Steam EULA (7-31-2012) discussion, all other related threads will be locked/merged

[Tryp]

Originally Posted by prX8

because you own your account. Pretty fail philosoraptor comment, in fact you tarnished his name. Slap yourself a bit as punishment

Sorry, I'm an amateur at Philosoraptor, I normally only do Joseph Decreux and Wonka. >.>


Also, wouldn't owning an account but not the things it contains be pretty much like someone selling you a box, then some stuff to put into it, while saying you don't really own the stuff in the box just the box itself?

To further obfuscate and confuse the issue, what if you have giftable games on that account and they are stolen and then sold/traded off from that account, since you're technically only allowed to own one license then have you really legally lost anything? >.>


Also, do you have a decent recipe for onion rings? I've never been able to get the stupid batter to stick.

/slaps self with a mesh sack full of very thin water balloons

[nrnoble]

I've read about 25% of the posts in this thread; its fun debate these issues like in a college class on ethics\law\ economics\etc where everything is hypothetical in terms of what could happen. My question is, is Steam really preparing for some massive, hostile, change in business where they start charging $20 (or whatever) a month to access the games already bought? There are other suggestions in this thread just as bad or worse, and if any of them do come true, millions of gamers around the world will be locked out and forced to start all over again. And if the theories are to be believed, Valve is truly preparing to revoke millions game accounts simply because they legally can. Are things really that bad, or soon to be?

[SabreXT]

Originally Posted by nrnoble

I've read about 25% of the posts in this thread; its fun debate these issues like in a college class on ethics\law\ economics\etc where everything is hypothetical in terms of what could happen. My question is, is Steam really preparing for some massive, hostile, change in business where they start charging $20 (or whatever) a month to access the games already bought? There are other suggestions in this thread just as bad or worse, and if any of them do come true, millions of gamers around the world will be locked out and forced to start all over again. And if the theories are to be believed, Valve is truly preparing to revoke millions game accounts simply because they legally can. Are things really that bad, or soon to be?

No one really knows, that's why alot of debate focused on if the new EULA would hold up legally. In the past (in the UK at least), if that kind of thing went to court, it usually came down on the side of the consumer. You can't just change a contract to whatever you want and get away with it.

The theory goes that, if valve is trying to stop people from suing, it's because they are about to do something that is going to result in a lawsuit very soon.

[DarkLite123]

Originally Posted by SabreXT

The theory goes that, if valve is trying to stop people from suing, it's because they are about to do something that is going to result in a lawsuit very soon.

Along with EA, Sony, and every other company that does this? I don't think so. Apart from anything else, they could be sued perfectly well in the rest of the world if they did something insane. In my opinion, it's to protect them from frivolous litigation in America (which is something that's definitely a problem, no?).

[dxmc]

@Superdog,

A lot of straw man and other problems there. I certainly wasn't suggesting that by owning a movie or game I think I own it in the sense that I can make copies, distribute them, sell them and profit from it. I certainly wasn't suggesting this, to quote you;

"you won't get them to give up the rights to intellectual property for the price of one game. If you want to go to Valve and offer them a billion for the HL, maybe they will agree and then you will own the game. But now what?"

And by substituting the idea of "owning intellectual property" for the idea of DRM you are just sidestepping the whole DRM issue.

As for the points you make about cellphone carriers and ISPs, the only thing my cell phone carrier is providing is access to their 4G/LTE/WiFi network. That may involve some software I don't own but that's really irrelevant. As long as I keep paying my bills they'll keep providing. As for my ISP, they provide HBO, for instance, and yes I don't own those shows, but I'm not paying for that content on a show by show basis, I'm paying for channels and that's another kettle of fish altogether.

So again it's all apples and oranges kind of comparisons.

And the changes that Valve and others are making are new and, more importantly, have failed to stand up to legal scrutiny in every other developed country outside the USA. Because these are terms that benefit the corporation at the expense of the individual consumer. They have the effect of shielding companies from exposure and by doing that, denying consumers the info they need to be adequately informed when making purchases.

So by defending the corporation you are acting against your personal interest as a consumer and I think that looks a little more questionable than trying to have an honest discussion of the issues amongst real, actual fellow human beings.

And this is not a protest. I was a student society official at a pretty off-the-wall college back in the 70s and believe me, this is not a protest. This is a discussion of new changes which affect a lot of consumers and that has led to a reconsideration of the whole model because it seems a lot of those consumers never really understood what they were getting into in the first place. And apart from that, online services are a new aspect of everyone's lives and it's worth discussing tha manner in which those services are evolving. Note that this thread has gone on for almost 2 weeks, generated almost 5,000 replies and almost 200,000 views.So some people feel there's some interesting discussion going on here.

Best regards again.

[Tito Shivan]

Originally Posted by nrnoble

My question is, is Steam really preparing for some massive, hostile, change in business where they start charging $20 (or whatever) a month to access the games already bought?

I have to agree with Darklite

Originally Posted by DarkLite123

Along with EA, Sony, and every other company that does this? I don't think so. Apart from anything else, they could be sued perfectly well in the rest of the world if they did something insane. In my opinion, it's to protect them from frivolous litigation in America (which is something that's definitely a problem, no?).

Valve is just following the trend.

[si1viu]

Originally Posted by Tito Shivan

I have to agree with Darklite

Valve is just following the trend.

That make me feel better...

[iive]

Originally Posted by nrnoble

My question is, is Steam really preparing for some massive, hostile, change in business where they start charging $20 (or whatever) a month to access the games already bought
?

I would say it is highly unlikely.

Right now Steam is doubling its size every year. Doing such thing would put an end to that.

Whatever they do, it would be subtle and none intrusive. For example, they could state that games are actually lent for 20 years. A lot of people wouldn't actually care, after all, is there some game at 20 years that you still play? Tetris? Pac-man? The Legend of Zelda? Half-Life 1?

Such subtle change would reinforce that they are lending the games and prevent decisions like the EU court one from coming into force in other locations. It may even diffuse the EU court precedent for future purchases/lends. It is however likely to create a huge mess and even antitrust litigation from EU if they try to apply it for old purchases.

Whatever they do... they won't rush it.

Originally Posted by DarkLite123

Along with EA, Sony, and every other company that does this? I don't think so. Apart from anything else, they could be sued perfectly well in the rest of the world if they did something insane. In my opinion, it's to protect them from frivolous litigation in America (which is something that's definitely a problem, no?).

No.
Frivolous litigation is not as common as you are made to believe.
Mass media are always going for the ridiculous part and that is what you remember. Even if the case do have a merit, you may never hear of it.
That effect is called "confirmation bias". It is easily illustrated by the Murphy's law that a toasted bread lands buttered-side-down. In reality the probabilities are equal, however we remember when it does a mess. And next time when we have same mess, we reinforce our perception.

I had a post on the topic just 3 pages ago. Please take a look.

Originally Posted by iive

Watch "Hot Coffee"

On the same page somebody gave Apple as example for target of frivolous lawsuit, I guess he meant the Siri one. Forbes went with the article "Why the Class Action Siri Lawsuit Against Apple Is Patently Absurd". However if you read carefully you will actually understand that the lawsuit is for false advertising. Apple just have to prove the what they show in the advertisement could be done with the real product. Aka they haven't doctored it.

Coincidentally, false advertising was one of the legal theories for attacking Steam claim that they are lending games. When they advertise games and perform the transaction, they do use exclusively the words "sale" and "purchase", instead of "lend"/"billing".

[Sierra Oscar]

Originally Posted by nrnoble

My question is, is Steam really preparing for some massive, hostile, change in business where they start charging $20 (or whatever) a month to access the games already bought?

People have been claiming for most of the last decade that Steam is about to become some sort of pay monthly subscription service or a pay on demand service.

I have been reading such prophecies on these forums for the last six years and I am yet to see them be fulfilled.

[tmwfte]

Originally Posted by Sierra Oscar

People have been claiming for most of the last decade that Steam is about to become some sort of pay monthly subscription service or a pay on demand service.

I have been reading such prophecies on these forums for the last six years and I am yet to see them be fulfilled.

They've been waiting to time it with the release of Half-Life 3.

[SPG]

Valve Time

[Lepinkäinen]

Originally Posted by iive

That effect is called "conformational bias". It is easily illustrated by the Murphy's law that a toasted bread lands buttered-side-down. In reality the probabilities are equal, however we remember when it does a mess. And next time when we have same mess, we reinforce our perception.

The toast lands buttered-side-down mainly because of the height they fall down from. The spinning speed of such object is basically universal as is the table and carrying height. From that height a toast lands buttered-side-down very close to always./Mythbusters

[dxmc]

Originally Posted by Sierra Oscar

People have been claiming for most of the last decade that Steam is about to become some sort of pay monthly subscription service or a pay on demand service.

I have been reading such prophecies on these forums for the last six years and I am yet to see them be fulfilled.

Things are not what they were six years ago. A lot has changed. Changes in technology, increasing use of online services, increasing use of PCs, the increasing adoption of internet-capable TV's, changes in consumer habits, changes in consumer law, increasing competition, etc., all make the monthly subscription or on demand models more likely scenarios than was the case six years ago, IMO.

I also don't think that really major changes will happen overnight rather I agree that, as iive pointed out, these changes will be implemented in a more subtle manner.

[B33 ENN]

Originally Posted by Tryp

I'm an amateur at Philosoraptor...

Am I the only one that had to look up what a "Philosoraptor" was?

[TeKraken]

Originally Posted by Lepinkäinen

The toast lands buttered-side-down mainly because of the height they fall down from. The spinning speed of such object is basically universal as is the table and carrying height. From that height a toast lands buttered-side-down very close to always./Mythbusters

The buttered side weights more.