[CooperHawkes]

oops, sry. seems like i opened the wrong door. i expected a discussion about duke nukem to happen here....

[karajorma]

And hopefully they learned an important life lesson about not being a twat.  So long as there is an ability to have your case reviewed by Steam in case of a mistaken action then I don't see much problem with them purging idiots.  If you repeatedly break the rules in real life you stand to be punished or fined.  Quite frankly the idea that there can be a consequence to your internet actions warms the cockles of my heart. 

Take it with a grain of salt though, my sympathy for assholes and rule breakers isn't one of my strong suits.

My point is that many were claiming there is no difference between the EULAs. And there most definitely is.

[S-99]

My argument is not unintelligible because at first i didn't use the word "enforced" in front of "eula". Some of my points are wrong. But largely because of the enforced eula, many of my points stand.

Does anyone else find this statement contradicting?

Not really. It's two things that was being talked about here.
1. My argument is not unintelligible because at first i didn't use the word "enforced" in front of "eula" (steam eula is different, but i sure didn't know how to say it better until kara came in here and used the magical word "enforced"). My point with the steam eula and how everything is tied to steam and requires steam signifies the difference between that eula and other game eula's despite eula's being worded the same or similarly.

In other words, other game eula's worded the same or similarly may or may not have the steam (or similar) requirement. This is saying the same thing without using the word enforce.

2. I also made an admittance that some of my points about steam were wrong such as the mandatory updates can be ignored, forgetting about offline mode (though offline mode is pretty moot since you still need internet and steam to enable offline mode), and whatever other stuff.

But, because of the enforced eula, many of my points still stand. It's a restriction laiden game environment where everything is in favor of valve and steam, not so much the gamer. Steam came to be to control what the gamers can do with those games. A very big one of those reasons for such the control on pc gaming, is to decrease piracy. For which this is the very reason i mentioned assassins creed 2 for pc as another example of an anti-piracy measure similar to what steam does. Because of this i don't consider it money well spent on games because of a business model i myself don't want to have anything to do with.

Something entirely separate here. Does anyone want my steam account for free orange box? I got it for christmas years ago and was only able to play through half life 2 when i was at my parents (they live in an area with a dsl offering). Since 2007, i just don't care about it. You can make my old account yours, it is in good standing with steam. Recommended for somebody who doesn't have a steam account and wants some free games. Digital distribution means that it's all a download away. I'm done in here.

[Mika]

The big question here for me is that why is the software industry allowed to kill second hand sales, while it has been perfectly acceptable and legal with any other products for a long time? And why aren't people complaining more about this? My personal view is that the developers' already got (if they didn't, they even should be removed from the business) their money when the game was sold first time. Reselling a game is just a way to cut your own losses if you didn't like the game.

I'm not as blind sided to worship a company that releases a well received game, the price still has to be right for me to pick it up. I don't accept being milked for cash no matter how raving reviews the game gets. My pain threshold for a new game is around 50€, anything higher and it's a pass, and I very rarely pay that 50 €! I note that it is the new PC Games that are cheapest around here, with a 20 to 25 € margin to new console games - 80 € for a game is just insane! What it comes to "Death of the PC gaming", I'm yet to see that.

Boy, I just can't wait for this trend to be adopted by other industries.

WAT? The rumor goes that STEAM should be installed in to play DNF demo too????
FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

[NGTM-1R]

Surely that argument means that if Steam cut off your account, preventing you playing games, they have acted illegally then?

Quite possible. No one has brought a challenge against this particular model of business, however. The previous challenges on the "we're just licensing it" have revolved around attempting to prevent resale of programs, something that is not a concern here.

The Steam model can present things as a method of keeping order and removing troublesome personalities, much like banning from a forum, so it is possible they could make a sufficiently different case not to fall under previous judgments. Until such time as arguments are presented, it is impossible to know.

However, for now, the wording is essentially the same; and as with all EULAs, essentially meaningless. An EULA is simply not a legally binding document like most contracts and provides no more than a fig leaf to protect the company; if something ****s up your computer the EULA disclaiming responsibility does not mean ****.

S-99 meanwhile is babbling that Steam can actually enforce the rules and is therefore bad. How many times do you actually violate a game EULA when you purchase it anyways? I mean, seriously, what do you do, buy games for the sole purpose of cracking them and making copies to distribute to your friends just so you can say "I violated the EULA mother****ers, can't stop me!"?

[Mongoose]

The big question here for me is that why is the software industry allowed to kill second hand sales, while it has been perfectly acceptable and legal with any other products for a long time? And why aren't people complaining more about this? My personal view is that the developers' already got (if they didn't, they even should be removed from the business) their money when the game was sold first time. Reselling a game is just a way to cut your own losses if you didn't like the game.

That's what second-hand sales do ideally, and I think they're great myself for games from previous generations that are now out-of-print (I've been known to raid a few GameBoy and N64 bargain bins in my time), but I think the problem that the games industry really has is with retailers like GameStop, which tend to put their used copies of new releases on even more prominent display than the new ones.  You can go in there, buy a new game on release day, and sell it back to them in perfect condition a few days later...and they'll probably only give you less than half of what you paid.  It's essentially one big profiteering racket, since GameStop and their ilk make a killing out of short-changing used game sellers and then marking up said titles when they put them back on the shelf.  (I've largely stopped shopping there myself; smaller chains like Play 'n' Trade tend to have far broader selections anyway, and their used stuff is in much better condition.)  As I said before, though, all of this only really applies to console games; I've never seen a used games store that has used PC titles, and I'm not even sure that they're allowed to in the first place.

[S-99]

S-99 meanwhile is babbling that Steam can actually enforce the rules and is therefore bad. How many times do you actually violate a game EULA when you purchase it anyways? I mean, seriously, what do you do, buy games for the sole purpose of cracking them and making copies to distribute to your friends just so you can say "I violated the EULA mother****ers, can't stop me!"?

No, i just buy games to play them. My preference is buying the game, take it home, throw it in the computer, and play. Steam is an extra added step of wackiness to it where i find you're jumping through hoops more with steam than playing the games.

I highly doubt just playing a game i bought legally for the single player is going to violate an eula. I'm not really into multi, and i only share games that can be redistributed such as openarena (the rare times i do multi). If an eula states platform specificity such as windows, then not even then since wine can pass the windows genuine advantage software scanners would i have breached that part of an eula (wga is being retooled so wine can't pass wga). I am no angel or perfect. If i bought a game, my intended use will be legal. If i find something crappy, i try to get it to somebody who would like it.

As far as cracking, hacking, and pirating software, i haven't had the interest or the need to do it for a while (hacking, cracking, and pirating stuff is usually a ***** too). Really, people jumping through hoops just to bypass a windows activation? Example: if you have the right service pack, right registry modifications, using a certain program, on a certain day and time maybe you and others too can bypass windows activation. I'd rather fork over my money for windows shlitza and be happier than dude trying to get past activation if i were to use windows. I want an office suite, oh hey look...openoffice. I want quake 3, oh hey look at that openarena. I need an os, awesome linux. I like software that is least trouble, and i don't like things that punish the customer. For me that has been a lot of usage and dabbling in free opensource; it's been so awesome i'm sold.

[Mongoose]

No, i just buy games to play them. My preference is buying the game, take it home, throw it in the computer, and play. Steam is an extra added step of wackiness to it where i find you're jumping through hoops more with steam than playing the games.

I just installed Batman: Arkham Asylum on Steam the other day.  The sole "hoops" I had to jump through were with getting its required Games-for-Windows element to play nice, and I can happily lay that blame at the feet of Microsoft.  Steam itself added absolutely no overhead to the process, and in fact saved me some bother by having a convenient button to copy the multiplayer key to the clipboard the first time I played.

[karajorma]

However, for now, the wording is essentially the same; and as with all EULAs, essentially meaningless. An EULA is simply not a legally binding document like most contracts and provides no more than a fig leaf to protect the company; if something ****s up your computer the EULA disclaiming responsibility does not mean ****.

S-99 meanwhile is babbling that Steam can actually enforce the rules and is therefore bad.

As he's subsequently pointed out his issue is that Steam can choose to enforce their interpretation of the EULA not the actual EULA itself. Mentioning the EULA is simply a way of pointing out what Steam believe they have the right to do should they choose to do so. Other companies have similar EULAs but since they can't or don't enforce them very few people give a toss about them.

How many times do you actually violate a game EULA when you purchase it anyways? I mean, seriously, what do you do, buy games for the sole purpose of cracking them and making copies to distribute to your friends just so you can say "I violated the EULA mother****ers, can't stop me!"?

If you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have to worry about with the new anti-terrorism laws?

S-99's issue appears to be that Steam have far too much power with no system of checks or balances. Most people would not accept buying a CD only to be told that you can't sell it to other people or lend it to a friend for them to listen to it.

[Luis Dias]

What I see here is that most people don't really care being treated like garbage.

[General Battuta]

What I see here is that most people don't really care being treated like garbage.

You're right. Fortunately there are those proud few of us who have the backbone to get cutthroat deals on a platform that saves enormous amounts of money, saves entire developers and cuts away most of the hassle of PC gaming.

[NGTM-1R]

If you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have to worry about with the new anti-terrorism laws?

Perspective. It's very important, and I'd suggest acquiring some.

In fact, this is absolute bull****. Criminal charges in the real world are based upon the collection and interpretation of so many types of evidence that are subject to the expression game that your argument makes sense. Things spoken and not meant or misheard, things done that might be part of construction a bomb or might mean you just needed some fertilizer, etc. Your argument carries weight there because not everything is absolute.

But we are not in the real world. We are dealing in absolutes with Steam, in the 1s and 0s of digital code which can only do one thing and be interpreted in one fashion, and Steam professes that they would wish it no other way. They openly support game modding even if the developer does not and have as a policy that modded game files related to the actual play of the game or the use of third-party programs like trainers are not a cause for banning.

Because we are dealing in absolutes, the argument of "nothing done wrong, nothing to fear" is a valid one, as it also deals in absolutes.

S-99's issue appears to be that Steam have far too much power with no system of checks or balances. Most people would not accept buying a CD only to be told that you can't sell it to other people or lend it to a friend for them to listen to it.

S-99's issue is an inability to write or argue in a coherent manner. Stop enabling him.

[karajorma]

Perspective. It's very important, and I'd suggest acquiring some.

Given your rant at some simple hyperbole I'd suggest you check your pockets and notice I stole yours months ago.

Because we are dealing in absolutes, the argument of "nothing done wrong, nothing to fear" is a valid one, as it also deals in absolutes.

Except as was pointed out earlier to you there are cases of the Valve Anti-Cheating system being taken too far and banning people who were perfectly innocent. So your argument doesn't hold water. You can do nothing wrong and still lose your access.

Besides, **** it, cheating at a game should at most ban you from being able to play it online. You shouldn't lose the ability to play the game singleplayer without having to buy it again. Let alone any other game you bought from the same company. Can you imagine the outrage if Sony said that being caught with a copied mp3 of one of their songs would result in all your legitimately bought CDs stopping working? Why are people who would be outraged by that suddenly having no issue with similar behaviour from Steam?

[NGTM-1R]

Besides, **** it, cheating at a game should at most ban you from being able to play it online. You shouldn't lose the ability to play the game singleplayer without having to buy it again. Let alone any other game you bought from the same company.

Insofar as I know, this isn't true. I copped a ban for obscure reasons (I was accused of account sharing) back in the first days of HL2 but continued to be able to run stuff in the offline mode except for HL2. The incident did sour me on Steam for a few years, but what you are suggesting did not occur. And they were honestly quite apologetic and helpful. I probably could have gotten it reactivated, but I wasn't impressed with HL2 and didn't really care to.

There's no one else in this thread who has a ban for any reason. At all. Present some evidence. Pyscho just says there are "complaints" and we have no idea of legitimacy or who complained or whether the complaints even actually exist.

[Luis Dias]

What I see here is that most people don't really care being treated like garbage.

You're right. Fortunately there are those proud few of us who have the backbone to get cutthroat deals on a platform that saves enormous amounts of money, saves entire developers and cuts away most of the hassle of PC gaming.

So much win and no catch whatsoever. It's brueeilleant.