Support NeoGAF

[gabbo]

Yet another reason to buy stuff on GOG.

I'm from Brazil, so even though a clause like that is forbidden by law here, it's not like I can sue them anyway. Surely sucks for US/EU users, though.


They already do it with Origin and every recent game with online components.

I think this violates EU law anyway, so the EU agreement would not have the clause in it to begin with.

It's a shitty, anti-consumer line to draw in the sand (just because others have done it doesn't make it right), and hopefully we don't see Steam going farther down this rabbit hole of bad policies.

 

[nephilimdj]

Actually makes me wonder what legal things I could sue for, outside of selling me stubbs the zombie that has no way to run on win7, not much.

Wonder how much I could get since no refund was offered for a butched sale.

 

[Bittercup]

really? thats messed up.

you have to agree or lose access to your games?

Yes they state it in their Steam Subscriber Agreement:
"If you don't agree to the amendments or to any of the terms in this Agreement, your only remedy is to cancel your Account or to cease use of the affected Subscription(s). Valve shall not have any obligation to refund any fees that may have accrued to your Account before cancellation of your Account or cessation of use of any Subscription, nor shall Valve have any obligation to prorate any fees in such circumstances. "
and this was already there before this recent change.
Agree or lose your games.

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

Have you read the GOG ToS? They limit their liability to almost nothing, and you are indemnifying them when you use their service.

Yeah, but what reason could GOG give you to even want to sue them? Their entire business model is selling games that they won't take away from you, and it's not like the shit you bought will just disappear overnight.

 

[kitch9]

In the 7+ years that Steam has existed, has anyone been in a position where they needed to (or felt they needed to) file a lawsuit against Valve?

No, but you can guarantee there are wankers out there plotting to, some how....

 

[commissar]

Valve has enough good will with me that I'm not concerned.

Furthermore, my local consumer laws would trump the ToS anyway.

Sucks for others I guess, though I doubt there will be much cause for concern

 

[ZackieChan]

Yeah, but what reason could GOG give you to even want to sue them? Their entire business model is selling games that they won't take away from you, and it's not like the shit you bought will just disappear overnight.

Can't you just buy games from Steam, back them up, and just play offline for the rest of your life?

What if GOG stops letting you download another copy of the games you bought (maybe they already don't let you)?

 

[kitch9]

Agreed on both counts.

But maybe this will help to disabuse people of the notion that Valve/Steam is vastly more pro-consumer than everyone else out there. Maybe a little bit, but not that much.

I think a lot of the undying love for Steam comes from their sales, which is rather naive because everyone does similar sales, and it's really the publishers behind that and taking the brunt of the risk, not Steam.

Aaannnndddd here come the head slappin' jibber jabbers.....

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

Can't you just buy games from Steam, back them up, and just play offline for the rest of your life?

What if GOG stops letting you download another copy of the games you bought (maybe they already don't let you)?

No, you can't. With GOG, you can. That's the primary difference.

 

[Werhil]

Ok I understand on a certain level its stupid that any company can presume to just lay out the kind of lawsuits you can and cannot file against them.

That said, I don't actually see how this is horrible or villainous on Valve's part. What is the expected 'end game' this allows which has some people so upset? Is the idea that Steam would be so powerful, they lock everyone's library behind some new paywall or forced advertising scheme, and we are all helpless without the ability to file a class-action suit?

 

[Absoludacrous]

This is a shitty practice, but I can't blame them for trying if they can get away with it.

The real blame for this whole thing should be on the court system. There should not be a system in place where a corporation can say "Hah, now you can't sue us no matter what!" in their EULA and have it actually mean something. That's what needs to change.

 

[Sentenza]

Yeah, but what reason could GOG give you to even want to sue them? Their entire business model is selling games that they won't take away from you, and it's not like the shit you bought will just disappear overnight.

Well, if you put it in these terms, what do you think these attempts of class actions against Valve could be about, so far?
"Preload for this game was supposed to start at 9 a.m. and it was actually available twelve hours later! Plus the server was down three days ago. We totally deserve compensation".

That's the kind of frivolous lawsuits digital stores probably face most of the times.

 

[SouthernDragon]

It strikes me as really, really weird that companies can dictate which kind of lawsuits can be brought against them outside of very specific situations.

 

[Bittercup]

Can't you just buy games from Steam, back them up, and just play offline for the rest of your life?

What if GOG stops letting you download another copy of the games you bought (maybe they already don't let you)?

Once you're in the situation where you want to restore your back-up you need to go online. For example when your HDD breaks and you switch it for a new one.
And the offline mode isn't 100% dependable either.
You are dependant on Valve/Steam to keep access to your game.

If GOG would do that and if you have already downloaded the game and made a back-up you can install the game anytime you want on any PC you want. Doesn't matter what GOG does.
If you have no back-up, in that case you lose your game, as well. As long as you keep the installer, the games are yours forever.

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

Well, if you put it in these terms, what do you think these "tentatively" class actions against Valve could be about, so far?
"Preload for this game was supposed to start at 9 a.m. and it was actually available twelve hours later! Plus the server was down three days ago. We totally deserve compensation".

That's the kind of frivolous lawsuits digital stores probably face most of the times.

Yeah, I get that. I'm just saying that one stands to lose a lot less by signing away their rights to GOG.

 

[alexandros]

I'm not so sure about that. Go in any of the Steam sale threads or the main Steam thread, and it's a veritable knob-slobbing.

Eh, I think most of that is just harmless fun. I'm pretty sure that people remember Valve is a business after checking their bank accounts after a Steam sale

 

[Instro]

A company trying protecting itself from frivolous lawsuits doesn't really bother me, although I imagine if this were another company there would be a bigger stink about it.

On the subject of GoG, considering they pretended to shut down their service and denied user's access to their games for days as a marketing ploy, I wouldn't exactly call them defender of the common good either.

 

[ZackieChan]

Once you're in the situation where you want to restore your back-up you need to go online. For example when your HDD breaks and you switch it for a new one.
And the offline mode isn't 100% dependable either.
You are dependant on Valve/Steam to keep access to your game.

If GOG would do that and if you have already downloaded the game and made a back-up you can install the game anytime you want on any PC you want. Doesn't matter what GOG does.
If you have no back-up, in that case you lose your game, as well. As long as you keep the installer, the games are yours forever.

Well, that sucks. Then again, they made no guarantees when you bought it, just like with your PSN and XBL and WiiWare games. There's really no way around that?

Edit: Looked at their backup info...seems that you have to log in. Terrible, but I guess I understand why they do it.

 

[iamcenok]

This is strange..

I mean.. yeah. Strange.
While many people love valve, and it seems that Valve wouldn't do anything to tarnish their reputation and screw the end user over.. I'd be worried about the precedence this could set.

Can we trust a company.. say like EA or Activision if they decided to do a similar move? Blegh.. I shudder to think of the implications.

As much as I like Valve I hope they get struck down on this thing.

 

[bonesquad]

I don't see a problem with this. Class action lawsuits have become nothing but money grabs by groups of lawyers. While on one hand this change isn't 'consumer friendly' and it would be nice if such restrictions weren't needed. However, if this is what Value/Steam (or whoever) needs to do to protect itself from these attacks so be it.

The recent Netflix fiasco where my name was put on the suit without my consent (instead I have to actively take my name off it, such bull shit) so a group of lawyers could make millions pisses me off.

Again, this change is fine by me if it keeps Value from losing $9 million that could be used to help support the service instead. At the end of the day this change doesn't affect me one bit anyway.

 

[Sentenza]

On the subject of GoG, considering they pretended to shut down their service and denied user's access to their games for days as a marketing ploy, I wouldn't exactly call them defender of the common good either.

I still laugh at how terrible that was as a marketing move.
If you run a digital store, the last thing you should want is to even remotely suggest to your customers the idea that they could lose access to their games at some point. And they did it as a "joke".

It would be like having an airline company and suggesting to your passengers that planes can eventually crash at any moment.

 

[Dead Man]

I think Valve is well withing their rights to do this (In the US at least), and that other companies do the same and worse. That doesn't stop me thinking it is a dickish move.

 

[Mudkips]

I sure as fuck don't agree to those terms. And clicking a button on some text window popup does not meet the legal requirement of a contract.

 

[volturnus]

Have you read the GOG ToS? They limit their liability to almost nothing, and you are indemnifying them when you use their service.

I haven't, but I do know their games are DRM-free, so I'll still have them to play whenever I want even if I delete my account.
I don't see myself wanting to sue Valve or anything, but it's just insulting to see them doing this while their customer service is one of the worst in the industry.

 

[Zzoram]

Haven't all game companies been doing this lately? I seem to recall they have. Pretty sure EULAs don't hold up in court anyways.

 

[Sibylus]

This is strange..

I mean.. yeah. Strange.
While many people love valve, and it seems that Valve wouldn't do anything to tarnish their reputation and screw the end user over.. I'd be worried about the precedence this could set.

Can we trust a company.. say like EA or Activision if they decided to do a similar move? Blegh.. I shudder to think of the implications.

As much as I like Valve I hope they get struck down on this thing.

I'm quite the Valve fan, but I fully agree with the bolded sentiment. This is not a norm I wish to see survive.

 

[WickedCobra03]

Let me just ask this question, do you really think Microsoft would have owned up to the original xbox 360's being total POS's without threats of legal recourse? Yeah, probably not.

I get lawyers making most of the money off of the lawsuit sucks, but it is more about fixing a wrong that has been done by forcing a company to do something most of the time.

 

[Fugu]

The fact that Valve can amend your agreement and hold your games hostage until you sign it will always do a good job of severely limiting the appeal of Steam to an absolute last resort for me.

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

Haven't all game companies been doing this lately? I seem to recall they have. Pretty sure EULAs don't hold up in court anyways.

Nah, they can. ProCD v. Zeidenberg blah blah blah *blows brains out*

 

[inm8num2]

And herein lies the ultimate conundrum of digital distribution:

convenience vs. ownership

Consumers chose the first option.

 

[Delusibeta]

So much legal ingorance in this thread. AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion only ruled that a contract can enforce arbitration for a class action, not an individual issue.

At the end of the day, it's an academic distinction.

 

[Instro]

Someone should sue them over this change to the ToS, I'm sure the judge would appreciate the irony.

 

[Mr. Enigma]

Consumer protection in the United States needs a reform.

 

[Arksy]

What is ridiculous is that you cannot appeal a decision by Arbitration. What happens if the Arbitrator makes an ultra vires judgement? I find that to be hilarious. Is this what passes for a legal system in the U.S?

 

[Mudkips]

Filing a complaint with the FTC so hard
https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/FTC_Wizard.aspx?Lang=en

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

Consumer protection in the United States needs a reform.

Eh, kinda makes it an exciting time, though. Because there are all these issues, but judges can't solve them because they're old and wrinkly and don't know shit about any of it.

Actually, a few kinda get it. Particularly in copyright cases like Galoob v. Nintendo and Formgen v. Microstar.

 

[Yuripaw]

I don't know how I feel about this situation. I doubt there would be a time when I want to sue valve, but I'm also getting tired of big business thinking they can just change their ToS so that if they fuck up, the consumers are helpless to fight back.

Already mentioned this in another thread, but it's not exactly what's in the ToS that's upsetting me about all this, but I honestly don't know if I want to agree with to it. Yet now all my games that I've bought over the past 8 years are being held hostage until I agree. That really feels like bull shit.

I already tried disconnecting my ethernet cord to see if I could still just play my stuff in offline mode, and it still comes up with the ToS agreement thing, so I can't even bypass this stuff just to play my games. They wanna cut me off from buying and using their servers if I don't agree to the ToS? fine. but it's bull shit that I can't play the games I currently have installed on my PC.

 

[BillyBats]

Yes. I am soooo sick of everyone running around and wanting to boycott everything over every little thing. So in this case I want them to put their money where their...words are. Give up gaming and sulk in the corner while you champion your rights over every little injustice.

I feel the same. I have never been wronged by a gaming company. I don't know how many have but based on this forum it seems like everyone.

Shit, if people think gaming companies are fucking them over, just wait until the insurance companies (auto/medical) have their way with you. This gaming shit is literally child's play that involves a few hundred dollars at most. This is small potatoes and if choosing this as one of your life's battles does it for you, I guess more power to ya.

 

[Mudkips]

I don't know how I feel about this situation. I doubt there would be a time when I want to sue valve, but I'm also getting tired of big business thinking they can just change their ToS so that if they fuck up, the consumers are helpless to fight back.

Already mentioned this in another thread, but it's not exactly what's in the ToS that's upsetting me about all this, but I honestly don't know if I want to agree with to it. Yet now all my games that I've bought over the past 8 years are being held hostage until I agree. That really feels like bull shit.

I already tried disconnecting my ethernet cord to see if I could still just play my stuff in offline mode, and it still comes up with the ToS agreement thing, so I can't even bypass this stuff just to play my games. They wanna cut me off from buying and using their servers if I don't agree to the ToS? fine. but it's bull shit that I can't play the games I currently have installed on my PC.

Yup, Steam is useless to me right now because it just popped up with the new ToS.

 

[Dead Man]

I feel the same. I have never been wronged by a gaming company. I don't know how many have but based on this forum it seems like everyone.

Shit, if people think gaming companies are fucking them over, just wait until the insurance companies (auto/medical) have their way with you. This gaming shit is literally child's play that involves a few hundred dollars at most. This is small potatoes and if choosing this as one of your life's battles does it for you, I guess more power to ya.

Well that makes it okay then. Remind me to come over to your place when I am angry next time so I can punch you in the mouth. Compared to what other people do it's small potatoes, so you should be fine, right?

 

[Castor Krieg]

Sorry for not reading 9 pages, but did anyone from Legal-GAF already said, that most likely the clause has no effect? At least in Europe courts laugh at ToS, EULAs, etc. - just because you put shit there doesn't mean you are off the hook. Customer protection takes precedence over anything.

 

[Neo C.]

I don't get why some of you say "Boycott? LOL, quit gaming!"

There are more than enough gaming options which don't take your entire library hostage. It's actually very easy to boycott Steam.
I think some people have just invested too much money and especially time into it.

 

[davepoobond]

i (and most people, too) never benefit from class action lawsuits that i might qualify for. i understand their sentiment, but it really just defends them more than it defends us in the end.

 

[CecilRousso]

There are more than enough gaming options which don't take your entire library hostage. It's actually very easy to boycott Steam.

It isn´t for me, since Steam is where I find the games that interest me the most. If I boycott that, my interest for gaming would take a severe blow. I don´t feel the need to play games just for the sake of it, I do it when companies make good enough games.

But since I have never even for half a second in my life considered suing a company for a gaming related issue, I don´t feel that this is an issue for me.

 

[Delusibeta]

I don't get why some of you say "Boycott? LOL, quit gaming!"

There are more than enough gaming options which don't take your entire library hostage. It's actually very easy to boycott Steam.
I think some people have just invested too much money and especially time into it.

The problem is this sort of clause has been approved by the Supreme Court which means everyone who operates in the US or has terms covered by US law can (and will) add a similar clause to their Ts & Cs. Hell, Amazon US already has done so, as have most of the ISPs over there. If you disapprove of this decision, and refuse to day any business with any company that does this, then you will have to leave the USA, since such a clause is now standard issue.

 

[Jintor]

So much legal ingorance in this thread. AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion only ruled that a contract can enforce arbitration for a class action, not an individual issue.

And now contracts are incorporating enforcible arbitration clauses re: class action lawsuits into their EULAs, so in effect...?

 

[Neo C.]

The problem is this sort of clause has been approved by the Supreme Court which means everyone who operates in the US or has terms covered by US law can (and will) add a similar clause to their Ts & Cs. Hell, Amazon Us already has done so, as have most of the ISPs over there. If you disapprove of this decision, then you will have to leave the USA, since such a clause is now standard issue.

Yeah, it's very bad in general, but it's especially in the case of Steam because your entire library has been taken hostage. That's why it isn't unreasonable to boycott Steam while support other gaming options.

I do hope that you guys can eventually change the policy though. It's good that the EU follows a different policy.

 

[mephixto]

Paying a lawyer to sue someone for video games? Not worth the time and money my library is below $500 mehh

 

[CecilRousso]

Two questions:

1. What class action law suits have there been so far that has been won, and benefited the customer? I don´t need everyone of course, just some examples.

2. For those of us where suing a company for game related issues is not an option, can you say that the new process for issues is an improvement, since it means that there actually is a process other than emailing support and complaining?

 

[Dead Man]

Why this is bad:

From the SSA

"You agree that you will not use IP proxying or other methods to disguise the place of your residence, whether to circumvent geographical restrictions on game content, to purchase at pricing not applicable to your geography, or for any other purpose. If you do this, we may terminate your access to your Account."

Why the hell should they not be sued for doing that!

Didn't you get the memo? Only corporations are allowed to take advantage of globalisation. Consumers just have to take what they are given.