Accpet Steam's New EULA or Say Goodbye To Your Steam Account UPDATED

[yuval152]

http://wegotthiscovered.com/news/valve-accept-steam-subscriber-agreement-disable-account/

So if you disagree with the new TOS your account will be deactivated with no refund.Valve is so awesome.

So what is your opinion about this?

And for discussion value do you think it's morally right? and if yes/no then why? and also will this make you stop using steam?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/07/31/valve-updates-steam-subscriber-agreement-with-new-dispute-resolution-process-limits-class-actions/

While it?s still true that Valve can be sued (in small claims court) it turns out the company does have the ability to limit class actions under the Federal Arbitration Act. Steve Flaeck explains:

?The Federal Arbitration Act entitles a company to preclude class action and the provision is completely enforceable. This is the precise outcome of AT&T Mobility v. Conception; the reality is that the FAA essentially allows all claims, including Civil Rights Act claims in the 5th Circuit, to be routed through binding arbitration on whatever terms specified in the contract.

As steadily reinterpreted by the Court, the FAA enables the creation of private legal systems enforced by the public one. It must be repealed.?

I agree, this is a stupid law and it should be repealed. On the other hand, Valve is running a business and if the competition is doing similar things, it?s in Valve?s best interest to do the same. I?m not a fan of resolving customer complaints through lawsuits in the first place. I would hope that if Valve went downhill in its treatment of customers, or if Steam turned out to be awful for some reason, that people would take their money elsewhere.

This does raise, once again, questions of ownership. For me, the trade-off between actually owning a physical copy of a game vs. just a digital license comes down to convenience. Maybe I should be more bothered by the fact that I?m essentially paying a one-time fee to rent a game forever rather than own it, but I just can?t get that worked up about it. It?s not in Valve?s best interest to screw me out of my games. Same goes for eBooks on Amazon. Yes, there have been occasions when ? in Amazon?s case at least ? some books were removed. This could be problematic. There are plenty of scenarios we could come up with ranging from simple inconvenience to sci-fi totalitarianism that could make us think twice about purchasing anything digitally.

But it?s so convenient and simple to use services like Steam or Kindle. That?s why they?re successful. If they stop being convenient and simple, they?ll stop being successful. It?s important that we do address the contingency issues ? what happens if Valve goes out of business? Do I get a free download of all my games? Do I just lose them? What happens if Amazon is wiped off the face of the earth? Is my Kindle just a hunk of metal and plastic? Are those books I ?owned? little more than digital memories?

These are important questions, to be sure, but it all comes down not so much to the individual companies taking advantage of various rules and loopholes in our system of laws, but to the laws themselves. If the FAA is problematic, it should be repealed. If we need better legal definitions of digital ownership, that needs to be established by the state. In the meantime, both consumers and businesses need to make do with what we?ve got.

Thanks to PieBrotherTB for the link.

Also Dexter111 is a pretty cool guy:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/9.384228.15233264
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/9.384228.15233362

 

[SUPA FRANKY]

Well... I don't agree with completely shutting down your account, but it's your choice whether to use Steam or not. Using Steam requires agreeing to their TOS. If you don't like it, don't use it. That simple.

 

[yuval152]

Well... I don't agree with completely shutting down your account, but it's your choice whether to use Steam or not. Using Steam requires agreeing to their TOS. If you don't like it, don't use it. That simple.

This is true but it sucks for the people with alot of games on steam that disagree with the new TOS.

 

[Varil]

The question isn't whether you have to click "I accept", but rather or not they can legally uphold their TOS. If I pay you for, say, a year of internet access, with the agreement that I'd have access for exactly 12 months, and you later say "Well, we're changing our contracts so now it's only good for 6 months", do you figure that would hold up in court?

Steam can *say* "You can't sue us", but if I do, what are they going to do to stop me? Cut off my steam service? If I'm suing them I'm probably well past the point of caring about that.

 

[yuval152]

http://wegotthiscovered.com/news/valve-accept-steam-subscriber-agreement-disable-account/

So if you disagree.

That's how EVERY online service works.

I already know that I'm just posting news for people to disccuss about.

 

[yuval152]

http://wegotthiscovered.com/news/valve-accept-steam-subscriber-agreement-disable-account/

So if you disagree.

That's how EVERY online service works.

I already know that I'm just posting news for people to disccuss about.

Help me understand...what is the discussion value of a company using the identical process of every other company?

Maybe you could add some discussion yourself to explain what it is you expect people to discuss. This seems a lot like "the sky is blue...discuss".

In this new TOS valve takes away your right to sue them, but I figured that people will be talking about the whole forced to agree the terms or goodbye to your steam account.

Do you have any suggetions?

 

[Mister Six]

The question isn't whether you have to click "I accept", but rather or not they can legally uphold their TOS. If I pay you for, say, a year of internet access, with the agreement that I'd have access for exactly 12 months, and you later say "Well, we're changing our contracts so now it's only good for 6 months", do you figure that would hold up in court?

Steam can *say* "You can't sue us", but if I do, what are they going to do to stop me? Cut off my steam service? If I'm suing them I'm probably well past the point of caring about that.

Except now you can't sue, you can only go into small claims/arbitration. Wonder how this effects games that you've bought a physical copy of but require steam to play, like DoW2.

On the fence about how I feel about this, no real way I can see for a consumer to defend this with any amount of self-interest, objectively it's a good way to keep customers who may be thinking of jumping ship from the service, no one's gonna leave if their library is being held hostage, and in a month or two they'll forget being strong armed.

 

[Laughing Man]

Not sure what the issue here is, if you disagree with Steams TOS then you stop using Steam if you stop using Steam you lose access to the games that use it. It's always been that way not really sure how the new TOS changes that fact?

End of the day the games are still on your hard drive and let's face it it isn't like their aren't any number of cracks out there that allow you to play those games without ever having to run Steam so...

 

[Fr]anc[is]

Part of the cost of getting dozens of games for under $10. No that does not make me a valve fanboy.

 

[Epona]

http://wegotthiscovered.com/news/valve-accept-steam-subscriber-agreement-disable-account/

So if you disagree.

That's how EVERY online service works.

I already know that I'm just posting news for people to disccuss about.

Help me understand...what is the discussion value of a company using the identical process of every other company?

Maybe you could add some discussion yourself to explain what it is you expect people to discuss. This seems a lot like "the sky is blue...discuss".

Does every other company take away what you have already paid for?

 

[Luftwaffles]

If you didnt agree to the original TOS in the first place you wouldnt even be using Steam.

If you've accepted the old TOS and then changed your mind, they wouldve taken away your account too.

People are actually outraged about this?

 

[Epona]

If you didnt agree to the original TOS in the first place you wouldnt even be using Steam.

If you've accepted the old TOS and then changed your mind, they wouldve taken away your account too.

People are actually outraged about this?

Wait so let me see if I understand this. It's ok for Valve to change the TOS and punish people retroactively if they don't accept it because people agreed to a TOS before it was changed?

See, this is how it should work. If you don't agree with the new TOS, your account goes into a mode where you can still play, download and patch the current games you own but you can not buy any new games. This idea that they can take away what you have already paid for because THEY changed the terms is ridiculous.

 

[piinyouri]

Well you see, like many people keep saying, you don't own digital only games. (Hell or even physical copies anymore)
So they are, unfortunately, well within their right to take the games you bought away.
Because they were never yours.

If I come off like I'm supporting this idea, I assure I am not.
Quite the opposite.

 

[oplinger]

Honestly, in a country where a company may be sued for things I do to myself (Dousing my penis in hot coffee, tripping over my own kids, becoming fat..) I honestly support the company in their TOS agreement.

It's retarded, but so are we...as a people. I'd want protection against stupid too.

However if it's bad enough to really warrant suing, it's up to the judge, not the ToS.

 

[Epona]

Well you see, like many people keep saying, you don't own digital only games. (Hell or even physical copies anymore)
So they are, unfortunately, well within their right to take the games you bought away.
Because they were never yours.

If I come off like I'm supporting this idea, I assure I am not.
Quite the opposite.

No, they don't have the RIGHT. This simply hasn't been ruled on yet so it's in limbo. In Europe though, since they can resell digital games, I would say they DO own them.

I would also say that we own them too, it will be eventually be ruled in the consumers favor.

 

[oplinger]

Well you see, like many people keep saying, you don't own digital only games. (Hell or even physical copies anymore)
So they are, unfortunately, well within their right to take the games you bought away.
Because they were never yours.

If I come off like I'm supporting this idea, I assure I am not.
Quite the opposite.

No, they don't have the RIGHT. This simply hasn't been ruled on yet so it's in limbo. In Europe though, since they can resell digital games, I would say they DO own them.

I would also say that we own them too, it will be eventually be ruled in the consumers favor.

Actually, the company has the right to do whatever it pleases. It's a corporation, it is considered a singular person, and it's a private corporation.

it has the same rights you do as a human being. Which includes taking away it's service and all it's offerings to you. Without notice.

 

[Epona]

Well you see, like many people keep saying, you don't own digital only games. (Hell or even physical copies anymore)
So they are, unfortunately, well within their right to take the games you bought away.
Because they were never yours.

If I come off like I'm supporting this idea, I assure I am not.
Quite the opposite.

No, they don't have the RIGHT. This simply hasn't been ruled on yet so it's in limbo. In Europe though, since they can resell digital games, I would say they DO own them.

I would also say that we own them too, it will be eventually be ruled in the consumers favor.

Actually, the company has the right to do whatever it pleases. It's a corporation, it is considered a singular person, and it's a private corporation.

it has the same rights you do as a human being. Which includes taking away it's service and all it's offerings to you. Without notice.

The service yes but what about the products they sold you? People really need to stop arguing in favor of this anti-consumer BS. It's wrong, you know it's wrong yet here you are defending it.

 

[oplinger]

Well you see, like many people keep saying, you don't own digital only games. (Hell or even physical copies anymore)
So they are, unfortunately, well within their right to take the games you bought away.
Because they were never yours.

If I come off like I'm supporting this idea, I assure I am not.
Quite the opposite.

No, they don't have the RIGHT. This simply hasn't been ruled on yet so it's in limbo. In Europe though, since they can resell digital games, I would say they DO own them.

I would also say that we own them too, it will be eventually be ruled in the consumers favor.

Actually, the company has the right to do whatever it pleases. It's a corporation, it is considered a singular person, and it's a private corporation.

it has the same rights you do as a human being. Which includes taking away it's service and all it's offerings to you. Without notice.

The service yes but what about the products they sold you? People really need to stop arguing in favor of this anti-consumer BS. It's wrong, you know it's wrong yet here you are defending it.

Yup, I sure am defending it.

Sadly I was only saying that the company has the right to do whatever it wants. No defense in there.

I'm glad you're looking for a fight though.

And the ToS only stops class action suits, you can still sue them by yourself. You may not get anywhere, but you can still sue. And as I said before, the judge would be the one to decide on this, not the ToS. The ToS lays out conditions for them to either terminate your service, or conditions for them to engage in legal actions. Not what you can do to them.

If you start a class action suit, you either lose all your steam games, or you lose your class action suit. The ToS doesn't make the judge look at the idea and just throw it away because you agreed to the ToS.