Jmustang1968 wrote:More like being forced to give up the opportunity for some class action lawsuit lawyers to make a lot of money in a settlement...
Possibly true. There is a history of some really ridiculous class action suits out there that made lawyers a lot of money and gave consumers something like a lame coupon for more of the product that they had a grievance against to begin with.
Isn't that the rule, rather than the exception? Class actions that win net the lawyers millions of dollars and everyone else gets a cookie. I might still have the $5 coupon from Nintendo that I got because of the licensing stuff in the NES era.
In a situation like this, I am more inclined to shrug and say 'it's just video games'. Anyone with an actual beef with this needs to take JT's approach.
In the end, I really do not see this as being that big of an issue. Steam's whole business model is based around ease of use and sales volume through discounts. That's what draws the customers and that will not end.
Maybe now Nintendo will acknowledge Metroid has a fanbase?
Hazerd wrote:Late to the party but, this is why DLC Ultimately fails.
It's more a case of general law not having caught up with advances in technology. Digital content defies the standard conventions of property; duplication is trivial and is indistinguishable from the original. We need to figure out the laws around this sort of content. We can't just treat it like a car or a hammer like we currently do. And once those laws come up we'll see how the various things like Steam and DLC and MMO items evolve to fit those laws.
Blizzard Entertainment Software Developer - All comments and views are my own and not representative of the company.
This sort of thing DOES concern me. Forced agreements to access a paid-for product is just messed up IMO.
But it's no use denying yourself of the games you bought in the meantime. In refusing to sign it, you are creating the same situation that you fear (no access to your games).
I'd protest with your dollar; refuse to buy anything more until there is a better option (even if it is indefinite).
Also agree that this is (among many reasons) why GOG rocks. I'm seriously considering buying a few of my Steam games on there as well. I love being able to back-up games so I can install on any PC, even if it doesn't have internet connection.
This clause is making news everywhere it seems. I don't really think it is a huge deal to get worked up about. The legality of clauses like this are already in question and if the issue did indeed go to court I'll hedge a bet that this clause is unlawful anyways. Thus the clause would be negated and you can sue away.
Not that I see myself suing Valve unless they one day said "nope these are our games after all, you don't get to play them". If that day ever came this clause would not hinder an actual lawsuit.
I've seen that. Wow, what a tacky response from Valve customer service.
I haven't received any response from Steam yet (God knows when I will) and I still have not clicked 'agree' and I still can't access my games unless I do.
This has forced me into a dilemma: what's more important? My legal rights as a US citizen, or my video games. I don't get my games back unless I sign away my legal rights, but I may not be able to exercise my legal rights with this company if I sign them away (and I tacitly contribute to encouraging other companies to do this kind of legal maneuver) .
I really hate that Steam has forced me into this dilemma. I don't have access to any of my Steam games and I am not making any purchases from Steam (I would be buying the eXceed collection right now if this wasn't happening). It's really frustrating. It is possible that Valve may be right that this is for the better good of Steam customers by allowing them to focus their money on business rather than legal matters, and I don't really foresee myself ever even needing to file a class action suit where I would need these legal rights (except maybe over this very issue), but there is something incredibly troubling to me about allowing any corporate entity to deny me my basic rights in order to use their service or buy their product. So much of the US Bill of Rights is about making sure that citizens have fair access to the legal system. The whole purpose is so that the freedom of the people does not go unnoticed. I don't really want to sell out even a tiny piece of that, but I want to play my games too.
And Valve might have a a convincing argument, but look at how they are going about this?! Freezing my account and many others unless we agree? I've been a good customer for Steam. I've spent a lot of money and given them lots of free word-of-mouth advertising. Now BAM! Account locked. You know, if I'm going to say "ok, I trust you guys won't screw me over, so I will sign over my legal rights here because it's for the global good of a company that I know and love" then this was exactly the WRONG way to make me trust that I won't get screwed over. I'm BEING SCREWED OVER RIGHT NOW!
Another part of what's troubling about this, is that as I have read more about binding arbitration, I have realized that I likely have already agreed to this with a number of other companies without even realizing it. The other companies just haven't been as open about it or made it so apparent that I wouldn't have access to what I have already purchased because of a disagreement over what I should be allowed to do as a consumer who might one day seek legal recourse. I don't really like "slippery slope" arguments, but I feel like we are moving towards giving up basic freedoms to all of the many companies that do this sort of thing and they're only bound to want more. And this is how it happens... it doesn't seem like a big deal. You click a button, you get to play a game. You don't click it, game over. You want to play the game don't you?
J T wrote:I've seen that. Wow, what a tacky response from Valve customer service.
I haven't received any response from Steam yet (God knows when I will) and I still have not clicked 'agree' and I still can't access my games unless I do.
This has forced me into a dilemma: what's more important? My legal rights as a US citizen, or my video games. I don't get my games back unless I sign away my legal rights, but I may not be able to exercise my legal rights with this company if I sign them away (and I tacitly contribute to encouraging other companies to do this kind of legal maneuver) .
I really hate that Steam has forced me into this dilemma. I don't have access to any of my Steam games and I am not making any purchases from Steam (I would be buying the eXceed collection right now if this wasn't happening). It's really frustrating. It is possible that Valve may be right that this is for the better good of Steam customers by allowing them to focus their money on business rather than legal matters, and I don't really foresee myself ever even needing to file a class action suit where I would need these legal rights (except maybe over this very issue), but there is something incredibly troubling to me about allowing any corporate entity to deny me my basic rights in order to use their service or buy their product. So much of the US Bill of Rights is about making sure that citizens have fair access to the legal system. The whole purpose is so that the freedom of the people does not go unnoticed. I don't really want to sell out even a tiny piece of that, but I want to play my games too.
And Valve might have a a convincing argument, but look at how they are going about this?! Freezing my account and many others unless we agree? I've been a good customer for Steam. I've spent a lot of money and given them lots of free word-of-mouth advertising. Now BAM! Account locked. You know, if I'm going to say "ok, I trust you guys won't screw me over, so I will sign over my legal rights here because it's for the global good of a company that I know and love" then this was exactly the WRONG way to make me trust that I won't get screwed over. I'm BEING SCREWED OVER RIGHT NOW!
Another part of what's troubling about this, is that as I have read more about binding arbitration, I have realized that I likely have already agreed to this with a number of other companies without even realizing it. The other companies just haven't been as open about it or made it so apparent that I wouldn't have access to what I have already purchased because of a disagreement over what I should be allowed to do as a consumer who might one day seek legal recourse. I don't really like "slippery slope" arguments, but I feel like we are moving towards giving up basic freedoms to all of the many companies that do this sort of thing and they're only bound to want more. And this is how it happens... it doesn't seem like a big deal. You click a button, you get to play a game. You don't click it, game over. You want to play the game don't you?
Class action lawsuits aren't a basic right... You can still sue them as an individual.
