Well, a cake would be nice.ResonanceSD said:snip
I think there is a lack of communication between us. I meant that this kind of paranoia is a tad stupid and Valve was right when using the ban hammer on the guy for breaking the deal between them.
Well, a cake would be nice.ResonanceSD said:snip
Just a thought, but I think maybe some people are "defending" him, not necessarily because they think what he did wasn't warrant of punishment, but maybe this wasn't the "right" punishment per se.bafrali said:Let me repeat it again. He knew the danger of losing his account and consequantly the games with it. You may be annoyed with the system but man accepted the rules and outcomes that comes along with it if he fucks up. Then he messed up his part of the deal and got what was promised within the rules he accepted and ultimately defied.
I don't think it can get simpler han this before we use the abacus
If it comes to a choice between losing a vague number of games which he probably got with a discount over steam or getting headaches with lawsuits that will probably cost him a lot more than games, i would like to think he got off easy if that was his only punishment. As for the rest of the argument, i have nothing more to say that isn't included in my previous posts.Jumplion said:snip
http://www.shacknews.com/article/73450/steam-account-bans-no-longer-take-away-all-your-games -actually no he didn't lose the games. So the whole premise of the issue is false but pretending it's not, you're not saying anything that anyone doesn't know. We know that those things were on the table to be lost, the problem would be why are they on the table in the first place.bafrali said:Let me repeat it again. He knew the danger of losing his account and consequantly the games with it. You may be annoyed with the system but man accepted the rules and outcomes that comes along with it if he fucks up. Then he messed up his part of the deal and got what was promised within the rules he accepted and ultimately defied.mike1921 said:It's a service in some bullshit legal sense. In the real world steam is a store, regardless of how behind on the times the legislation is. He bought the licences, a one time payment with no pre-determined time when they will become invalid, he should be entitled to them. It's sickening that people have taken to buying the "it's a service " line, it's a place you enter for free and buy things with one transaction with no pre-set date when it's not yours anymore, that's called a retail store not a service. Entering the store and making purchases is a service. The actual items you purchased are yours.bafrali said:Steam is a service, not a retail product. Man violated the service rules he accepted beforehand and is banned from the service accordingly, losing the related licences in the process. He knew the danger and suffered the consequences.Andy Chalk said:Call me old-fashioned, but I equate this with, say, EA sending a guy over to your house to take away all the games you legally paid for because it caught you making copies of one you didn't. I don't think any of us would stand for that, so why is it okay for Valve to take away legitimately-purchased Steam titles for an unrelated matter?
Wish i knew how to fit an "unforeseen consequences" joke there
Doesn't mean I'm against him getting sued for this for a value worth more than his steam account is worth, that's irrelevant if you ask me.
I don't think it can get simpler han this before we use the abacus
If he got taken to court, He would have lost way more than valve could ever take from him. That's how he got off easy. It's not even just straight up piracy. If your example were to be valid, you would have to add that he is selling the games for a profit. EA wouldn't come to his house and take his games, he would lose his house paying for the fines. And probably spending time in jail.Andy Chalk said:Call me old-fashioned, but I equate this with, say, EA sending a guy over to your house to take away all the games you legally paid for because it caught you making copies of one you didn't. I don't think any of us would stand for that, so why is it okay for Valve to take away legitimately-purchased Steam titles for an unrelated matter?
From this point on, it becomes irrevelamt to the subject matter at hand and goes to the territory of opinions about steam's service rules which i am currently content with and have no intention discussing. You don't like steam? FINE!!! But don't bring it to the table when we are talking about facts and the fact is Valve did what they said they would in case of a certain occurance. It was legal, foreshadowed and all around predictable.mike1921 said:snip
No, I have no problem with their service rules and do like them, did you even click the link in my post?bafrali said:From this point on, it becomes irrevelamt to the subject matter at hand and goes to the territory of opinions about steam's service rules which i am currently content with and have no intention discussing. You don't like steam? FINE!!! But don't bring it to the table when we are talking about facts and the fact is Valve did what they said they would in case of a certain occurance. It was legal, foreshadowed and all around predictable.mike1921 said:snip
Well at the moment the real problems are that there wasn't enough press on steam changing their bans, and the fact that people think it would be ok for steam to do shitty practices under the guise of being a service and not a store ( whether steam actually does them or not). But with what steam did? Nothing. With what people think steam did though? That they took away some dude's property over something irrelevant, not that it's illegitimate or a surprise.bafrali said:Let me start over then. What IS the problem?mike1921 said:snip
"I have no problem with their service rules and do like them"mike1921 said:snip
As SMALL as this? You do realise he submitted someone elses work and lied about it being his own. If it wasnt caught he stood to make a substantial profit off this. Yes - he would have made real money off other peoples COPYRIGHTED work. Not only is this against every bit of Steam's TOS which he obviously had to accept, but I'm pretty sure it would also be highly ilegal. Being banned from Steam is an incredibly minor punishment for the crime.Stormz said:Wonderful, glad to know me not supporting steam anymore is valid. He does something as small as this and gets banned for it and loses access to all the games he paid for.
Maybe if you read my posts you'd know the answer to those first two questions. You clearly refuse to read through my posts. It's all about what a "ban" entails (or even if they call it a ban), I have a source saying a ban doesn't entail you losing your games.bafrali said:"I have no problem with their service rules and do like them"mike1921 said:snip
If you like their service rules, why didn't you read them? Their service rules states that if you cause copy infringement shitstorm, your account will banned.
If you really like their service rules, why do you defend a guy that has clearly defied them? (with theft no less)
If you genuinely like their service rules, why are we even having this conversation right now?
Upon further thought, i have come to the conclusion that this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.mike1921 said:snip
I'm thinking the article here is wrong and that dude didn't really lose his games, and that the person who wrote the article just assumed being banned means you lose your game (it used to mean that too)IamGamer41 said:That's the one thing I hate about sites like Stream.You get banned you lose all your games.If that's not a crock of shit I don't know what is.Could you imaging Nintendo or Sega doing this back in the 90's? Oh you let a friend borrow your Sonic 2 game? Well your banned from Sega!We will take all your Sega games back!
It's sad that we can't own the games we buy now a days.