rug out from under Valve's feet and upturn their highly profitable business model that people 100% have the choice of whether or not they buy from.
Danny Dudekisser
I paid good money for this Dynex!
Has the court actually said this sort of thing counts as a license?
However, from this perspective, it really doesn't add any additional load to the Steam network because all 4 individuals would never be able to use the network at the same time from the same license.
To Steam, it's still only one individual using the network at a time. So while the revenue from the additonal sales is lost, there really is no added cost.
Having said that, the courts had better figure out a way of allowing companies to seriously enforce the rule that the license is well and truly transferred and that the original owner has no residual benefits of ownership.
To Steam, it's still only one individual using the network at a time. So while the revenue from the additonal sales is lost, there really is no added cost.
Having said that, the courts had better figure out a way of allowing companies to seriously enforce the rule that the license is well and truly transferred and that the original owner has no residual benefits of ownership.
Ravensmash
Member
This is very good news. Hope Valve are forced/decide to change it.
If I buy a game from your store, and you then change the EULA to something I disagree with then by all means prevent me from using the service in future until I agree, but do not restrict me from previously purchased items I've paid good money for - ridiculous concept.
If I buy a game from your store, and you then change the EULA to something I disagree with then by all means prevent me from using the service in future until I agree, but do not restrict me from previously purchased items I've paid good money for - ridiculous concept.
RedNumberFive
Banned
Only on GAF will you find individuals that believe that taking away consumer and legal rights is a "good thing".
RedNumberFive
Banned
So what? Each time the game is sold, the previous user can no longer use it. No different than physical copies of used games.
Earthstrike
Member
Which is whats funny because how is your account held hostage if you are not actually under those rules anyways. Seems like you could just accept it without a care and play your damn games. Only Americans should be upset.
Also in what case would most people be suing them anyways? Hell even the UK can get their games refunded without a problem.
Is there any kind of equivalent to this in canada?
The Wizard
Member
Good, at the very least you should be able to disagree and still have access to your games.
I totally think the whole held hostage stuff should be fixed.
I however think used sales of digital items is going to effect me more negatively as a consumer rather than positively. Its one of those you "you get what you wish for" situations were prices will go up, developers will push away from pc to consoles again, single player games will die and F2P will truly be one and only future for PC gaming. This is what will most likely happen after the internet exploits the system.
No. If people stopped making single player games overnight, a savvy developer would start making one to plug the market for the unquestionable demand for one.
Also, this would apply equally to digital sales on XBLA, PSN, etc.
Haunted
Member
*salutes*
Steam has definitely brought piracy down with ease of use, low prices at sales and such. Make trading games super easy as well will change that.
and everyone will trade his game and his studio will shut down like most this generation.. ok
or he will make it some weird f2p hybrid that will screw consumers anyways.
Theres a reason a lot of smaller developers have clung to things like xbla, psn and steam.. no resales enables them to survive in those markets. Take that away and they are pretty much screwed.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
This is why I love the EU, because it is so much better at protecting consumer rights than individual nationstates.
Pureauthor
Member
Apparently Gabe's response to this has been to ragequit and pull the plug on all the Steam servers. Who knew.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
Aha, I thought I was the only one!
Are you trying to be funny?
http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=784745&page=1000
Has absolutely nothing to do with the lawsuit, Jesus Christ.
whalleywhat
Member
Germany, last bastion of consumer rights.
Danke.
phosphor112
Banned
There is no physical limit to how many people can get it. Unlike selling a Super Mario Bros for NES, and it going through 10 different owners. Nintendo doesn't have to let you use a server to download the game... it's already on the game. Not to mention there is a limit on where the product can go. A physical copy of a game is more likely to stay within a city because of the difficulty involved to transfer a game elsewhere, there are costs also involved with mailing such an item. For Digital content, one can sell the key from person to person, country to country, and every time its sold the publisher has to let them download a game, costing THEM money.
Pureauthor
Member
RedNumberFive
Banned
And again, so what? I should give up my resale rights because Valve might have to incur a few cents worth of bandwidth costs, all while leading those users directly to their storefront?
Salacious Crumb
Junior Member
This is one of those"be careful what you wish for" things. It has a very real chance of killing single player games on steam.
Any system they implement would be too easy to exploit.
Any system they implement would be too easy to exploit.
Which is why it will be incumbent upon the developers and publishes to argue that digital goods are actually significantly different than physical ones and therefore the first sale doctrine will need to be modified to account for the costs incurred by the developer/publisher due to the transfer of the license from one party to another.
phosphor112
Banned
If it mattered to you so much then why even purchase the game? Why not go retail? You seem to love the idea of reselling a game so much then go retail. Where physical copies exist.
Some people just dont give a fuck about the repercussions. There is a trade off with everything. With DD, it's selling the game you downloaded.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
Or he'll continue to maintain his rights.
Yes, it's incredibly obvious that it's a joke.
krameriffic
Member
So who else didn't know this was a thing and wasn't affected by it, in a practical sense, at all?
phosphor112
Banned
Those rights for DD never existed in the first place, so how can he maintain them if they were never there to begin with!?
BUT IT'S THE PRINCIPLE OF THE MATTER!!!
Or so the bleeding hearts always like to say!
Chill out... it was obviously a joke -.-
According to the EU Court, they do now within its jurisdiction!
RedNumberFive
Banned
So you would give up your right to sell a game you're done playing because of some theoretical doomsday scenario?
Again... "Only on GAF".