Valve Slammed By Consumer Protection, Issued Cease And Desist On Anti-Consumerist EULA

[Gimpymoo]

I see Gimpy's point on the matter, especially regarding indie devs. It's not quite legalised piracy though - when you sell on a digital game, you lose access to it yourself, so there's no copy being made.

What I meant, was in the eyes of the developers/publishers, especially an indie, someone else has access to their work, yet they do not gain from it. Kind of like a person going into an art gallery, then giving their ticket to someone else to be used again. This would not be fair to the artist.

The thing is, we're at a turning point regarding consumable entertainment. In twenty years, it's ALL going to be digital. Books, films, games, everything. A precedent needs to be set regarding purchasing and ownership of digital goods, or we'll have no rights to the stuff we're spending money on in a few years.

I agree that were in a transition and this "stand off" was inevitable at some point.

Claiming people are torch wielding luddites for being concerned about this doesn't help though.

That was tongue in cheek but I understand it could have been not so and I apologise if it was not received as intended.

Personally, I just want what is best for the industry.

The big corporates will work around any ruling, they always do, it will be the smaller guys who suffer and it is that I think which is being forgotten.

 

[BlackDragon]

Way I see it, Valve/Steams model has allowed me to enjoy more games, get easier access, while being cheaper.

I may not agree with some things, but it's certainly the best situation at the moment.

And PC gaming has benefited from it.

I agree.

Valve has been very good to gamers, and is extremely successful in digital distribution of games for many reasons.

 

[FrenchTart]

There are certainly potential issues with second-hand sales but as has been discussed before, they are often perceived as greater than they are as we have been swallowing corporate brainwashing for years regarding the 'evils' of second-hand.

However, this demand to Valve isn't just about second-hand sales - it's also about their extremely dodgy new EULA and the fact that you had to agree to it just to retain access to your current games library. At the very worst they should have allowed us to retain access to our current games and not be able to purchase (sorry, "purchase") new games until we agreed to the EULA.

 

[Divinious]

I don't see how the second hand market damages the industry for two main reasons
A) for a game to appear on the secondhand market it has to have already been bought so one cannot do well on the second hand market without having done well at retail.
B) A second hand sale does not equate to a sale lost because a lot of people would not have bought it at the asking price.
It's like the steam sales I buy games in that I never would any other time.

 

[Gimpymoo]

There are certainly potential issues with second-hand sales but as has been discussed before, they are often perceived as greater than they are as we have been swallowing corporate brainwashing for years regarding the 'evils' of second-hand.

I agree that in the early days, such "evils" were exaggerated by the corporates, especially when the second hand market was so low, and being user to user, however, as time went on, I feel retailers were making a mockery of second hand sales.

No longer was it user to user, it was user to shop, to user with profit tagged on. That was what gave the "evil" talk momentum within the big publishers and personally, I cannot blame them.

The situation got out of hand. Game for example pushing second hand games in favour of new ones as the profit margin was higher for them with the publisher receiving nothing extra, despite Game making a profit on the transaction while the publishers game sits unsold on the shelf. They were effectively selling the same game TWICE, maybe more.

I am not a fan of the big publishers who themselves held the gaming industry to ransom until recently and for which is one of the reasons I am thankful for independent digital distribution but the notion of what was happening to the second hand market in this way never felt right, it was wrong in my opinion.

The crossroads we are at now I think is partly the responsibility of aforementioned businesses who took advantage of an obvious loophole. All the publishers are trying to do now is plug that loophole. If said businesses were not so greedy and did not want their cake and eat it, maybe the situation might be different, who knows.

Were the publishers ever bothered about Dave selling his game to Derek to help fund the next game he wanted to pre-order for launch day, probably not. Having another company PROFIT on your game possibly multiple times and yourself not receiving a penny I think is another matter.

Obviously, all that applies to physical retail, downloads are a different matter in my opinion.

However, this demand to Valve isn't just about second-hand sales - it's also about their extremely dodgy new EULA and the fact that you had to agree to it just to retain access to your current games library. At the very worst they should have allowed us to retain access to our current games and not be able to purchase (sorry, "purchase") new games until we agreed to the EULA.

Nobody can disagree with that in my opinion.

I personally, have no problem with the current EULA. They way it was enforced however did raise an eyebrow.

 

[bemaniac]

steam will still be here in 70 years and you'll all still have your game librarys jeesh why do people worry about this whole renting thing. We do own them or as good as seeing as they're never going to remove all our games. If anything is removed it'll only be because no one can buy a new system that can run it any more.

 

[arknor]

in before the valve fan boys

oh wait

some of your dare poke fun at the apple crew aswell LOL

 

[Moothead2]

I don't see how the second hand market damages the industry for two main reasons
A) for a game to appear on the secondhand market it has to have already been bought so one cannot do well on the second hand market without having done well at retail.
B) A second hand sale does not equate to a sale lost because a lot of people would not have bought it at the asking price.
It's like the steam sales I buy games in that I never would any other time.

A) It's not about doing well in the second hand market, it's about losing a sale everytime someone buys a game second hand. If everyone who bought the game sold it off second hand then the company would be losing half of the sales they should have gotten (Theoretically of course).

B) Then people should wait to the sales, they don't have to wait long between them these days and most of the popular games are 50+% off. They're getting a discounted price on retail (Which they wouldn't pay) but instead of the money going to little Johnny the money goes to the developers instead. Think about how much revenue so many of these developers would have lost (Especially indie) if even only a fraction of people bought their games second hand instead of waiting for sales.


As was said earlier in the thread, imagine how much of a PITA hacked accounts who have had all of their games sold off by the hacker will be for Valve.

 

[MorleySA]

What about if you wanted to sell a game second hand, and did so through a Steam Maketplace for example (for a discounted price ofcourse). In that case then the developer can get a cut in the profit too. That way everyone is a winner?

 

[Sleepery]

What about if you wanted to sell a game second hand, and did so through a Steam Maketplace for example (for a discounted price ofcourse). In that case then the developer can get a cut in the profit too. That way everyone is a winner?

Given their track record, I kind of hoped Valve would take the initiative with something like this when the ruling was made. God knows, if anyone is in a position to do it, it's them.

I guess even Valve have to employ at least one soulless lawyer. He probably stays in the basement, cursing the unbridled creativity going on up above and issuing unpopular recommendations via carrier rat

 

[Gimpymoo]

I guess even Valve have to employ at least one soulless lawyer. He probably stays in the basement, cursing the unbridled creativity going on up above and issuing unpopular recommendations via carrier rat

LOL.

If Valve could do that, I am certain they would.

The problem is, each individual publisher would have to agree and as we all know, the big "AAA" publishers would rather sell their gran than agree to such terms at this stage.

Also, I have made my feelings known that such a system has many questions which need to be addressed. Personally, I think the EU ruling is unworkable and it itself may well be changed to make it workable.

Valve have been credited with helping the independent scene, do they want to be known as the ones who helped kill it too?

All speculative of course but probable.

 

[barmyllama]

I've been agreeing to EULA's for donkey's years and so far it's made no difference to my gaming at all. I've sold and lent games in the past, all supposedly against the EULA. The only thing Steam won't let me do is sell my games on. To be honest I'm glad I can't sell them. I've lost count the amount of times in the past I've bought and sold games, only to re buy them when a mod or expansion has been released I fancied playing.

 

[Final8y]

Your not really buying them, its just a long term rental agreement.

That's the thing I don't like about Steam. You pay full retail price to just in effect "rent the game long term". They should have had a subscription model in place like Lovefilm, Netflix etc. I play XX monthly and I get to play XX games. To play another I would have to uninstall X game to make room.

Yes I do use steam, but I don't have to agree with their view.

Nope its not renting as that requires defined time period of use for money and subsequent payments for continued use.

And the make room has nothing todo with it as that goes for anything that can be bought and installed, put on the PC.

 

[Final8y]

What about if you wanted to sell a game second hand, and did so through a Steam Maketplace for example (for a discounted price ofcourse). In that case then the developer can get a cut in the profit too. That way everyone is a winner?

I thought the same myself ages ago but i think till greed stop's getting the better of overall and lose a sale totally than take a smaller cut from a resale then it wont happen.

But i think its a good idea and it would be another feather in Steams cap if they started doing it because im sure others would follow but its down to the developers to let that happen.

 

[Gimpymoo]

I've been agreeing to EULA's for donkey's years and so far it's made no difference to my gaming at all.

This is my experiences also.

I think the issue this time round is the fact they changed it and there was no option other than to accept else you seemingly lost access to your library.

In the past, even if you disagreed with the EULA, you could "agree" as you actively had the game in your possession so it mattered not if you agreed or disagreed, you still had access to the game.

If that makes sense.

 

[MeMeMeMe]

Good, I should not have had to agree to that EULA in order to access my games.

+1

 

[barmyllama]

This is my experiences also.

I think the issue this time round is the fact they changed it and there was no option other than to accept else you seemingly lost access to your library.

In the past, even if you disagreed with the EULA, you could "agree" as you actively had the game in your possession so it mattered not if you agreed or disagreed, you still had access to the game.

If that makes sense.

Only if you agreed to the EULA during the installation of the game. Ok you may not have had to agree to a new one once it's installed, which is basically what Valve are doing. At the end of the day Valve's original subscriber agreement was restrictive enough to make your teeth itch if you took it at face value, but we all agreed to it.

Like I said, a EULA has yet to get in the way of my gaming.

 

[Divinious]

Like I said, a EULA has yet to get in the way of my gaming.

I think it's the unusually heavy handed approach Valve has taken in forcing customers hand by basically saying sign this or lose access to games you already have linked to you're account, games I add that everyone had already signed a EULA for previously why not just change the EULA for anything purchased after the change.
Please Valve don't compromise you're good name by resorting to bullying you're customers it's so EA.

 

[barmyllama]

I think it's the unusually heavy handed approach Valve has taken in forcing customers hand by basically saying sign this or lose access to games you already have linked to you're account

Apple do this almost weekly with iTunes.

 

[spoffle]

And the indie guy selling a game for £5 who loses out on a sale, who lives hand to mouth to help develop his next game, what do you say to him?

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).