Steam Subscriber Argeement

Sin_Chase said:
Derp derp.

That was in direct response to you thinking Blockbuster is a rental service without any clarification in comparison to Steam.
Click to expand...

Blockbuster is a rental service, how is it not a rental service?
Come on state whyit is like steam and other steam like models.

Rental service now deemed by eu court.

Either pay upfront and get a. Limited time, or have a recurring subscription like Netflix.
It's not just steam that may have to change. The court ruling, really is in plain English and easy to understand, regardless of what you think of it.
 
FrenchTart said:
Kudus for you for having the patience to reply to all the really dumb arguments being put forward in this thread.

It's almost like people *want* to be taken advantage.
Click to expand...

It's not dumb argument at all.

Irrespective of ones rights to sell on digitally owned copies what is more concerning is that the EU court can turn around and say "Ignore the law, look at the reality and uhhmmm...we say that Steam is not a subscription/rental service and that is that"

That concerns me more than being able to get 50 pence for a digital copy of Half Life at a car boot.
 
What law has eu ignored in this case?
They have rolled steam models brake the law with their EuLAs

And it isn't steam specific, it is for any company using that model.
 
Glaucus said:
Blockbuster is a rental service, how is it not a rental service.
Click to expand...

Oh christ, are you that slow?

I walk into blockbuster and "Rent" Game X for 7 days for £Y

I login to steam and "Rent" Game X for as long as I want for £Y

Other than the EU ruling and ones "perception" of a COMMON rental model what's to say Steam is not a rental service?

Again, ignore commonality between most rental type arrangements (Usually due to the physical nature of the product) and the EU court.

Basically the EU court has stated "You cannot offer time unlimited rentals on a return when you like basis for any cost as a rental service, any such arrangement means the consumer owns your product"
 
Dano said:
How many other subscription services do you currently have where you pay an upfront cost to gain access to a single service? If you subscribe to a newspaper or magazine you pay them monthly or annually, same with most clubs, same with MMO's, steam and it's ilk are as far as I am aware (and of course I'm very likely to be wrong) are alone in offering a single payment subscription, how would you fancy paying £8k upfront for a car that is actually a subscription service and a year or two later the dealer comes and takes it away from you? I know it's a ridiculous analogy but there you go.

Until somebody forces the issue in a court of law we shall continue having these circular debates for no good reason, same with MS licencing too.
Click to expand...

Glaucus said:
Read the court ruling, it's in plain English.

Steam is not a rental service.

As the court ruling says.

So when rentals are given to you for an unlimited time. It is no longer legally a rental.

Think of house sales, why do you think the non purchase ones are always like 999 years.
Click to expand...

Ok. So lets look at Lovefilm for a great example. To address Dano's point. You can pay upfront for a year.

Secondly, you can keep the DVDs/games/whatever for as long as you have a subscription.

Are we now going to argue that this is not a rental service?

How about their streaming service? Are we now allowed to rip films from it and sell them on? After all, if it's not a rental service then technically we own these films and they are ours to do with as we wish.
 
Rental service is a limit period.
Steam you are not renting for x period. That is the issue. No where is a time limit applied. You simply are not renting.

Blockbuster pay £ for x times
Steam pay upfront, no recurring costs for infinite time. Let's call it renting. No it's imply is not renting as the court has ruled for that general model.
Where is the renting? Where the time period?
 
Haggisman said:
Ok. So lets look at Lovefilm for a great example. To address Dano's point. You can pay upfront for a year.

Secondly, you can keep the DVDs/games/whatever for as long as you have a subscription.

Are we now going to argue that this is not a rental service?

How about their streaming service? Are we now allowed to rip films from it and sell them on? After all, if it's not a rental service then technically we own these films and they are ours to do with as we wish.
Click to expand...

important bit highlited, that is very much rental.

You guys really at eyeing daft, it's really quite simple to understand, even if you don't like the outcome.

And no you can't rip streams, because that is clearly a rental service, stop paying and you have no rights.
How do I stop paying steam? I've allready paid upfront for a purchase.
 
Okay.

Steam can charge £0.10 per year subscription to their library of games, some are premium titles and require an activation fee.

The point I am making is the EU Court have made it impossible to allow rental of a product for an unspecified amount of time which seems - daft

What about companies that offer free subscriptions, are they no longer a subscription/rental based service because despite there being a time limit, they are free.

To satisfy the EU Court does every single subscription/rental service need to:

- Cost money
- Dictate a time period
- Be a recurring cost for continued access

And, should the above be true - what thresholds/cutoffs are they dictating to prevent:

- Trivial subscription costs of 1 Pence
- A 1 year time period
- Total charge of 1 pence per year
- 'Purchases' handles by other payment models such as activation/administration fees
 
Last edited:
The fact they can at any point turn round and say "you're no longer allowed to use that software"?

Even if it's ruled that this doesn't qualify, all they need to do is change their subscriber agreement to state that any games are only rented for X number of years. Even if this doesn't apply retrospectively, it still nullifies the intention of this stupid ruling for any future games.
 
Sin_Chase said:
Okay.

Steam can charge £0.10 per year subscription to their library of games, some are premium titles and require an activation fee.

The point I am making is the EU Court have made it impossible to allow rental of a product for an unspecified amount of time which seems - daft?
Click to expand...

Yes.
No, it's not daft at all. It actually makes perfect sense. An undefined rental is a purchase. The eu courts has actually implemented common sense. How can I or them terminate such a rental? They can't as it simply isn't a rental.

Even if they change their model, they will have to comply for the hundreds of millions of games allready sold. If the court ruling stands and doesn't get overturned.

How can you have a single upfront fee and no time specified and call it a rental? What are you renting? You aren't, you're purchasing.
Now pay a subscription fee where you get x game for as long as the subscription is fine, or pay a fee for x weeks again fine.

Why does free change anything, it's still a rental agreement with specified time. It's when you combine upfront fee or free with infinite time allowance. It no longer becomes a rental.
If your charge per month and you lose access at end of subscription, you don't need to specifupy time, per product.
 
Last edited:
So basically Steam will change as outlined a few posts back.

1 pence per year for access to Steam's library of games. Activation fees for titles on the subscription.

Or will the EU Court turn around and say you are not allowed to charge subsidies on-top of a subscription?
 
Sin_Chase said:
It's not dumb argument at all.

Irrespective of ones rights to sell on digitally owned copies what is more concerning is that the EU court can turn around and say "Ignore the law, look at the reality and uhhmmm...we say that Steam is not a subscription/rental service and that is that"

That concerns me more than being able to get 50 pence for a digital copy of Half Life at a car boot.
Click to expand...

What concerns me is that because consumers have been taken advantage of for so long it is somehow seen as normal for us to have these rights taken away from us...and that there is a shocking amount of anger directed at a court ruling that states a desire to return some of these lost rights back to the consumer.

I couldn't care less about buying things second-hand personally but I *do* care about the dodgy system companies have used for years to suggest that we don't own things that we purchase from them. I don't see this as massively different to the cack that Apple and Sony pull with their hardware products - it is just more socially acceptable because the product is digital rather than physical.

People need to wake up and realise that regaining our consumer rights is not a bad thing and that the "poor companies" aren't going to go bankrupt because a few people suddenly decide to sell off their old games. Much like the music cartels (are failing to do), companies need to adapt to new markets or die. Adding value to your product or generating revenue through people actually playing is one way to do this and whilst the potential is there for us to lose out by getting tons more DLC and freemium stuff the potential benefit is proper support for games after release rather than the "release it and run for the hills before people realise what a buggy POS our game really is" attitude that we see from some publishers/developers at the moment.

Sin_Chase said:
So basically Steam will change as outlined a few posts back.

1 pence per year for access to Steam's library of games. Activation fees for titles on the subscription.

Or will the EU Court turn around and say you are not allowed to charge subsidies on-top of a subscription?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if you're right and something like this is what happens (at least initially). Just because things are valid to the letter of the law does not make the morally correct though and I'd love to believe (sadly I don't) that Steam would take a more pragmatic approach that benefits the consumers.
 
Last edited:
Sin_Chase said:
So basically Steam will change as outlined a few posts back.

?
Click to expand...

They may well do and I pointed that out ages ago, that they are free to change to a proper rental service.
iPhone it's upto them, I imagine they won't do anything till someone takes them to court. Just like bank fees. People who knew law, knew the contracts where legally void, but banks did not act, till someone took them to the courts, which costs money.
 
FrenchTart - I fully understand where you are coming from.

To play Devil's Advocate - Are people trying to apply rights they had on a DIFFERENT product to more modern products that, while seemingly are the same, are not.

It almost looks to prevent any change in the way the world works and that everything you ever pay money for you own, irrespective.

I'm not arguing against that and saying you should not own what you pay for but I am merely looking at it from a different perspective. A perspective of "No, you are not allowed to sell something to someone that they ultimately do not own, irrespective of the product, it's form (be it physical or digital) or the way in which it was sold"

Does the ruling dictate that I cannot sell a product with a One time use code on it even if that is made perfectly clear on the product?
 
Last edited:
Glaucus said:
Yes.
No, it's not daft at all. It actually makes perfect sense. An undefined rental is a purchase. The eu courts has actually implemented common sense. How can I or them terminate such a rental? They can't as it simply isn't a rental.
Click to expand...

Actually, Valve can terminate the rental whenever they feel like it ;)

Glaucus said:
Even if they change their model, they will have to comply for the hundreds of millions of games allready sold. If the court ruling stands and doesn't get overturned.

How can you have a single upfront fee and no time specified and call it a rental? What are you renting? You aren't, you're purchasing.
Now pay a subscription fee where you get x game for as long as the subscription is fine, or pay a fee for x weeks again fine.
Click to expand...

What's worrying is that whatever the intentions of this ruling - it will ultimately prove worse for the end consumers :(

I can't help but feel it will end in one of the following scenarios.

  • Digital downloads can be re-sold. Virtually no incentive to buy new, therefore sales go down, and developers become reluctant to develop for PC.
  • Valve implement a subscription fee for Steam - gamers end up paying more in the long term for a huge library of games, 90% of which you'd never play anyway, particularly if you're a casual gamer.
  • Valve implement a time limit on rentals, so your game is deactivated after X weeks/years - a much worse deal than an undefined period.

The only way I could really see this possibly working is if you can sell pre-owned games back to Steam, but you can't buy pre-owned games. Although this would probably just result in new prices increasing to compensate. :(
 
Last edited:
You're paranoid and no steam cant end it, not while this ruling exists. It simply is not a conventional nore legal rental service.
 
At the end of the day I also believe this ruling will only look to ultimately hurt the consumer.

What I want to retain as a right is to be able to use a service such as Steam, with the terms they have set out and forgo my right to sell on whatever I 'purchase' irrespective of what the EU court has ruled because I have zero interest in the second hand market and am perfectly happy to agree to the terms set out.

I think it's ridiculous I cannot use Steam in it's current incarnation because some people want a second hand digital distribution market and the whole model has to change.

Does this now mean that I can sell any digitally purchased music tracks and iTunes and the alike need to provide a way for me to revoke the DRM assigned to me on a track and transfer it to a 3rd party who buys the music from me?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom