[Scotty]

Which was then replied to with how Steam and Valve have a track record where they don't screw over their customers.  MS and Sony have no such positive track records.

An analogy, if you will:

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.

[BlueFlames]

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.

Your analogy is deeply flawed.  What Valve is doing isn't equivilant to your friends asking to borrow your car for a single event.  It's more equivilant to asking for the open-ended right to use your car, whenever your friend wishes, without needing further permission, until such a time as your friend chooses to surrender that permission.  Oh, and if you want to rescind that authorization yourself, you have to sign the title to your car over to your friend.  If your not-reckless friend becomes reckless, after some measure of time (and let's face it, people and companies do change over time), it does not matter, as the agreement left you with no options but to let him continue using your car at his leisure or to outright surrender ownership of the vehicle.

Your analogy might fit, if Valve was updating the SSA to state that nobody could file or join a class-action because of the database hack that occurred many months back.  The problem is, that's not what they're doing.  They're plopping down a blanket ban on class-actions for any reason.

[BloodEagle]

Which was then replied to with how Steam and Valve have a track record where they don't screw over their customers.

You mean until now, right?  Because taking away someone's legal right to redress (is this even technically legal, btw?) in part or in whole is kind of a big middle finger, to me.

[Nuke]

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.

really depends on how they do it. if they make it so that for your monthly subscription fee you can check out any 10 or whatever games a month. you can select and swap any games in the library for any other games, dispensing with the need to buy games. i could see that actually working quite well. but if you have to pay a subscription on top of the games then they could go **** themselves.

i dont really want to point my finger at valve because they are actually doing things better than everyone else. and ive yet to find anything wrong with steam other than them assuming everyone has unlimited transfer (which seriously limits my usage of their service). im more against the practice of amending eula and tos agreements after a purchase, where the only options are 'submit', and 'get jacked'. if they can stick "oh by the way, you cant sue us" in the agreement, what keeps them from inserting something like "this agreement will expire in 2 minutes".

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[Nuke]

im not so much concerned about class actions than i am at the fact that they can shoehorn new clauses into our already agreed licenses at the drop of a hat.

but yea i can agree that class action lawsuits are a load of bs only intended to make lawyers rich and how they want to protect themselves from these moneygrubbers. that doesnt alarm me. the fact that they can change an existing license agreement on the other hand does.

[BlueFlames]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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.

And how is this less desirable than the hiring of legal counsel to engage in a class-action lawsuit, in which counsel will take a proportion of gross findings, and in which the individual is bound by the terms of the class-action regardless of the circumstances and merit of their particular case?  Class-action lawsuits arre almost universally bad deals for those parties egregiously harmed by the conduct of a defendant.

This form of arbitration is designed to build up barriers to act that would not be present in a class-action case.

Such as?

To file a class action, you pretty much require legal counsel.  You then file a claim, paying the required fee, which is at no point reimbursed.  You then have to have the lawyer sign people onto your lawsuit, requiring billable hours, which will be deducted from any finding in your favour.  The lawyer will then also want to settle rather than litigate, regardless of the merits of your case, as they make more money for less time and effort.  And because individual merits are diluted in a class action, any compelling case will always see a lesser damages award than it would when litigated individually.  The advantage to class-action suits lies only in circumstances when your opposition can out-lawyer you, so you spread out your legal costs across multiple parties.

To file arbitration, you file the claim with the service, and pay the fee which Valve then reimburses.  It is then your option whether or not to hire counsel, and you can continue before the arbitration board until a judgement is rendered as the only cost to you is time.  If your claim has merit, you don't even require legal counsel and there is much less of a barrier in appearing before an arbitrator as compared to a judge in a full legal context.

You really need to elaborate on why Valve forcing arbitration on themselves when they can afford talented legal representation is bad for consumers, who usually can't.  As far as I can tell, Valve has eliminated a process with large judicial and

Hidden Text: Show

financial barriers, and replaced it with a mandatory process that eliminates the need to spend large sums of money to settle a complaint.

[karajorma]

I honestly have no interest in the class action part of this, my objection is that Valve have proved that they can add whatever they like to their licence agreement and the customer just has to take it.

But let me ask you a question in return. 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?

[Klaustrophobia]

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.

[Ghostavo]

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.

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.

[Akalabeth Angel]

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.

Everything Valve has been doing in the past few years seems to be aiming for a monopoly across all platforms and that's alarming.

[Dragon]

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.

[Scotty]

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.  Even then, if you got Portal 2 on the console, it doesn't require Steam.

Incidentally, all of those games except Half-Life and Counter-Strike, to my knowledge, are also available on current-generation consoles like the X-Box 360.

[MatthTheGeek]

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.

I'm pretty sure the whole Half-life series require Steam to function.

[The E]

Well, HL1 and Counter-Strike didn't, initially anyway. They very definitely do now, though.

And regarding the console versions, the PS3 version of Portal 2 interacts with Steam; the only reason why they had to cut that from the XBox version is because MS didn't want a second store-like thing on their platform (Not that Steam on PS3 is a shop as such; it's mostly used for matchmaking and cross-game comms)

[MatthTheGeek]

Half-life 2 series*. I typed too fast.

[Scotty]

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.

[Akalabeth Angel]

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.

Speaking of Valve/Steam apologists, here's one now.
Valve games aren't on Origin, they're not on Gamer's Gate, they're not on GoG.com, they're not on Onlive, they're not available on any digital distributor I'm aware of except for steam.  And sure, EA games on Gamer's Gate probably require Origin, but you can still BUY them from gamer's gate. I can buy Mass Effect 3 right now for 40 dollars.

And speaking of Xbox, oh yes, the platform where Gabe complains they can't properly support their games, so, they don't support them at all. They complain they can't give away content for free, and then they don't charge minimum price. What a joke. Incidentally Gabe is complaining about XBL while at the same time pushing for Steam to be made available on Xbox. Do you think the guy maybe has some ulterior motive for saying what he's saying? And people eat this **** up.

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.

I'd prefer no monopoly at all.
I'd also prefer playing my PC games without need for a client.
I'd also prefer being able to sell or trade my games if I wanted to.

Digital distribution doesn't need a Walmart.

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.
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.

[Dragon]

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.
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.

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).

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. That's why it gets integrated into a lot of games, including non-Valve ones.