Valve changes Steam user agreement, finally creates some backlash against Steam

[A Black Falcon]

NOt that it'll get anywhere, of course. I mean, what choice do you have... but yeah, some of the stuff in the current agreement's really bad (and some of it's illegal, too, particularly in Europe). Basically, you don't actually own anything you "bought" on Steam. If they close your account (or if you close it), you lose all access to all of your games forever, with no recompense or return of your money. You need to log on to their servers to play anything, too, of course. And they do their best to try to convince Europeans that European law, which allows anyone to return a digital purchase for full refund within the first week of purchase, that they can't actually do it (they can).

So yeah, don't expect Steam to be doing anything to follow that European court decision that said that digital software must be able to be sold (you know, as a used game) anytime soon, that's for sure. Maybe if someone sues them?

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=485408

Overall, it's nice to see some real pushback against Valve, finally. It's been way too long, and they certainly deserve it... but the current trajectory of games changing from things you own, to things you rent from a content provider as long as they feel like allowing you to keep using it, continues unabated. That is a very, very bad thing, to say the least.

And on that note, Woz prefers to own things too. I'm sure "cloud is the best" people will call that outdated, but since when is having everything you own be actually only provisionally borrowed as long as companies want to allow you to keep using it the better way? It's not!
http://news.yahoo.com/apple-co-founder-w...22245.html

... In conclusion, use gog. :)

[Dark Jaguar]

Steam's a great service, but this is a step in the wrong direction if it's as you describe. (I still have no idea what problems you actually have with Steam, aside from this new development anyway.) Digital purchase user rights need to be more open, not more closed.

Here's the problem. They use words like "store" and "purchase". Every game someone buys they assume they BOUGHT because of that language. One thing courts need to recognize is that contract agreements that every single person skips need to stop being so binding. It's not a matter of laziness, it's that there's a billion of them. I think contracts need to be something only two living people, in person, can agree to. Anyway, if they want to go around saying you don't own it, they need to change the language of their "store" to "rental store" and "buy" to "lease". Then they're being honest about it.

I disagree Valve. I DO own the games I bought from you, and if you "revoke" a license for some reason, I'm going to THEN have to hack the protection out of it. I'd like to see you try and sue someone for THAT.

[Great Rumbler]

"Don't freak out if you read this, most terms of license and service are like this! ^_^"

So true.

[A Black Falcon]

Sure, but most games, MMOs and streaming services like Onlive excepted, don't require you to connect to an online server in order to play the games you supposedly "own" (but don't really, according to Valve, on Steam)

[Dark Jaguar]

Those "you don't actually own it" agreements are a problem though GR. Systemic adaptation of such clauses only establishes that it's a systemic issue, not that it's justified. I really only think that online components of games (all the services the company has to provide continually with their own servers) should be the only things requiring some basic understanding that the company is free to ban you from the server and that you don't "own" their servers. That's it. I honestly wonder about those precedent cases in the 1980's establishing that opening a box does not constitute "agreement" to a company's terms. Well, what is the difference between someone opening a box and finding a slip saying "by installing this you agree to blah blah blah" and putting a disc in the computer and installing only to be presented with an identical notice, only digitally. Either way, the whole "I thought I BOUGHT this" deception is complete. If someone buys a game, they should be able to alter it, back it up (PERSONAL backups), install it on any and all machines they themselves own, and OPERATE all those installs simultaneously if they so feel like it. A company has no obligation to provide their SUPPORT of that, and may block all but one instance of it from connecting to their servers, but they've got no business saying you are only allowed one "install" of the game you own. Yes, I'm debating issues that most people forgot they were mad about decades ago. Let's bring it all back to brass tacks.

ABF, once again I have to point out that you don't need to be online to PLAY the games (with some Ubisoft exceptions). You just need to log in, ONE time only, to validate that you own it. That's it. I consider this a perfectly valid compromise between that and any of the other much more horrid ways to establish ownership companies have, and are continuing to, experiment with. Heck any game bought on their online store is verified right then and there as you download, so it's a non-issue for those. Since the contents of a Steam install can be moved from one PC to another without issue, I don't personally consider it that great a cost. Yes, ideally they'd go with that "digital signature" system where every copy of a game, physical or online, would be traceable to a single owner and thus a single source of illegal sharing and eliminate this too, but really this is a minimal level of inconvenience comparable to putting in a key when you start the game for the first time. Heck you just bought a bunch of Steam games recently right?

[Great Rumbler]

Sure, but most games, MMOs and streaming services like Onlive excepted, don't require you to connect to an online server in order to play the games you supposedly "own" (but don't really, according to Valve, on Steam)

And neither does Steam. Offline mode and all that.

[A Black Falcon]

And neither does Steam. Offline mode and all that.

Provided that you've already downloaded the game, sure. But don't expect to ever access anything not already on your hard drive again, or to install it to any other computer in the future, or to re-download something if you have a hard drive problem or something, or to play it online, etc... those are huge, huge restrictions to say the least.

Those "you don't actually own it" agreements are a problem though GR. Systemic adaptation of such clauses only establishes that it's a systemic issue, not that it's justified. I really only think that online components of games (all the services the company has to provide continually with their own servers) should be the only things requiring some basic understanding that the company is free to ban you from the server and that you don't "own" their servers. That's it. I honestly wonder about those precedent cases in the 1980's establishing that opening a box does not constitute "agreement" to a company's terms. Well, what is the difference between someone opening a box and finding a slip saying "by installing this you agree to blah blah blah" and putting a disc in the computer and installing only to be presented with an identical notice, only digitally. Either way, the whole "I thought I BOUGHT this" deception is complete. If someone buys a game, they should be able to alter it, back it up (PERSONAL backups), install it on any and all machines they themselves own, and OPERATE all those installs simultaneously if they so feel like it. A company has no obligation to provide their SUPPORT of that, and may block all but one instance of it from connecting to their servers, but they've got no business saying you are only allowed one "install" of the game you own. Yes, I'm debating issues that most people forgot they were mad about decades ago. Let's bring it all back to brass tacks.

Yeah, the contents of those user agreements are not always legal, but companies are rarely called on it, unfortunately... it's hard for users to fight back against such things. And I think you're right, the legality of those agreements is in general a bit hazy, for just the reason you point out there.

[Great Rumbler]

Steam is incredibly convenient and very rarely causes me any stress. If that ever changes, then I'll start to give two seconds of thought to what's in the user agreement or to the incredibly remote possibility that Valve will delete my games.