We’re also introducing a new dispute resolution process that will benefit you and Valve. Recently, a number of companies have created similar provisions which have generated lots of discussion from customers and communities, and we’ve been following these discussions closely. On Steam, whenever a customer is unhappy with any transaction, our first goal is to resolve things as quickly as possible through the normal customer support process. However in those instances in which we can't resolve a dispute, we've outlined a new required process whereby we agree to use arbitration or small claims court to resolve the dispute. In the arbitration process, Valve will reimburse your costs of the arbitration for claims under a certain amount. Reimbursement by Valve is provided regardless of the arbitrator’s decision, provided that the arbitrator does not determine the claim to be frivolous or the costs unreasonable.
Most significant to the new dispute resolution terms is that customers may now only bring individual claims, not class action claims. We considered this change very carefully. It’s clear to us that in some situations, class actions have real benefits to customers. In far too many cases however, class actions don’t provide any real benefit to users and instead impose unnecessary expense and delay, and are often designed to benefit the class action lawyers who craft and litigate these claims. Class actions like these do not benefit us or our communities. We think this new dispute resolution process is faster and better for you and Valve while avoiding unnecessary costs, and that it will therefore benefit the community as a whole.
Beamer wrote on Aug 2, 2012, 19:03:
This does not circumvent criminal allegations. If Valve were to come in and kill your dog the state would still press charges.
2nd_floor wrote on Aug 2, 2012, 18:52:Actually its a 100 year old law that says valve can do what its doing. See post 79.
Why do we have the law in the first place if companies can do what Valve is doing.
2nd_floor wrote on Aug 2, 2012, 18:52:
If we can't take Valve to court over Steam, its fair to say they can't take us to court, haha.
The terms of service for my house, is that guests may not involve the police/law/courts in anything related in what happens in my house to them and their belongings.
Why do we have the law in the first place if companies can do what Valve is doing.
Creston wrote on Aug 1, 2012, 15:20:
However, I find this whole "Agree to the new license or we forbid you to use Steam any longer" thing to be similar to highway fucking robbery, and I'm a bit dubious that the legal argument holds. If I ever had a lawsuit versus Steam, and Valve says "yeah, but you agreed to the new EULA", and I make the argument that I was forced to submit to the new agreement under duress, what happens?
Because isn't that what they are doing? What kind of fucking choice do you have when they say "you either accept this new agreement, or we STOP YOU FROM USING EVERY ONE OF THE 200+ GAMES YOU'VE BOUGHT WITH US?" That's not a choice. That's called being coerced into something.
Creston
They don't really make many waves and when they do it tends to be either minor or very divisive stuff. Also ironically many of us got worked up about L4D2 and the media was right, it was great value and we were worried about nothing.
Beamer wrote on Aug 2, 2012, 11:02:
So unless there's a new engine it's an expansion pack?
Was Grand Theft Auto San Andreas an expansion pack to Vice City, which was an expansion pack to GTA3?
Bhruic wrote on Aug 2, 2012, 10:42:Beamer wrote on Aug 2, 2012, 09:58:
L4D2 felt absolutely like a new game to me. Playing 2 first, then going back to 1, was painful, as some of the features I'd become accustomed to weren't there.
Well, sure, and if I go back to playing original Sins of a Solar Empire without the DLC, it's painful as some of the features aren't there. Same with Civ IV without the addons. That doesn't mean they should have been new games.
L4D2 was effectively some new campaigns with a few new features. Fine and all, but a rip-off at full price (imo of course).
Beamer wrote on Aug 2, 2012, 09:58:
L4D2 felt absolutely like a new game to me. Playing 2 first, then going back to 1, was painful, as some of the features I'd become accustomed to weren't there.
Bhruic wrote on Aug 2, 2012, 09:45:
Well, I'd disagree fairly strongly. New characters are completely irrelevant, as your character doesn't matter in the game at all. But new game modes, new infected and new weapons (as well as more campaigns) were all what they promised they'd be delivering as DLC for the original L4D. Regardless of the "technical issues" that precluded that being done, making a new game with those features, and charging full price I still consider a pretty dick move.
Verno wrote on Aug 2, 2012, 09:32:
I was one of the people most vocal about the L4D2 release here but it was unfounded and I don't mind admitting I was totally off base. It had 4 original campaigns, new game modes, new characters, some new infected and weapons. The only thing I wanted in that didn't make it until afterward was the ability to play maps from the first game. I didn't get a paid DLC vibe at all and I consider it a bargain at $60 or $6.
Bhruic wrote on Aug 2, 2012, 09:05:
I wouldn't go that far. What Valve did right is very quickly have it go on sale. When you could pick it up a few months later for $5, it felt a lot less like a new game, and more like a paid DLC for the original.
Mr. Tact wrote on Aug 2, 2012, 07:54:Because we got lucky.
I don't know if you couldn't find comparison to my owning a book, or just didn't think or care to.
If you believe what you are saying, then can you explain why books couldn't, shouldn't, aren't marketed in the same way? (Let's ignore electronic books for the moment).
Verno wrote on Aug 2, 2012, 08:46:
Also ironically many of us got worked up about L4D2 and the media was right, it was great value and we were worried about nothing.
StingingVelvet wrote on Aug 1, 2012, 15:31:
It's a media thing too though, and a reaction thing. Yes RockPaperShotgun has a critical post today on this news but it's a million times softer than the one about EA. Yes people were pissy about Left 4 Dead 2 but most of the gaming media told them to shut up. PC Gamer even had an article on L4D2 where they told people to stop whining.
Scheherazade wrote on Aug 1, 2012, 12:44:You have stated this position clearly. However, I stand by my comment. I find this position to be lacking common sense on it's face. I don't know if you couldn't find comparison to my owning a book, or just didn't think or care to.
Actually, you paid ONLY for the license.
The game's DVD and packaging were FREE.
The DVD is just a medium to convey the licensed game to you, and it is 100% irrelevant.
The license is commonly a single user permission to use the game.
So long as you have a license, how you get the game or how you store it is irrelevant.
You have a right of access to the program.
NKD wrote on Aug 1, 2012, 14:06:Not legal here, so it really doesn't affect me at all. So really, it sucks for people that it does. Should they be able to though? Nope. It's a failure of law, because it hasn't caught up with technology.
So, aside from class actions which I think are pretty bullshit, how does everyone feel in general about terms of service changes when the company has hundreds or thousands of dollars of your digital licenses held at gunpoint?
Should they even be able to change it on you at that point?
Verno wrote on Aug 1, 2012, 14:52:I'm fine with that too. If they want to go that far, then I will go just as far and simply ignore any new games that come out. They will lose 100% of my business, and I'm fine with that because that makes me happy knowing I can simply cut them off from my business. I got tons of old games and retro console games that I haven't even played yet, so, I'm good. Yup.
With companies underpinning more and more online functionality into the games I really worry about even the reliability of the "warez" backup method.