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

[Gimpymoo]

People are confusing physical media and digital media.

Has it ever been "right" to sell and financially gain from the sale of a film/book/game you do not legally own the rights to? You have been able to sell the media associated with it as there has been nothing to prevent that.

Now, there is no physical media, therefore you do not actually "own" anything.

What was possible in the past is now to the benefit of the corporates not possible. It will stay like that.

People are getting their pants in a twist and trying to halt change. It is inevitable.

 

[Gimpymoo]

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).

Do you not understand how business works?

This is not Valves call.

They simply cannot give away Borderlands 2 for example to HotMilf69 just because HotMuff99 says so. It is not their property to do so, that is the call of the publisher.

Valve are a distributor, they cannot give away free keys to a game as each key has monetary value to the publisher and is owned by the publisher. Even when monies have exchanged, that key is still owned by the publisher.

When this starts affecting big corporate entities in the Movie and Record industry (Movie industry more in the future when they adopt digital distribution) the EU ruling will be heavily amended, wait and see. OR, Europe will be left in the cold and services like Steam will revert to be american only companies and everything is purchased in dollars again which is a backwards step.

Europe should back off as this is just going to cause too many problems.

The only loser in this will be the end user.

 

[Treebiter]

I support Steam’s move here. My Steam collection is sizable and I’ve purchased all my games under the understanding that they were disposable goods, not commodities. If a game is decent, once I’m finished with it I don’t begrudge having spent the money as long as the ‘Time to Wonga’ ratio has been what I would class to be sufficient. Even if it isn’t I would take it on the chin as a poorly informed purchasing decision. Why should I then be able to resell this time as a commodity?

Supporting this decision would lead to

a. reduced Steam income resulting in a worse customer experience.
b. reduce income for developers, most notably small indie companies

Yes, the way it was handled could be seen as slightly draconian but I think it was a necessary evil in terms of business decisions. Steam did what they could to get out of a situation which would cause detriment to us, them and devs. And as EULAs aren’t worth the virtual paper they’re written on, this is more of a covering strategy anyway.

Lastly, in response to the Apple comparison, I have an iPhone and iPad and I love them both. Apple as a business however are horrendous and Steve Jobs is not/was not deserving of the bizarre hero cult that has sprung up around him. Steam on the other hand is run in a fashion where this particular issue stands out as a behavioural oddity. If Apple were to do something similar no one would bat an eyelid as it completely fits their modus operandi.

 

[spoffle]

Do you not understand how business works?

This is not Valves call.

They simply cannot give away Borderlands 2 for example to HotMilf69 just because HotMuff99 says so. It is not their property to do so, that is the call of the publisher.

Valve are a distributor, they cannot give away free keys to a game as each key has monetary value to the publisher and is owned by the publisher. Even when monies have exchanged, that key is still owned by the publisher.

When this starts affecting big corporate entities in the Movie and Record industry (Movie industry more in the future when they adopt digital distribution) the EU ruling will be heavily amended, wait and see. OR, Europe will be left in the cold and services like Steam will revert to be american only companies and everything is purchased in dollars again which is a backwards step.

Europe should back off as this is just going to cause too many problems.

The only loser in this will be the end user.

What are you talking about? When did I say anything about giving away Borderlands 2 for free, or any other game? Are you letting your love for Steam and everything Steam does get in the way of reading the words I actually typed?

 

[FrenchTart]

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.

Yeah... I actually agree with what you're saying here and I can see how your original comment was taken out of context.

I'm all for supporting indie devs (I still have aspirations of being one one day) but I'm against taking rights away from consumers.

 

[Gimpymoo]

What are you talking about? When did I say anything about giving away Borderlands 2 for free, or any other game? Are you letting your love for Steam and everything Steam does get in the way of reading the words I actually typed?

Do you not understand how business works?

This is not the digital distributors call.

They simply cannot give away (insert product here) for example to userA just because userB says so. It is not their property to do so, that is the call of the publisher.

They are a distributor, they cannot give away free licenses to each digitally distributed product as each licence has monetary value to the publisher and is owned by the publisher. Even when monies have exchanged, that key is still owned by the publisher.

Fixed so you can understand.

 

[ZombieFan]

People are confusing physical media and digital media.

Has it ever been "right" to sell and financially gain from the sale of a film/book/game you do not legally own the rights to? You have been able to sell the media associated with it as there has been nothing to prevent that.

Now, there is no physical media, therefore you do not actually "own" anything.

What was possible in the past is now to the benefit of the corporates not possible. It will stay like that.

People are getting their pants in a twist and trying to halt change. It is inevitable.

How you feel about retail copies which activate digitally? Valve's Orange Box for example. I have a physical copy but cannot sell it because the key is assocated with my Steam account and this can't be transferred.

 

[Gimpymoo]

How you feel about retail copies which activate digitally? Valve's Orange Box for example. I have a physical copy but cannot sell it because the key is assocated with my Steam account and this can't be transferred.

My understanding is you are purchasing a licence. The form the licence comes in be it a game box or a baked bean tin is irrelevant is it not?

Sorry if I misunderstood the post.

 

[Omaeka]

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.

Things like Sky are still subscription based, games being channels and packs being well... packs. It's no different to renting a DVD from Blockbuster and then demanding your rights to then sell that DVD to somebody. Whether or not Valve have circumvented pre ownership with an obvious ploy with the rent for 999 years thing, they are still well within the law and aren't breaking the rules of anything. Everything does this kind of behaviour all of the time, even the Governments themselves, but now Valve are being leaned on and why... because if the EU rubbish get their way they make more money themselves. Preownership generates revenue for everyone but the people who created the product.

How you feel about retail copies which activate digitally? Valve's Orange Box for example. I have a physical copy but cannot sell it because the key is assocated with my Steam account and this can't be transferred.

You can sell it on, the physical goods can be sold to those who own the digital version and want the retail. You won't get much at all but you can sell it on.

 

[spoffle]

Yeah... I actually agree with what you're saying here and I can see how your original comment was taken out of context.

I'm all for supporting indie devs (I still have aspirations of being one one day) but I'm against taking rights away from consumers.

Oh of course, I'm all for supporting small developers too. Some of my favourite games recently have been from independent developers. Super Meatboy has to be one of my all time favourite games, for example. I've done over 60 hours on it and there's still loads to do.

Currently, Independent Developers are pumping out the quality games in my opinion.

Fixed so you can understand.

Okay, so we've established you like to use little colourful pictures to speak, but you're still going on about free copies of games, which I never mentioned, so why exactly are you doing that?

 

[Gimpymoo]

Okay, so we've established you like to use little colourful pictures to speak, but you're still going on about free copies of games, which I never mentioned, so why exactly are you doing that?

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).

 

[FrenchTart]

Gimpy, you're not really doing yourself any favours with this kind of posting. Some of your points are valid, even if I disagree with a good portion of them, but you're coming across as kind of childish now.

 

[spoffle]

Yes, and the part where I sperged on about free games?

 

[Gimpymoo]

Yes, and the part where I sperged on about free games?

Online keys activate to a specific user account which for the most part, I think we can all agree on.

For Valve to "transfer" a game, they will need to issue a new key to the new user to facilitate creation of a new user account.

You mention transfering with someone for another game for example, this trade is in effect, FREE.

HOWEVER, 2 new keys are required to complete this trade (for example in this instance, both games needing seperate user accounts). This cost will be to Valve as the two publishers are unlikely to give 2 keys away they could charge full price for.

The two users trading, will expect to receive these keys for free.

Gimpy, you're not really doing yourself any favours with this kind of posting. Some of your points are valid, even if I disagree with a good portion of them, but you're coming across as kind of childish now.

Come on, there is no way the Rainbow pic could be interpreted as anything other than a smile/nod/wink to the prior comment. Since when did this place become so serious

 

[spoffle]

Online keys activate to a specific user account which for the most part, I think we can all agree on.

For Valve to "transfer" a game, they will need to issue a new key to the new user to facilitate creation of a new user account.

You mention transfering with someone for another game for example, this trade is in effect, FREE.

HOWEVER, 2 new keys are required to complete this trade (for example in this instance, both games needing seperate user accounts). This cost will be to Valve as the two publishers are unlikely to give 2 keys away they could charge full price for.

The two users trading, will expect to receive these keys for free.

They are ALL assumptions, I don't even know how or why you would make those assumptions. You know, keeping it simple and all, you'd be trading the existing key.

Why would you even talk about new keys, them being free and how valve have no control over issuing free keys? Why do new "free" keys need to be issued, why wouldn't the existing key for the game already owned be traded, and how the hell did you expect me to know you were talking about that?!

They don't need to do any of that at all. It's their platform, they can control how everything is implemented.

Wut

Come on, there is no way the Rainbow pic could be interpreted as anything other than a smile/nod/wink to the prior comment. Since when did this place become so serious

That just comes across as "I know I was joking based on FrenchTart's response".

Don't make more of a fool of yourself, you named all the images "idiot" with varying numbers. My arse you were joking.

 

[Jono8]

As has been pointed out in this thread already. I don't care for second hand sales. Sure it would be sort of nice to get a bit of money back on a game i dont like but pc games get so cheap, so quickly these days it doesnt really matter.

I mean, most new releases can be had for £20 if you shop around and in half a years time they will be down to £5-£10. When they are a year + old you can just pick them in promotional offers for like £3-4.

Obviously if Steam just decided to shut up shop and everyone lost all access to the £100's worth of games on my account then there would be uproar. I can never see Steam doing this.

 

[Kenai]

But why would the developers buy the key back, when they could generate another one for free

Because in the scenario where a second hand market exists, the situation could play out in one of two ways:

1:
Sell Key X to Person A for £30
Publisher has £30
Person A wishes to sell off Key X
Publisher offers to buy Key X for £15
Publisher has £15 left & control of Key X again
Sell Key X to Person B for £30
Publisher has £45 at the end of transactions surrounding Key X.

2:
Sell Key X to Person A for £30
Publisher has £30
Person A wishes to sell off Key X
Publisher generates 'new key for free' Key Y for sale at £30
Person A sells Key X directly to Person B for £15
Person B doesn't buy Key Y and the Publisher makes nothing
Publisher has £30 at the end of it

If Publishers don't want to buy back the keys and keep control of them, then people will sell directly to each other and the publishers will lose out. It is very much in their interest to develop a 'buy back' system of some sort really, because if second hand sales are forced on them, they will lose revenue one way or the other, it's just a case of damage limitation for them.

 

[Gimpymoo]

you named all the images "idiot" with varying numbers.

Thanks for noticing, at least it was not in vein.

 

[ZombieFan]

My understanding is you are purchasing a licence. The form the licence comes in be it a game box or a baked bean tin is irrelevant is it not?

Sorry if I misunderstood the post.

Yea, I see. So the question goes back to why you can't transfer this licence to another person if you don't have a physical product.

Other software products (including games) allow you to transfer the licence to another user after purchase. Otherwise, highstreet game retailers wouldn't be able to sell pre-owned copies legally.

 

[Gimpymoo]

Yea, I see. So the question goes back to why you can't transfer this licence to another person if you don't have a physical product.

I guess the main problem is the logistics and costs. With a Physical disc, you give them the disc, that is that.