(STEAM) Am I the only one?

[Kragg]

An am I the only one thread where the OP is actually the only one. I think I might faint.

such a fascinating development it actually made me smile

i wont cancel, though i only have 2 games on there. cause i saw the weirdness of having all your stuff being controlled by someone else. if they go super draconian, and sell your info to the devil or whatever everyone here will be stuck because they invested so much money into it and dont want to lose their stuff

 

[DRes82]

There are at least 9 billion humans on this Earth.

I'm pretty sure your not the only one.

Fuck that, there's not that many people on the planet yet. Can you imagine? 2 Billion MORE HUMANS? 9 billion has to be the tipping point. Zombies or plague or something.

Anyways, I'd say the OP is a rare breed. I sure as hell am not going to give up all the games I've purchased via steam on the off chance that something I do might conflict with their TOS.

 

[bafrali]

Such an overkill!!!


I don't think you would have much problem with the games you already have and content with(not to the extent of suing anyway).

I understand that it is a princible thing but you could surely buy no more games from steam as far as the solution goes rather than terminating your account and losing all the perfectly functuonal games.

If you have considered all the choices then i have got nothing to say but congratulate you for having the balls to stick to your principles.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

No you but I am not doing the same as you I am just trying to buy less games from Steam where possible and rebuying old ones from the likes of GoG.

 

[Rumpsteak]

Good sir and or madam, if I had been drinking I would have performed a spit take. The thought of how much I would lose by cancelling my steam account frightens me.

 

[NLS]

You did the right thing. Seriously I wish all consumers were like you, actually reading the terms of the agreement that they electronically signed, and have the guts to say no to any blackmail.
Sadly I didn't show the same self-respect and didn't cancel my Steam account because I have three games bound with Steam that I would like to play some time in the future and I have given enough money to buy them, actually ignoring the fact that they are on Steam. I swear in the name of Solid Snake, the back cover of Elder Scrolls 5 didn't write anywhere that this game is on Steam. Otherwise I wouldn't buy it because I boycott Steam and every other DRM service. The other two is: Civilization V and Duke Nukem Forever at a time that I didn't even know what Steam is.

Strange, at the back of my Skyrim cover it clearly says "REQUIRES INTERNET CONNECTION AND FREE STEAM ACCOUNT TO ACTIVATE" Followed by a notice that says that you are required to register the game with your Steam account and accept the Steam Subscriber Agreement, which it gives a link to and asks you to read through before you purchase, and that if you do not agree, you may return it unopened to your store.

 

[AD-Stu]

Disclaimer: I have no strong feelings one way or the other about Valve as a company. They've been largely irrelevant to my life as a gamer.

I've got bugger all games on Steam (all the ones I do have were either free or gifts - never spent a cent of my own money on there) and I haven't logged into it in months so I hadn't even realised this was happening. I'll probably agree to the new TOS when I finally do find a reason to log in because I've got nothing much to lose in either case.

What I find most interesting is how exactly they're applying a quirk of the American legal system to the entire world. Aside from that, from what I've just read it mostly sounds like it's a stupid law that needs to be fixed rather than something Valve should be blamed for.

Has anyone rooted around in the Origin ToS to see if it's got an equivalent clause?

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Change doesn't apply to me Being one of those dirty Euros, it turns out company's cannot take away our legal rights like they can with Americans (though I wonder if it would actually hold up if users genuinely brought a class action suit against them). eg. Would a judge or prosecuting lawyer conclude it's unlawful to bring the class action suit against them because it was forbidden in a EULA?

I don't understand how they can take away games you've already bought though. On the basis you purchased them under one set of conditions (which at the time both parties agreed to), which one party changed after the purchase. Any games bought prior to the change should continue to be made available under those conditions.

 

[Callate]

I didn't say no to Steam's new TOS, because it would effectively mean losing several hundred dollars worth of games. But I'll admit that I'm not happy with the new TOS, I'm disappointed in Valve for effecting it, and that agreeing to it makes me feel like a bit of a hypocrite.

The AT&T decision (on which basis Sony, EA, and now Valve have effected the "no class action suits" policies) ranks among the worst decisions made by this Supreme Court, which has made some doozies.

Valve argues that class action suits usually end up making a lot of money for the lawyers who bring them and very little for the claimants, and in that regard, they may have a point. But it's also true that sometimes such suits aren't entirely about bringing back a big award to those who pursue them; rather, they're the only effective way that individuals who can't bankroll legal teams on their own can bring to light when the behavior of large companies (who can and do keep lawyers on staff at all times) is deplorable, and needs to be addressed and if possible changed.

I'm more than a little unnerved that so many of the companies that have enacted these policies have done so after they've experienced major security breeches for which they might be found liable...

I will say, for what it's worth, that Valve's agreement to pay for legal costs related to arbitration still makes their policy a little better than some of the ones the likes of EA and Sony have tried to push. But I'm definitely unhappy with them.

 

[ResonanceSD]

Were you planning to sue them in a class-action? Because only people who were will have cancelled their accounts.

 

[keideki]

Considering the fact that I would loose access to pretty much 9/10ths of my PC games there is no way I would cancel my account. EA does this, the PSN does this, Cell phone companies are starting to do this. It is a nasty underhanded trick but at this point what can you do about it? I get the feeling that these sorts of things wont hold up in court though. I highly doubt a judge or any lawyers are going to get behind the idea of companies forcing their customers to give up their rights to lawsuits (Even if it is only the class action kind). Lawyers will see it as a loss of revenue, and Judges are going to see it as an insult to the court system I would think.

 

[AD-Stu]

Were you planning to sue them in a class-action? Because only people who were will have cancelled their accounts.

Planning to sue them in a class action right now, based on their past conduct, and giving up your right to ever sue them in a class action in the future, based on their unknown future conduct, are two very different things - DUCY?

 

[General Twinkletoes]

But...
WHY
With this ToS, they can take away all your games. Getting pissed about that is fine.
But why would you cancel your account, instead of just not buying anything?

The worst they could inflict on you is losing your games.
You protest by taking away all your games.
I don't follow the logic here.

 

[Lyri]

I know, I know. "You're never the only one." But this time, it actually feels like I'm the only schmuck out there who bit the bullet and cancelled[footnote]Rather, I'm in the process of trying to.[/footnote] my Steam account rather than agree to the onerous new TOS?

Why would you do that?

A lot of the stuff was already in the TOS from the beginning, I'll try and find the graphic someone made.
They really didn't change much.

 

[anthony87]

I'm sure you're not the only one but it's a stupid thing to do and an even stupider reason for doing it.

 

[Agente L]

Probably not the only one. Since their new TOS doesn't hold up in my country, I have nothing to fear. Heck, the part where they offer to pay the fees for the other two cases are quite nice actually.