So it's okay then?
Valve Slammed By Consumer Protection, Issued Cease And Desist On Anti-Consumerist EULA
- Thread starter Divinious
- Start date
So it's okay then?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 20 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 7,425
- Location
- Tamworth
From a technical and moral point of view, probably not.
From a practical, does it make any difference really, point of view? Probably yes.
The reality is that all big companies want to maximise the amount of money they make and maximise the amount of control they have over their customers and the products they buy. But at the same time reduce as much as possible any come back on themselves for being rubbish. That's what they've always done and will continue to do so. The only power we have as customers is our wallets, so the ball is in our court now.
Feel free to report me, a suspension would be worth it.
For anyone who is a fan of gaming to say anything like that is preposterous.
Anyone with an original creative idea should be able go ahead with that, they should not need oodles of cash to do so.
You resent Indie developers getting paid for their work?
Stupid.
Last edited:
The point that Apple does it too though, just goes to undermine your argument.
There's nothing wrong with profit of course, but the way some companies go about it is very wrong and very anti-consumer, which is what's lead to this in the first place.
The thing is, I'm one of the, if not the biggest fan of Steam I know, I've got over 300 games on my account, and I think it's great, I'll rebuy games I already own hard copies of to have them on Steam as I really can't be bothered with using CDs any more, however despite all that, I am not blind to the wrong things that Steam's done with the crazy EULAs it tries to palm off on people.
The EULA in itself isn't of concern to me as I know they have little to no legal standing, however the very fact that they have drafted such an agreement is an issue in itself, as it shows some form of intention to act upon the contents of the EULA to some degree.
Saying that Indie developers should 'get jobs' is stupid, what do you think they spend most of their time working hard on? Much more effort put into their games then say, most people who work 9-5 jobs put into their jobs, most of them are very skilled and do it by themselves. How can you possibly think it is okay for their very humbly priced games to lose out on large amount of sales due to greedy entitled consumers selling on their 'wore 'n' torn' digital copies. Their 'jobs' are what they are doing, absolutely no different to a graphic designer or photographer.
The EULA is fair, if Steam sold every game at full price and never put on sales, but allowed second hand you'd be saving a lot less money. That is what will happen by the way, when all the little babies get their way and end up getting 75% of what they paid back. I'm sure you'll all moan about that aswell, can't have it both ways.
The EULA is fair, if Steam sold every game at full price and never put on sales, but allowed second hand you'd be saving a lot less money. That is what will happen by the way, when all the little babies get their way and end up getting 75% of what they paid back. I'm sure you'll all moan about that aswell, can't have it both ways.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 20 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 7,425
- Location
- Tamworth
I'm not really arguing, I'm merely stating that Valve's EULA isn't any better, worse, right, wrong than anyone else's. Nor are they behaving in a way that's any better or worse than the vast majority of major corporations.
All I'm saying is they all do it and it doesn't really have any effect on anyone in reality.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 16 May 2005
- Posts
- 31,297
- Location
- Manchester
Get a job that can sustain them properly?
people should be allowed to sell their own property on, any argument that goes against that is absolute nonsense.
Developers should also NOT be getting a cut out of some one selling their game on, it makes no sense at all.
There should be restrictions on how the games can be sold on (ie, companies can't set up "second hand" digital games), or make them all tradable. If some one wants to involve money externally, so be it (Via PayPal or something).
I don't hugely agree with the first line on this (it's a little harsh imo) but the rest is pretty much spot on.
I think Steam is a great service, but if they are ignoring our rights, then they should be held accountable. I have read people saying that the games on steam are just a long term rental.
Sorry, every time I have bought a game from steam or any other Digital distribution service, the button that I click on has always had 'BUY' or 'PURCHASE' on it, I don't recall clicking on a button saying 'RENT'.
Sorry, every time I have bought a game from steam or any other Digital distribution service, the button that I click on has always had 'BUY' or 'PURCHASE' on it, I don't recall clicking on a button saying 'RENT'.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 20 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 7,425
- Location
- Tamworth
You are buying.
You are buying a subscription to a service in the same way you can buy a subscription to a TV service or a magazine.
Every other industry has thrived despite second hand markets existing why is the gaming industry any different? the simple fact is if you sell something worthy of holding onto the second hand market for it will be virtually non existent.
A better comparison would be selling a painting, the artist makes their money from the original sale where they concede ownership of said item, it's then nothing to do with them what the new owner does with their own property, they are not entitled to anything if it is then sold on.
If Valve are renting games they should make it clear instead of using 'Buy' all over their store, 80% of Steam users are probably under the impression that they have full ownership of the games they have purchased.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 16 May 2005
- Posts
- 31,297
- Location
- Manchester
Eh? That's a really strange choice for an analogy. A far more appropriate one would be the purchase of DVDs/etc. Even a streaming service isn't appropriate as, unlike OnLive, Steam doesn't stream games to you.
It is not a better comparison at all.
A painting is a one off. The original price it sells for would reflect this.
What are iTunes doing regarding this ruling?
A consumer is greedy for wanting to sell a game on that they bought?
What's with all the emotive language you're using? Additionally, your emotive language is based entirely on the assumption that as soon as there is a means to transfer games between accounts (for example) everyone's going to start doing it, and no one will buy games any more.
Which is certainly not true, and I have no idea why people are getting so emotional about it.
I'm not quite sure what Steam's EULA has to do with sales or anything else that you've managed. What is so special about the games industry that means they should be able to block people from transferring property that they've bought to others for a fee?
I think my comment has been taken out of context there. It was in direct response to the appeal to emotion situation implied by gimpymoo that they were struggling to survive by living hand to mouth. The implication being that an "indie dev" can't sustain themselves financially due to their "indie dev" job not bring in enough money, then I think it's perfectly fair to say that they should get a job that can sustain them. If some one is working a job that isn't bringing in enough money for them to live off, then they really need to seek an alternative means of making money.
Steam has always been a subscription service, what did this EULA change?
Also, if we are free to sell our digital media, could one argue that torrenting is merely each peer acting as a seller, but for the low cost of £0?
Also, if we are free to sell our digital media, could one argue that torrenting is merely each peer acting as a seller, but for the low cost of £0?
Why cant Steam just 'buy' our licence back for Steam cash or something ie you get 25% of your purchase price in steam cash.
It dosent mean then that Steam have to sell that key any cheaper to someone else, so what if it had been used before, if there are no ill effects in online usage, then they can charge the going rate again... so there wont be a 'oh wait for the 2nd hand market' as there wouldnt be one.
The initial user got some benefit buy getting credit, the 2nd user can then redeem it again if they are finished with it... all that happens is, as the game gets older the initial purchase price is likely to be less and thus you get less credit.
A key is a key, you aint going to know who had it first.
That sort of sales and 2nd hand model would work fine imo - Steam and Game developers get their money, users can then sell it back to Steam and get a return... then Steam and Game developers can resell that key at the current price again. No need for a person to person market or anyone waiting for a 2nd hand price reduction as there dosent need to be one.
It dosent mean then that Steam have to sell that key any cheaper to someone else, so what if it had been used before, if there are no ill effects in online usage, then they can charge the going rate again... so there wont be a 'oh wait for the 2nd hand market' as there wouldnt be one.
The initial user got some benefit buy getting credit, the 2nd user can then redeem it again if they are finished with it... all that happens is, as the game gets older the initial purchase price is likely to be less and thus you get less credit.
A key is a key, you aint going to know who had it first.
That sort of sales and 2nd hand model would work fine imo - Steam and Game developers get their money, users can then sell it back to Steam and get a return... then Steam and Game developers can resell that key at the current price again. No need for a person to person market or anyone waiting for a 2nd hand price reduction as there dosent need to be one.
No, because the idea is that you're transfering the license you've bought to another, thus revoking the license for your own use. It'd be a one time thing. The torrenting thing would never hold up, and is currently considered as unauthorised distribution of copyrighted content.
Or just allow people to trade their games to other people through Steam, and construct it in such a way that a company can't make a business out of it.
It it works by the game being tied to the Steam account, rather than a serial/revoke system, then any "second hand market" issues can be avoided, whilst still allowing people to transfer ownership of games they've bought, by either a trade with someone for another game and or cash externally (paypal for example).