With Steam having joined Sony and Microsoft (http://www.giantbomb.com/news/valve-joins-ea-sony-others-in-trying-to-block-class-action-lawsuits/4308/) in chipping away at consumer protections, I cannot, in good conscience, encourage others to adopt or become more heavily invested in the Steam platform. My coupon shall remain in my inventory, until its expiration.Then give it to somebody who is already heavily into Steam, but doesn't have Portal 2 yet. :) Regarding "my" coupon, it's really my father's call what to do with it, so unfortunately I can't decide.
Then give it to somebody who is already heavily into Steam, but doesn't have Portal 2 yet.
Also, why should I care about CA lawsuits anyway? It's not like they exist around here.
Valve wanted to protect themselves from CA lawsuits, and even gave a reasonable explanation why (in short, CA lawsuits in general only make profits for CA lawsuit lawyers).
[Valve] in addition, offered to cover all reasonable costs arising from lawsuits being brought by individuals.
If you seek $10,000 or less, Valve agrees to reimburse your filing fee and your share of the arbitration costs, including your share of arbitrator compensation, at the conclusion of the proceeding, unless the arbitrator determines your claims are frivolous or costs are unreasonable as determined by the arbitrator.
Maybe read the whole post before replying.
You have not articulated a reason why this is bad beyond vague fearmongering that, by your own admission, is essentially pointless in that Valve has never had and is unlikely to ever have this problem.
I wonder, is there anybody on HLP who is a lawyer? Considering how many different people come here, that wouldn't be so surprising.I think there at least was, not sure if he's still around, or if, indeed, my memory is even serving me right here..
You're protesting a company trying to protect itself from lawsuits, simply because it's trying to protect itself from lawsuits.
I wonder, is there anybody on HLP who is a lawyer? Considering how many different people come here, that wouldn't be so surprising.I think there at least was, not sure if he's still around, or if, indeed, my memory is even serving me right here.
This is not a thread to bash Steam. This is a thread to discuss what to do with the vouchers we got.
in the same list as Google in my book, that is, {I think} they are actually trying to do the right thing at this point.
I'm fine with them protecting themselves from lawsuits, as long as they're doing it by maintaining legal and ethical business practices, not demanding that their customers sign away more of their rights, every time they want to utilize the Steam platform to buy or play a game.
QuoteI'm fine with them protecting themselves from lawsuits, as long as they're doing it by maintaining legal and ethical business practices, not demanding that their customers sign away more of their rights, every time they want to utilize the Steam platform to buy or play a game.
See, here's where we disagree. In the german courts, a judge may decide to consolidate several related cases into one big one (provided all parties agree). As such, class action lawsuits in the american form simply do not exist, as it is assumed that the individual's right to redress will be negatively impacted by being reduced to one right among others. As such, and given that individual precedents carry weight, it is always the better choice to enter into a separate lawsuit.
Also, at least in my case, my version of the steam end user agreement includes language specifically allowing me to empower a local, state or federal agency to file lawsuits on my behalf. That, around here, is far more credible than any class action lawsuit could ever be.
So you disagree with him because... you have more legal protections in your country than his and... you don't want him to get similar legal protections?
I hereby request that the title be changed to something a little less troll-worthy (Seriously, wtf mod(s).)
So am I reading this right, this whole stink is over Steam putting some language in their terms of use (That thing few people ever read before clicking OK) that would block certain class action lawsuits? Given how sue happy people are and the sheer number of lawyers in this country with nothing better to do that is hardly surprising.
As such, and given that individual precedents carry weight, it is always the better choice to enter into a separate lawsuit.
Collective redress mechanisms do not produce disproportionate costs for consumers but may be very costly for representatives. Whilst court fees are not normally disproportionate, and degressive fee systems usually work in favour of collective claims, lawyers’ fees can be very high in Member States where they are freely negotiable, so that mass litigation on small claims is too expensive. Also, the internal costs for the collection of claims, the management of the file etc. can be high, and indeed a barrier to take action, where this is in the responsibility of the representative.
...
Collective redress mechanisms have an added value to consumers’ access to justice in all Member States where they exist, even in those where individual litigation and ADR is easily accessible. The added value of different collective mechanisms depends to a significant degree on the type of claim. Collective representative actions and/or opt-out group actions seem to be most useful where substantive law does not provide for individual claims, or such claims are difficult to prove, or the value of the individual claims is too low to motivate consumers to participate, as is the case in large-scale low- or very low-value claims. Opt-in group actions and traditional representative actions seem to be mainly viable above a certain threshold amount of the individual claim, but are then suitable mechanisms to lower litigation costs for consumers and to reduce financial and psychological barriers to taking action. Importantly, the use of collective redress mechanisms seems to attract much higher media coverage than individual litigation and ADR; which is an incentive to out-of-court settlement and also produces a preventive effect.
"Steam is evil because they forbid CA lawsuits"
While I'm far more familiar with criminal/regulatory law than civil suits, I read over the changes and I can't really see how this EULA amendment hurts consumers. Valve is offering to pay some of the arbitration costs, which they don't have to do, while trying to quit with the whole class-action tort BS that has really run amok in the US (not so much in Canada/Europe).
I think copyright/EULA law needs to evolve so companies can't force you into accepting new contract terms through the threat of denial of already purchased content, but that's more an issue around EULAs in general that the courts should be addressing. Until that's done, I'm not going to fault anyone for using a fairly standard business practice.
In short - this legalese reader isn't seeing a major problem here. The forced binding arbitration is actually good for consumers, because it means that proceedings don't devolve to a battle of who can afford the best lawyer. Arbitrators are much better at this sort of resolution (particularly for small claims, which frankly, I can't understand how anyone could make a case against valve that would be beyond small claims) than are judges.
You have two friends. One of them is reckless and irresponsible with his property, and yours if he gets his hands on it. The other is polite and takes care of things in his possession. If either of them asks to borrow your car for a personal matter (grandma died, sister getting married, doesn't matter), would you let the reckless and irresponsible one use it? Probably not, if you value your car. Would you let the careful one use it? I certainly would. Does that mean an accident can't happen? No, it's still possible, but if you gauged your every decision by what's possible you'd never leave your bed in the morning.
Which was then replied to with how Steam and Valve have a track record where they don't screw over their customers.
Thank you karajorma
Valve has shown it has no qualms in taking away the games youve payed for, what if one day in the future steam becomes subscription and they give you the option of subscribe or we will deny you your games.
I'd love to hear WHY exactly you bunch think eliminating class action lawsuit options and forcing binding arbitration, which they pay for, is a bad thing for consumers.
Because I went to the arbitration organization's website that Valve pointed to in their SSA, read the rules of arbitration, and what they outline is not very different at all from courtroom litigation. In fact, within said rules, they advise the hiring of legal counsel by both sides of arbitration, which is going to be, by far and away, more expensive than the fees that Valve has offered to pick up (after-the-fact) on behalf of opposing claimants.
This form of arbitration is designed to build up barriers to act that would not be present in a class-action case.
Forcing binding arbitration in a contractual agreement (EULA) isn't taking away legal rights to redress. If anything, it works against anyone in Valve's position as it prevents a lawyer battle which they would ultimately be very likely to win (given that average consumers can't afford the same legal counsel that a corporation like Valve could). Instead, they're putting everyone's fate in the hands of an arbitrator.
I'd love to hear WHY exactly you bunch think eliminating class action lawsuit options and forcing binding arbitration, which they pay for, is a bad thing for consumers. Class action lawsuits are a really poor method for seeking legal redress - the phrase "the only winners are the lawyers" is quite apt when applied to torts.
So far I see a lot of teeth-gnashing about this being amended into the EULA but not why it's bad. If you think its rotten to force a change on consumers in an EULA when they have no option is crap, then fine, that I agree with, but that doesn't preclude a discussion of the change itself.
I simply find it amusing that Valve is allowed to get away with doing stuff that people would scream blue murder about, if it were say, MS doing it.
I simply find it amusing that Valve is allowed to get away with doing stuff that people would scream blue murder about, if it were say, MS doing it.
I find it less amusing than sad. The amount of valve apologists and people with double standards out there is alarming. Like people complaining about EA games not being on Steam, when Valve games are not on anything BUT steam. Or if they are, they require steam.
Half-Life, Counter-Strike, Half-Life 2, Half-Life 2 Episode 1, Half-Life 2 Episode 2, Left 4 Dead, Left 4 Dead 2, Portal, and Team Fortress 2 are all available off of Steam. Portal 2 is the only one I can think of off-hand that actually requires Steam to function.Wut.
Which is still incorrect if you're considering the presence of HL2 and episodes on the X-Box 360. Granted, it's a technicality, to be sure, but it still doesn't require steam in that instance.
It might be alarming, but it's also logical on their part. A monopoly would be really beneficial to them, considering the profits it'd grant them. They're so popular and have so good reputation that aiming for a monopoly over the market is a very logical step. And TBH, I'd prefer Steam having a monopoly than, say, Origin. That's just business, regardless of who's doing it. If any of you were a competent Valve CEO, I guess you'd be doing just the same.
Regarding Steam and Origin-only games: People are used to everything noteworthy (and reasonably recent) being on Steam. Origin doesn't have such a reputation. So, if a big title isn't on Steam, people complain about it. Maybe there's a group of people who complain about Valve games not being on Origin, but it's just too small. Ah, and I don't think most people are bothered by games requiring external applications in general.
People aren't bothered by it because they've become complacent and fooled into thinking that what's best for Valve is the same as what's best for them.I don't really care for people who really think that there are things that are good for both the seller and the buyer. Compromise is the entire point of any trade that involves money. Valve just does what is best for them, and by that I mean offering good enough deals that people want to buy from them. If you think there's a game which costs as much (or less) than you're willing to pay for it, then you buy it. Also, by trying to monopolized the market, Valve also is doing what's best for them (though I agree they could use some competition, monopoly is never a good thing).
A game going on sale isn't a benefit if you don't play it. It's not a benefit if you didn't want it in the first place. A sale is only beneficial if you enjoy the game to the extent that the discount is to your advantage. I suspect a lot of people who point to Steam sales as a "selling point" simply buy games and never or barely play them.
People aren't bothered by it because they've become complacent and fooled into thinking that what's best for Valve is the same as what's best for them.I don't really care for people who really think that there are things that are good for both the seller and the buyer. Compromise is the entire point of any trade that involves money. Valve just does what is best for them, and by that I mean offering good enough deals that people want to buy from them. If you think there's a game which costs as much (or less) than you're willing to pay for it, then you buy it.
A game going on sale isn't a benefit if you don't play it. It's not a benefit if you didn't want it in the first place. A sale is only beneficial if you enjoy the game to the extent that the discount is to your advantage. I suspect a lot of people who point to Steam sales as a "selling point" simply buy games and never or barely play them.
The reason why Steam is required for a lot of games is that it also offers a truckload of multiplayer features. It's something of a gaming Facebook, coupled with a decent anti cheat system. I don't really care about multiplayer (I think gaming world would be better without it, in fact), but for a lot of people it's the most important part of a game.
I'd also prefer being able to sell or trade my games if I wanted to.
I'd prefer no monopoly at all.
I'd also prefer playing my PC games without need for a client.
Steam games can be modded. Check ArmA community, which wouldn't use Steam at all if modding was impossible. Portal can be modded, Half-Life (entire series) can be modded, if FS was on steam it also could be freely modded.QuoteThe reason why Steam is required for a lot of games is that it also offers a truckload of multiplayer features. It's something of a gaming Facebook, coupled with a decent anti cheat system. I don't really care about multiplayer (I think gaming world would be better without it, in fact), but for a lot of people it's the most important part of a game.
A lot of those systems I suspect are also a form of control. Matchmaking used to be about finding servers to play on, now a lot of software simply does it for you. Can games on Steam be modded? If Freespace 2 was on steam would we be able to play Blue Planet, Inferno, Derelict, etcetera? I don't honestly know for sure as I've not touched steam for a long time and the only games I've had on steam were either store-bought games, older games (PoP), or a few cheaper small-studio titles (Terraria).
Therefore, I find it unsurprising that games cost differently in different countries, it's another example of reasonable business practice (now that I think of it, maybe there's a way to exploit it, provided they aren't selling localized versions of their games).
"Arbitrary BS" is another word for "Adjusting pricing to the market". The same thing will be more expensive in countries with a stronger currency. Digital distribution would be an exception to that if it wasn't business (GoG doesn't do that, because it only took dollars last time I checked). Few would be able to afford American prices in countries like Poland, and the pricing is adjusted to maximize profits. It can't be too high, because people will not buy, and it can't be too low. Finding a midpoint where the profits are maximum is a science in itself.Therefore, I find it unsurprising that games cost differently in different countries, it's another example of reasonable business practice (now that I think of it, maybe there's a way to exploit it, provided they aren't selling localized versions of their games).
It's a digital distributor, there's no reason it should have different costs unless the government of said country is taking a cut and inflating the price. Anything else is just arbitrary BS.
The point is that Steam has varying prices for some games, whereas some other distributors do not. GoG.com has one set price worldwide for example. To the perspective of the western market (who typically gets the preferred price), the thought is "who cares" but if you're in one of those countries getting shafted I'd be sure to check out the alternatives to Steam.
If this favours the customer so much, why has Valve done it? What's in it for them? And exactly what class action suits were they expecting in order to introduce this?
valve isn't forcing themselves into arbitration. i assume you had that option before this change. all they are doing is removing the class-action option. and regardless of which one is better for the consumer in any particular case, denying the option CAN'T be a good thing. it MIGHT not be a bad thing, but if there is ONE instance where a class-action would have been appropriate and beneficial that is now forbidden, that's one too many, when absolutely nothing was gained on the other end. ok, they agreed to pay the arbitration fee. i have no idea how that works, but i do know that in pretty much every lawsuit ever, the settlement/ruling includes the legal fees of the winner (imo, as it should be). so that's also nothing lost by valve.
honestly i don't think any of this means much, because if it ever DOES come up, i expect there will be a lawsuit about what valve did even being legal. which if there's any amount of actual justice left in the legal system, it won't be. hell, you even can still file a class-action suit. valve can't physically stop you. what they will do is point to the clause in their defense, at which point the judge might very well not give a flying **** that valve tried to take that right away and proceed.
Forcing binding arbitration IS taking away legal rights. In the most extreme cases you end up with people having to fight for years to be heard in courts. If you find court systems to be stacked in favor of the corporations, forced arbitration with them is the equivalent of resigning. Who do you think pays the arbiters and who do you think makes more repeat business with them, you or the corporation?
The fact is that when Sony did almost the exact same thing, people threw a fit, but now that it's their darling Valve, people will take it up the arse and ask for more.
And the choice of the arbitration firm is irrelevant; they have to be impartial or no one will use them and their decisions could be subject to an eventual legal challenge.
Dragon, you could use some sort of proxy setup to make Steam think you're from a different country, but they've prohibited that in their terms of service and your account could get banned if you do that.How would they know if I'm not, for instance, using a laptop on a vacation trip? Checking ToS for this might be a good idea before attempting such maneuver.
And the choice of the arbitration firm is irrelevant; they have to be impartial or no one will use them and their decisions could be subject to an eventual legal challenge.
This is exactly what I disagree with you, because they will be biased towards the corporations is exactly why they will be used. The fact that their decisions might be overturned on an eventual legal challenge (which might take years as I said before) is of no satisfaction. You are simply creating obstacles for people that want to pursue conventional legal channels.
Actually, arbitration requires both parties to consent, either through agreement or contract. So yeah, Valve is forcing everyone, themselves included, into arbitration to settle claims.
Actually, arbitration requires both parties to consent, either through agreement or contract. So yeah, Valve is forcing everyone, themselves included, into arbitration to settle claims.
requires both parties to consent
Valve is forcing everyone into arbitration
Actually, arbitration requires both parties to consent, either through agreement or contract. So yeah, Valve is forcing everyone, themselves included, into arbitration to settle claims.Quoterequires both parties to consentQuoteValve is forcing everyone into arbitration
does not compute.
You're being "forced to consent" to the Steam EULA or you lose access to all of your games. That's apparently what happened to someone who disagreed. (Though, a quick search failed to confirm that. Maybe I'll try it myself and see what happens :D You might just get locked out of the store, which is what should happen)
And the choice of the arbitration firm is irrelevant; they have to be impartial or no one will use them and their decisions could be subject to an eventual legal challenge.
This is exactly what I disagree with you, because they will be biased towards the corporations is exactly why they will be used. The fact that their decisions might be overturned on an eventual legal challenge (which might take years as I said before) is of no satisfaction. You are simply creating obstacles for people that want to pursue conventional legal channels.
I'm betting the steam EULA, like every other one in existence, contains the clause "we reserve the right to change these terms and conditions, without notice" which technically would cover the forced change. that doesn't stand up ethically, and hopefully would be struck down by a judge if it came up. and yes, you still can file a class-action suit against valve. they can't stop you from doing it. what they will do is point to their clause in the legal proceedings, and hopefully the judge laughs in their face and strikes that clause down as illegal.Then I don't see what's the problem. If this clause is unenforceable, then why worry about it? They want to prevent class-action lawsuits, but since they can't really do it, then what's the problem?
Supreme court allowing corporations to essentially ban lawsuits against themselves is about the stupidest way this decision could go.
Now that's unexpected. Supreme court allowing corporations to essentially ban lawsuits against themselves is about the stupidest way this decision could go. Isn't there anything in the constitution against such things? Also, this still doesn't prohibit such a lawsuit from being filled in Europe (or Canada, for that matter).
Supreme court allowing corporations to essentially ban lawsuits
Valve has done something much similar to stopping people from ****ing themselves over by filing a silly CA lawsuit where the lawyers get most of the money anyway.
Supreme court allowing corporations to essentially ban lawsuits
You seem to not understand what Valve has done. They've banned Class-action lawsuits. That is not the only kind of lawsuit. Nor is it the most effective kind of lawsuit. If anything, it's the least effective kind of lawsuit.
We've updated the Microsoft Services Agreement, which governs many of our online services - including your Microsoft account and many of our online products and services for consumers, such as Hotmail, SkyDrive, Bing, MSN, Office.com, Windows Live Messenger, Windows Photo Gallery, Windows Movie Maker, Windows Mail Desktop, and Windows Writer. Please read over the new Microsoft Services Agreement here to familiarize yourself with the changes we've made.
The updated agreement will take effect on October 19, 2012. If you continue to use our services after October 19th, you agree to the terms of the new agreement or, of course you can cancel your service at any time.
We have modified the agreement to make it easier to read and understand, including using a question and answer format that we believe makes the terms much clearer. We also clarified how Microsoft uses your content to better protect consumers and improve our products, including aligning our usage to the way we're designing our cloud services to be highly integrated across many Microsoft products. We realize you may have personal conversations and store personal files using our products, and we want you to know that we prioritize your privacy.
Finally, we have added a binding arbitration clause and class action waiver that affects how disputes with Microsoft will be resolved in the United States.
Thank you for using Microsoft products and services!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just what would the repercussions be if one decided to break contract and participate in a class action lawsuit?
Just what would the repercussions be if one decided to break contract and participate in a class action lawsuit?
Depends on if you win.
...unless perhaps if the case is specifically brought up as a class action suit against the unfair addition of an anti-CSA clause?
By which I hope you mean depends on if the judge reads the subscriber agreement, notes the binding arbitration clause, and doesn't toss your class-action filing in the shredder as non-valid, which is the most likely outcome in North America.