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

[si1viu]

Originally Posted by KK_reborn

Steam isn't going anywhere so it should not even be a concern. Even if one day it died and we didn't get our games back, I'll be fine with it....

...The SSA (for me) is just business as usual. Not a concern. I have no reason to take Valve to court and doubt I will for the next 10 years.

Your capacity for auto suggestion about confidence is obvious. Confidence and security feeling are very important for you (as for everyone), but for that you are willing to negate everything who enter in conflict with your needs and believes, even the evidences.

"so it should not even be a concern", "I'll be fine with it", "Not a concern" in only two phrases you used that words a lot. World will not be safer because you tell yourself that or others tell you that.
Is just a false sense of security what is used by others to gain power on you, to exploit your natural desire for security an safeness from unpleasant things.

Valve will not protect you and your interests if you are not doing that yourself, either other peoples who are behind corporations and the authorities.
You and others like you who share your real interests are the only ones able to true defend them.
And they are the simple people around you, the ones who share and understand much better your problems. You must not be afraid of people who come here and are defending our interest as customers, and human beings nevertheless.

The danger come from that ones who got intoxicated by power, or who hate and fear everything is different or unknown, who begin to believe himself better than others and who forget to feel like normal peoples. Because your problems and needs will be always something unknown for them, be sure of that.
All what you will share with them will be the fear, and that will be always there inside you, poisoning your soul as much time you choose to hide from reality and not fight it.

Don't forget, in the front of the fate you will be always alone, just you and your choices.

[Mindz i]

Originally Posted by FreshFTGrave

Licenses - yes, because that's normal. Subscriptions to licenses not so much. Hence the reason that when people figure that out there's a bit of huffing and puffing. "Most people" don't even know what the hell they're agreeing to, you can't just assume they're fine with it. Sure it's they're own fault for not reading the SSA but it doesn't mean they're fine with it.

Personally I've always known this about Steam and it's always bothered me. I never bothered signing up for many years because of it and other things about Steam I disliked. Other services aren't particularly much better in these regards either but it's the reason I have never and will not buy any full price game on Steam. That way there's a pro and con: I get games for cheap and there's a risk that they can all disappear one day for no reason as well as being inconvenienced by the irritating Steam client. It's an ok compromise. I'd very much like it to improve though.

This is pretty much how I feel. This forum got me to pay a little more attention to Steams EULA and what it means. Now, I won't spend more than $10 dollars on a game through Steam. If I can get ARMA 3 and DCS: A-10 Warthog without Steam, I will. I'm pretty sure with Warthog I can, I'll shoot DCS an email to find out. ARMA 3, I'm not sure yet.

I did stumble on an interesting article about a ruling against AutoCAD concerning licenses. The link to the ruling is at the bottom of the page. It basically, has shown the license restriction on ownership and resale did not apply because it was for an unlimited time, indicating ownership. The ruling is long and wordy, but interesting.

http://www.out-law.com/page-9151


While the ruling doesn't apply to digital goods yet, the latest ruling in the UK about digital software ownership and resale, might make it's way to the U.S. and change that. I'm beginning to have some hope for better consumer protection when it comes to software here in the US.

I think the entertainment industry's exaggerated fear of file sharing is keeping them from coming up with better ways of handling software distribution. They'll never stop it. And all these restrictive practices only constrain the law abiding citizen. Which encourages illegal file sharing. But, absolute control makes the software and entertainment industry feel safe. Funny how too much power distorts reality.

Steam is on the right path by making PC games more accessible and affordable, and throwing in a great community experience. But, with it's ability to stop users from using software whenever they feel it is justifiable is a step backward.

Steam should change their policy so that the subscription only applies to the ability to purchase games through them and the use of their community services (like Emusic, Columbia House,etc). While treating a game, once purchased, the same as a box store. A user buys it and the game's licenses is between the user and the publisher. Steam shouldn't layer another licenses on top of the publisher's in the form of a "subscription". Allow the user to access their library of already purchased games with or without a Steam subscription. Now restricting re-downloading a game after the first initial download purchased is understandable if a person canceled their "subscription", as that would be part of Steam's service.

These changes would encourage me to have more faith is Steam. But, as long as this current system stays in place, $10 or less per game is all they'll get from me. Which is a loss in sales for them and the publishers they sell for.

[Sierra Oscar]

Originally Posted by dxmc

. . .

So saying that I like Origin = calling Steam a "travesty"
Saying that Origin runs better due to less bloat= Calling everyone a liar that says their results differ . . .

dxmx, I do not appreciate you tarnishing my persona by making a claim that I called you a liar when I simply did not. That is quite clearly evident if you actually re-read the thread you are refereeing to. I would appreciate it if you could stop making false claims about my character. Some people may disagree with your views and are perfectly entitled to put forward their own.

You made it very clear the last time when I challenged you in public on this matter that I was acting inappropriately because I did not private message you, yet now you have resorted to airing your grievances in a very public manner. If you want to discuss the matter with me again then PM me, there is no need to bring it into this thread as it is an entirely unrelated matter.

Originally Posted by Mindz i

While the ruling doesn't apply to digital goods yet, the latest ruling in the UK about digital software ownership and resale, might make it's way to the U.S. and change that. I'm beginning to have some hope for better consumer protection when it comes to software here in the US.

Are you referring to the EU ruling when you mention the UK ruling, or was there another ruling made recently?

Originally Posted by Tito Shivan

The problem is not with the changes themselves. (As you say and as i've noted countless times on the thread, the 'subscripiton' service has not changed a bit)
The problem is that too many people thought that Valve WOULD change things just for their own kindness, putting business aside.
And then put lots of money on their accounts giving that behaviour for granted.

They put their money because though as true Valve would:

Not change their service terms.
Release all your library games if they went out of business.
They would bend the rules to make customers happy.
...

They forgot they were doing business. Treating with a company interested in making money.
Instead they believed they were treating with the 'Good Guy Greg' of gaming...

I can see where you are coming from, but at the end of the day you cannot blame Valve if people happen to have a misguided judgement. As you said yourself at the end of the day Valve is a business, as is every other games developer and publisher in the industry. I still think that Valve looks after its customers very well though. Some people would have you believe that Valve go out of their way to annoy their customers, I just don't think that is the case.

[KK_reborn]

Originally Posted by si1viu

Valve will not protect you and your interests if you are not doing that yourself, either other peoples who are behind corporations and the authorities.

The reason why some of us are speaking out like this is so you understand there is no current threat to our interests. Although it does look like it (affects the rights to sue), I haven't heard of anyone taking on Valve in court besides other corporations (i.e. Sierra). So basically unless I'm given a reason to worry, I will continue using Steam as I have been since it started.

[Tito Shivan]

Originally Posted by Mindz i

While the ruling doesn't apply to digital goods yet, the latest ruling in the UK about digital software ownership and resale, might make it's way to the U.S. and change that.

Partly, due to that ruling, Modern EULAS, like Steam's SSA take real care in mentioned they offer a 'Limited' license.

Steam and your Subscription(s) require the automatic download and installation of Software onto your computer. Valve hereby grants, and you accept, a limited, terminable, non-exclusive license and right to use the Software for your personal use in accordance with this Agreement

Originally Posted by Sierra Oscar

I can see where you are coming from, but at the end of the day you cannot blame Valve if people happen to have a misguided judgement. As you said yourself at the end of the day Valve is a business, as is every other games developer and publisher in the industry. I still think that Valve looks after its customers very well though. Some people would have you believe that Valve go out of their way to annoy their customers, I just don't think that is the case.

I agree, but this thread is a sad example of some people doing it regardless. It's always easier to put the blame on others than on oneself. (Which makes people not to learn from their mistakes, and keep repeating them)
Help and Support forums are brim full of people blaming others for their own errors.
And there is also a good example of people making one believe that Valve or Support are being purposelly evil, lazy or stubborn with people's requests.
(And i have enough support experience to know that's far from true)

But sadly, discussion and arguments apart, what ends up sticking in people's head are those short, punchline-like 'leading ideas' like 'Steam support is crap', 'Steam stole our games' and such.

I do keep Steam high between all the Gaming industry companies too, even after the change of SSA, which accepted and still keep getting my money when i see something interesting (Last purchase were CS:GO and few TF2 hats...)

[Satoru]

@Mindz i

Your information is old as that was overturrned by the 9th circuit already

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernor_v._Autodesk,_Inc.

In America at least, it effectively limits how software is able to be sold. Companies are now able to use copyright infringment law to limit secondary sale of items, despite first sale doctrine. In America it effectively makes legal the restriction on selling of used software.

Rulings in the EU have fairly limited scope even given the Oracle ruling

[flux2]

Originally Posted by iive

Don't forget - this is just a wild speculation. I do lack the big picture. I may be wrong about everything. Find the data on your own. Make up your own mind.

I don't think they are losing users in any big numbers, but I do feel the addition of apps is in part a reaction to other digital stores gaining ground and possible lower revenues. Also the source of much of the complaints Valve has against Windows 8.

I also feel that is one of the main reasons for the no class action addition before the app store came out. Though I feel it won't gain nearly as much traction as the games part of steam. Corporate users aren't going to be willing to use steam when they can deal directly with vendors.

Originally Posted by Tito Shivan

It's time to choose the company who rules our gaming - and strangely, I choose Valve, even though they destroyed my faith a few weeks back.

Originally Posted by leveller

Valve need to win, for PC gaming to win.

These posts struck me as saying "Well Valve did something bad this time, but they shouldn't do it again. They do care about me, its OK to keep giving them money!"

I've been gaming since I was 3 and got an Atari 2600 controller in my hand, and I have yet to see any company worth giving money to after they did something to make me question my trust. Valve is no different. If the future of PC gaming is a locked down platform more restrictive than consoles, I'd gladly leave it all behind and only play what games I have until I can't anymore.

Thankfully there will always be other choices for gaming. Maybe not the same games, but still new games none the less.

Originally Posted by dxmc

Haven't bought a game on Steam since May 17.

I also haven't subscribed to anything on steam since the change.

Originally Posted by Griking

So I'm just curious, how many people have lost all of their games since the change to the ToS? Anyone at all other than the stubborn few who refuse to push that button? How many of you were really planning to sue Steam via a class action lawsuit

If someone were to buy a game on steam, then do a charge back they would still be allowed to access their accounts. Someone that refuses a change to the SSA is completely locked out of their accounts. The fact that people can commit credit card fraud and be given more access than people that disagree with changes after a legit sale has been made is troublesome.

[Mindz i]

Originally Posted by Satoru

@Mindz i

Your information is old as that was overturrned by the 9th circuit already

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernor_v._Autodesk,_Inc.

In America at least, it effectively limits how software is able to be sold. Companies are now able to use copyright infringment law to limit secondary sale of items, despite first sale doctrine. In America it effectively makes legal the restriction on selling of used software.

Rulings in the EU have fairly limited scope even given the Oracle ruling

Thanks for the link. Like I said, I happen to stumble across the article while looking for something else.

So, basically, it would be congress who would have to update the law to favor consumers on this issue. I've never resold games before. But, I have given them away. A few pc games I gave to friends years ago got them into pc gaming. Up until then they thought console gaming was superior. This was back when Dark Forces was still popular. After playing through the games I gave them, they became fans. Might not have happened if this law was strictly enforced back then.

How much money does a company have to make to be happy. Like I've said before. The cup is always half full with corporations. It's always about what they did not make that, MAYBE, they could have if someone didn't do this or that. I think there has to be a better way of handling it than restricting legitimate consumers. Copyright infringers will always exist. Costumers will not, if they feel their investment is worthless. So far, the investment is worth the risk for most people. Of course, most people I've met have no idea that they don't own any of their software. And software companies know this. That's why most don't advertise buying a license of a game, but rather advertise buying or pre-buying the software or a copy of the software. I love the game industry, but I sometimes wonder how long will this go on before we see a dark age of gaming. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ We'll just have to wait and see.

[Planeforger]

To those who are abandoning Steam - where are you going to go now? Have you found a legitimate source of games that don't have restrictive EULAs?
I'd be interested to hear if one exists, not because I'm planning to swap, but more because I'd be interested to read their contracts.

Originally Posted by Tito Shivan

Partly, due to that ruling, Modern EULAS, like Steam's SSA take real care in mentioned they offer a 'Limited' license.

That's another good point: even if the US courts suddenly turned around tomorrow and said 'EULAs can't rule out class action lawsuits', or 'they must allow for the resale of games', or whatever...companies all over America would simply adjust the wording of their EULAs slightly and keep on doing their thing.

[nrnoble]

Does the EULA address "Family Use" in any manner?

Example, I've got 4 kids. Mostly they play the xbox, but they do like to play some games I've bought in Steam. Technically speaking, I am the owner of the account and do all the purchasing, but I allow them to play games. When I asked in the past, I was told that allowing family members in my house hold was a violation of the EULA.

[der_pwner]

Originally Posted by nrnoble

Does the EULA address "Family Use" in any manner?

Example, I've got 4 kids. Mostly they play the xbox, but they do like to play some games I've bought in Steam. Technically speaking, I am the owner of the account and do all the purchasing, but I allow them to play games. When I asked in the past, I was told that allowing family members in my house hold was a violation of the EULA.

There is no way of determinating who used your account (if they all live in the same house).
So I think this problem is theoretically only.

[nrnoble]

Originally Posted by der_pwner

There is no way of determinating who used your account (if they all live in the same house).
So I think this problem is theoretically only.

That is what I am thinking, and highly doubt a bunch Storm troopers are going to surround the house with automatic weapons and demand we surrender or else.

When I asked before, a couple forum regulars who were sticklers for absolute adheardence, suggested I was "account sharing" even if it was with my kids within my own home. I didn't see any point in debating the issue because I was not concerned that Steam was going to shut off my account because I let a 10 & 12 year old play video games on my computer.

[Streetguru]

Say i can't sue you huh....BRING IT ON!

I can sue for trying to take away right of consumers right?

[Tito Shivan]

Originally Posted by Mindz i

How much money does a company have to make to be happy. Like I've said before. The cup is always half full with corporations. It's always about what they did not make that, MAYBE, they could have if someone didn't do this or that.

That's an interesting point. I can tell you from my own experience that, subjectively, a customer will never be 'enough' satisfied with any service, and Steam is no different.
If Steam follows the rule, customers won't be satisfied because they won't be 'going out of the way' to help their customers.
The moment Steam goes 'out of the way' to help their customers... they still will be non satisfied, because they won't go out of the way 'enough' for them...

We have an old saying in Spain, 'Dar la mano y coger todo el brazo' (Give a helping hand to someone and he will take your whole arm) that pinpoints that consumer behaviour of 'abusing someone's good will as far as i can'
At the end of the day, what counts is what one can objectively measure. Not what one 'feels' can be done.

Originally Posted by nrnoble

Does the EULA address "Family Use" in any manner?

Example, I've got 4 kids. Mostly they play the xbox, but they do like to play some games I've bought in Steam. Technically speaking, I am the owner of the account and do all the purchasing, but I allow them to play games. When I asked in the past, I was told that allowing family members in my house hold was a violation of the EULA.

Technically, that's true. Accounts are personal and non-transferable. If you want your kids to use Steam you should create them an account with their own games.
In reality, Steam does not give a damn if you share your account on your house with a relative. There are lots of parents doing that right now...
However, as i've pointed before, this is not written in stone and must not take for granted. It's one of those things that 'Good Guy Steam' does, not 'Steam the Service' And we are paying money to the later.

@Flux2 Steam changed their chargeback behaviour months ago. A chargeback won't lock you out of your account anymore. You'll have trading and purchase restrictions, but you won't lose your account access.

[rickyk]

Originally Posted by Tito Shivan

@Flux2 Steam changed their chargeback behaviour months ago. A chargeback won't lock you out of your account anymore. You'll have trading and purchase restrictions, but you won't lose your account access.

If I'm not mistaken I think that was his point.

What he said was that a "chargeback" is no longer considered serious enough by Valve to lock out a user from his/her account whereas refusing to accept a new SSA locks you out from even accessing currently installed games (due to the "subscription-license" issue).