Overwritten.net
Games => General Gaming => Topic started by: MysterD on Tuesday, July 31, 2012, 07:04:34 PM
-
NEWS:
Steam's SSA & Privacy Policy has been changed to try to stop class-action lawsuits -- info on update here. (http://store.steampowered.com/news/8523/?snr=1_550_552&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)
INFO LINKS:
Steam's SSA. (http://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/)
Steam's Privacy Policy. (http://store.steampowered.com/privacy_agreement/)
-
We’re also introducing a new dispute resolution process that will benefit you and Valve.
Pretty sure thats more one-sided than they make it seem.
EDIT And its funny that EA was slammed for doing this first, when we knew pretty much everyone would once that court ruling came down. I bet Valve wont see that kind of backlash.
-
Some people on Steam forums are pissed. (http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2848908)
EDIT:
ArsTechnica (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/07/valve-to-steam-users-no-class-action-suits/) and Kotaku (http://kotaku.com/5930705/now-valve-is-trying-to-stop-people-suing-them-too?utm_campaign=socialflow_kotaku_twitter&utm_source=kotaku_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow) are already all over this.
EDIT 2:
And Bluesnews (http://www.bluesnews.com/cgi-bin/board.pl?action=viewthread&boardid=1&threadid=134150), too.
-
Best quote from that steam thread:
I'm not a selfish baby either, dear. I'm an accountant well versed in business law.
:-\
-
So, basically "people can legally gang up on us."
-
Can you still log in and play games if you decline? Not a huge fan of already purchased product being unusable until the matter is cleared.
That's an interesting question. I really don't care, and hit the "agree" button faster than sheeple, because the alternative for me is not worth it.
I know that these changes are for the Steam platform, but I bought these games before the changes in TOS. What if I don't agree with the new ones? Why should I lose my games?
-
These "you can't sue us" or "you can't sue us in a class-action lawsuit" EULAs are going to start getting thrown out. One of the main reasons for suing in a court-of-law is to get the court's assistance in dispute resolution. There is no way the courts, long-term, are going to say it is okay to not let people do that.
-
^^ This. Courts are extremely hesitant to uphold these types of contracts in contracts because they are notoriously one-sided.
-
Well, three things are required to make any contract valid:
- An offer by one person
- Acceptance by another person
- A mutual exchange of value between the parties.
If it at least legally maintains all three variables it may hold up. The operative term here is "mutual," so if a contract is clearly one-side it could be nullified. As Shock said, a court may consider that likelihood.
-
Yeah Pug, if you disagree the Steam client closes. When you relaunch it, it asks you again. So the only way to disagree is to stop using Steam and all the games attached to your account. Its a really nice "choice" they give you, huh?
Some people were joking that they should disagree and then form a class action suit against Valve for stealing their games.
So here's something I didn't know Steam could do. I have it in offline mode and when I wake up this morning there is a window:
(http://i.imgur.com/ruq8i.png)
Somehow my "offline" Steam downloaded an update for itself. I just clicked restart to see and, even though its still launching in offline mode the SSA window pops up and wants me to agree (even though it doesn't actually display the SSA text since...you know, I'm offline).
-
So...how about this?
(http://i.imgur.com/wRV3O.png)
Well yeah, I suppose I do agree that Steam is in offline mode and to go online I would have to connect to the internet and restart Steam. Wow, these are some pretty easy terms to agree to!
-
Haha that's best terms screen evaaar! ;D
I agree! A thousand times, I agree!
-
Some people were joking that they should disagree and then form a class action suit against Valve for stealing their games.
Hmmm....
Valve getting hit with a class-action lawsuit, for trying to prevent class-action lawsuits...
Wouldn't that be ironic? :o
-
Forbes on this whole ordeal. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/07/31/valve-updates-steam-subscriber-agreement-with-new-dispute-resolution-process-limits-class-actions/)
While it’s still true that Valve can be sued (in small claims court) it turns out the company does have the ability to limit class actions under the Federal Arbitration Act. Steve Flaeck explains:
“The Federal Arbitration Act entitles a company to preclude class action and the provision is completely enforceable. This is the precise outcome of AT&T Mobility v. Conception; the reality is that the FAA essentially allows all claims, including Civil Rights Act claims in the 5th Circuit, to be routed through binding arbitration on whatever terms specified in the contract.
As steadily reinterpreted by the Court, the FAA enables the creation of private legal systems enforced by the public one. It must be repealed.”
-
These "you can't sue us" or "you can't sue us in a class-action lawsuit" EULAs are going to start getting thrown out. One of the main reasons for suing in a court-of-law is to get the court's assistance in dispute resolution. There is no way the courts, long-term, are going to say it is okay to not let people do that.
MyD's post at the bottom goes over that a bit, but in contract law here, you can have "no-lawsuit" clauses in your contracts and they can be upheld. But, as far as I understand it (totally not a lawyer...obviously), you have to ofter a viable and non-biased alternative dispute resolution roadmap - mediation, non-binding arbitration, binding arbitration. Realistically, I'm sure you COULD still find a reason to go around that and go to court, but the real limitation would be the financial roadblocks to doing so, so you'd have to be pretty hard done by. Plus, (here, again - our legal system is a lot less litigious) chances are you'd only really be doing so to declare a contract null and void. Damages would probably be a whole different boat and I have no idea how a class action would fit in.
Well, three things are required to make any contract valid:
- An offer by one person
- Acceptance by another person
- A mutual exchange of value between the parties.
If it at least legally maintains all three variables it may hold up. The operative term here is "mutual," so if a contract is clearly one-side it could be nullified. As Shock said, a court may consider that likelihood.
The third point is termed consideration and it's really fucked and complicated. You could literally give someone a penny and they could give it back to you and it would stand. Picking up a lunch bill counts. Sending Valve money and them sending you access to a game would probably count as consideration. It's weird as hell.
-
You know what, this is total bullshit. I fired up DX:HR today and was hit with the new terms of service. I thought to myself, "You know what? I do not agree with these bullshit terms! Fuck you, Valve. Disagree." And then Steam closed and my game didn't launch. I tried again with the same behavior.
What really pisses me off about this is the fact that I own a physical copy of the game. It wasn't even purchased through Steam.
I sent them a support request. We'll see how that turns out. I'm sure it will go nowhere and they will tell me too bad.
-
Good luck, you're going to need it.
I haven't clicked accept in mine either. I doubt it would matter to a lawyer but I'd love to click accept in my last screenshot and have that count in my favor.
-
I'm trying to figure this out: can Valve really lock me out of my game legally?
That's crazy if so. I have no qualms about not using Steam anymore because I don't agree to their new terms, but I should be able to play DX:HR since I didn't buy it through there. If the publisher is using Steam as DRM, whatever, but I should still be able to play regardless of whether or not I accept Valve's terms for their Steam service.
I did see some information today that said Valve did concede on one point: they will pay for your arbitration whether you win or lose (as long as the claim is not determined to be frivolous). That's a step in the right direction.
-
Man, Valve and Steam are truly evil. I was just reading the new EULA for Steam (still haven't agreed to it) and in there it says you can cancel your account at any time but that basically you forfeit not only any of the games you purchased through Steam but also retail games that have been activated through that Steam account. Once you cancel your account, your retail game key is basically completely useless and you'd have to buy another copy to play it again.
It also says they can change their terms any time and they are effective 30 days after you receive notice and you are bound to the new terms unless you stop using the service or cancel your account before that 30 days are up.
What amazing bullshit.
-
This is what happens when we give up control. And gamers as a collective have been doing so for a while now, and continue to do so.
-
This is what happens when we give up control. And gamers as a collective have been doing so for a while now, and continue to do so.
I've been trying to post something along these lines in this thread, only to give up in frustration when it comes off sounding like the same old arguments that got us raspberries from the faithful. Yes you're right, as am I. But no one is going to want to hear it.
-
Lets get it started then. What do you mean by "the faithful"?
-
When we collectively (or at least the majority) relinquish our control what else can we expect? We vote with our dollars.
I, for one, have come across this challenge on numerous occasions; in my case the most notable example being Ubisoft. It almost always boils down to the question of how badly do I want to play this game vs. how crappy Ubisoft has treated me as a PC gamer. It doesn't help that one arm of Ubisoft is fantastic (Ubisoft Montréal and Paris) and the other is utter shite (Ubisoft Shanghai and Ubisoft Kiev), I'm torn between wanting to support the studios I like and wanting to reprimand the publisher for the crap that comes out of the other studios.
Valve seizing control of my game library is unnerving. I've only been fortunate in so far that these terms and conditions are rarely relevant to me, for the most part. With regards to the prevention of Class-Action lawsuits, it's irrelevant to me since I'm not planning on it nor could I, I don't currently reside in the United States or continental North America for that matter. The best I can do is make suggestions and occasionally complain about the regional support and restrictions (which are usually third-party problems and not a Steam issue per se).
The problem circles back to an issue we've often discussed: balancing security with liberty. Microsoft, Apple, Sony, Google, we've critiqued them on their choices with these regards as well. It's a worrying matter especially when you have a lot of content at stake. You're forced to make a decision whether you're bound to them or cut and run. It's particularly frustrating when you had no direct intention of dealing with their service, for example Scott's retail purchases that are Steamworks titles.
-
Hey scott, dunno if you got a response yet but someone on Reddit asked something similar:
(http://i.imgur.com/YM7Hq.png)
-
WTF? They didn't even answer his question.
-
Lets get it started then. What do you mean by "the faithful"?
That's my point, right there. Peace out.
-
WTF? They didn't even answer his question.
Yes they did Pug. "Submit or be fucked" is my read on their answer.
-
I'm betting if Valve wanted to avoid any class-action lawsuits (as their SSA EULA states), they might've just caused a lot gamers to change their minds...and want to sue them, anyways. I'm sure some gamers are going to lawyer-up and are going to want to challenge this matter.
When we collectively (or at least the majority) relinquish our control what else can we expect? We vote with our dollars.
I, for one, have come across this challenge on numerous occasions; in my case the most notable example being Ubisoft. It almost always boils down to the question of how badly do I want to play this game vs. how crappy Ubisoft has treated me as a PC gamer. It doesn't help that one arm of Ubisoft is fantastic (Ubisoft Montréal and Paris) and the other is utter shite (Ubisoft Shanghai and Ubisoft Kiev), I'm torn between wanting to support the studios I like and wanting to reprimand the publisher for the crap that comes out of the other studios.
Oh, I agree w/ this - I actually bought AC2 (PC) when it was Online Always DRM [for $15, mind you]. I'm glad they patched the DRM down a bit, though. I'm afraid more games are going to go "Always online DRM" and eventually that the "Cloud" will take over as a requirement for Storage. Once the "Cloud" takes over as a requirement, forget it - we'll feel like we do, when watching cable - the companies really have the say of when we can watch our stuff, since it'll all depend on two things: whether our connection's working properly AND if their connection's working properly.
But, still - I've always felt that if I buy a game, the SP portion should be mine: PERIOD. I still feel DRM should be patched-out - especially for SP portions - once the game gets VERY old; and is no longer getting official support.
The problem circles back to an issue we've often discussed: balancing security with liberty. Microsoft, Apple, Sony, Google, we've critiqued them on their choices with these regards as well. It's a worrying matter especially when you have a lot of content at stake. You're forced to make a decision whether you're bound to them or cut and run. It's particularly frustrating when you had no direct intention of dealing with their service, for example Scott's retail purchases that are Steamworks titles.
I guess I'm addicted to my games and love them probably way too much -- I agreed to the new SSA, even while not caring for the terms and while thinking the terms are pretty terrible.
And while I'm at it - thank God for other services selling some DRM-FREE games & not requiring their client for play (i.e. GOG).
-
That's my point, right there. Peace out.
Okayy.... this thread was going fine till you trolled your way in here. Nice one!
-
hahaha that's true. Cobra did troll his way out. What a trolling cobra. ;D I laughed out loud at Pyro's comments.
Anyway, I think it looks like an automated response that doesn't quite fit with the question. That's still the official answer they gave so that's that.
D has a good point. This whole attempt by Valve at making themselves sue-proof could be counter productive.
-
I'm trying to figure this out: can Valve really lock me out of my game legally?
That's crazy if so.
I'm betting if people lawyer-up, this is going to one of the many numerous reasons for people suing Valve.
I have no qualms about not using Steam anymore because I don't agree to their new terms, but I should be able to play DX:HR since I didn't buy it through there. If the publisher is using Steam as DRM, whatever, but I should still be able to play regardless of whether or not I accept Valve's terms for their Steam service.
Oh, I agree w/ you 100%. I especially feel that way about SP-based portions of games - that I should (eventually) be able to play them on my own without any DRM surrounding it - once the game is old; the game is often cheap; and no longer gets official support
Problem is, Steam acts like a service here - when buying a Steam-required game at retail, you are basically agreeing to their SSA and their terms. You have to tolerate their DRM; you have to run their program in the background for most games; you will have to keep your OS, your game, and the Steam client up-to-date; and etc etc. Whether specific EULA's (which is basically what you are agreeing to) like SSA are even fully enforceable by USA Law here, that could also be another matter entirely. Most EULA's...well, they're often pretty ridiculous, anyways.
We could also get back into the discussion of - "Is buying a Steam-required game a rental or purchasing a game to keep forever?" I've been saying for years, that back when HL2 forced Steam on us as a requirement, it's more or less a rental; even more so true if Steam goes out of business and they do not pull their DRM out. In general, most kinds of DRM often makes games feel like rentals, anyways...especially when there's online activation involve -- i.e. see troubles people had w/ activating Risen 1 online recently and Amazon DVG will still selling game, so Deep Silver pulled the DRM; see troubles of gamers activating X3: Terran Conflict during a Steam XMas sale a few years back, before extra Tages DRM got removed).
Another matter is - so many PC games these days, they just flat-out require Steam. So, you often have little choice - either buy the game or don't. Hence why I try to buy so many games so cheaply. ;)
I did see some information today that said Valve did concede on one point: they will pay for your arbitration whether you win or lose (as long as the claim is not determined to be frivolous). That's a step in the right direction.
Agreed.
Yes they did Pug. "Submit or be fucked" is my read on their answer.
That's also how I read it.
This could be the tipping point, for some gamers to finally turn against Steam - to flat-out sue Steam; and/or stop using their products; and/or maybe even (gasp!) pirate their products.
-
Okayy.... this thread was going fine till you trolled your way in here. Nice one!
Keep bolstering my standpoint, Pyro. Couldn't have worked better if we planned it in advance. :)
-
So you bait and dodge instead of discussion. Again, nice one.
-
So to get it on track, the "faithful" would be people that will explain away any shortcoming of a company because they like it so much. See also: Apple faithful. See also: Fanboys.
Kind of funny where we've gone. Fanboys used to be limited to games or platforms, arguing over why Q3 is better than UT or why the SNES had better games than Genesis. Now they argue over...business practices? Legal documents and rulings?
-
Right I was just confused, even more so by Cobra's responses.
There was really nothing in the thread I disagreed with or called on anything that looked debatable. Que made a comment about how we are succumbing to too much leniency for these industry giants. We all own Steam games, lots of them and its no secret. I didn't want to add anything except for the fact that I couldn't tell if Cobra was insinuating OW community members taking issue or elsewhere. I asked him to elaborate and he got defensive and dodgy, I called him a troll because well... he seemed pretty happy at prodding me. And it hurt my feelings. There, I said it.
-
We all own Steam games
Pretty sure Valve has made it clear now that this is not the case. :P
-
Pretty sure Valve has made it clear now that this is not the case. :P
Certain games that have Source Ports, you can run w/out Steam by using a Source Port... ;)
Many of the OLD Id games fall under this category.
Div II: DKS, Borderlands 1, and most G4WL games - you can run these by doing the "boot from game folder w/ Steam closed" trick or "create shortcut of EXE from game folder and run that shortcut" trick.
-
I tried to stay out of it, snuck in to make a short oblique comment in response to Que's short post, and ended up getting called a troll anyway, just as if I had flown off the handle against holy Steam and the Valve saints once again. That's what I find so ironic. That's why I'm laughing. There's no way to even briefly allude to the absolute, inevitably corrupting power of Steam without getting pelted, anywhere, not even here, where I've been for years.
-
I tried to stay out of it, snuck in to make a short oblique comment in response to Que's short post, and ended up getting called a troll anyway, just as if I had flown off the handle against holy Steam and the Valve saints once again. That's what I find so ironic. That's why I'm laughing. There's no way to even briefly allude to the absolute, inevitably corrupting power of Steam without getting pelted, anywhere, not even here, where I've been for years.
You think Sony, Microsoft, or many of the others on the consoles are any better?
Just want until you get nasty account-binding DRM become the norm on your consoles and used games just don't exist on consoles anymore... ;)
Of course, when that day comes, I think people will lawyer-up against Sony and Microsoft, as well...
I'm waiting for the day "Cloud" becomes a requirement. Maybe a Zombie Apocalypse will happen first. ;)
-
You think Sony, Microsoft, or many of the others on the consoles are any better?
Just want until you get nasty account-binding DRM become the norm on your consoles and used games just don't exist on consoles anymore... ;)
Of course, when that day comes, I think people will lawyer-up against Sony and Microsoft, as well...
I'm waiting for the day "Cloud" becomes a requirement. Maybe a Zombie Apocalypse will happen first. ;)
D, if that happens, the console that I get next gen (if any) will depend on who doesn't follow that path. Right now, everything I play is completely under my control. If I don't like what's happening online, I pull the ethernet cable, and it all still works. Indie games on XBL flew in once under my radar, before I knew they required a constant online connection. It cost me one dollar I otherwise would not have spent. I chalked that fail to experience. Never again will I buy an indie game on this platform.
-
D, if that happens, the console that I get next gen (if any) will depend on who doesn't follow that path. Right now, everything I play is completely under my control. If I don't like what's happening online, I pull the ethernet cable, and it all still works. Indie games on XBL flew in once under my radar, before I knew they required a constant online connection. It cost me one dollar I otherwise would not have spent. I chalked that fail to experience. Never again will I buy an indie game on this platform.
Exactly. Right now, it's all a "what if" scenario. But, you know damn well - companies like Sony and M$ - they are going to eventually try to run down that path.
XBL having games requiring a always online connection is just a start in that direction...
All of the "always online DRM" and nasty EULA's are getting damn well out-of-hand...
-
I tried to stay out of it, snuck in to make a short oblique comment in response to Que's short post, and ended up getting called a troll anyway, just as if I had flown off the handle against holy Steam and the Valve saints once again. That's what I find so ironic. That's why I'm laughing. There's no way to even briefly allude to the absolute, inevitably corrupting power of Steam without getting pelted, anywhere, not even here, where I've been for years.
I guess you're totally oblivious to your own statements. Do you just type stuff in click post and erase it from your memory? Quit acting like you didn't throw the rock first.
The only irony I see is that your not getting shit from any sort of argument. Im giving you shit for acting like a 18 year old troll, which you are.
-
Relax you two.
Going back to the topic in particular to what Xessive mentioned: you can't really let the dollar speak anymore because you've already bought games through or tied to Steam in the past. If they can invalidate any retail games you bought if you cancel the Steam account then you are just screwed to stick with them from now on.
-
Going back to the topic in particular to what Xessive mentioned: you can't really let the dollar speak anymore because you've already bought games through or tied to Steam in the past. If they can invalidate any retail games you bought if you cancel the Steam account then you are just screwed to stick with them from now on.
Bingo.
I think this, among many other things in Steam's SSA, are grounds for lawsuits...
EDIT:
Same could be said about things in many other EULA's and in Origin's EULA, as well...
-
I tried to stay out of it, snuck in to make a short oblique comment in response to Que's short post, and ended up getting called a troll anyway, just as if I had flown off the handle against holy Steam and the Valve saints once again. That's what I find so ironic. That's why I'm laughing. There's no way to even briefly allude to the absolute, inevitably corrupting power of Steam without getting pelted, anywhere, not even here, where I've been for years.
Cobra, I think you're wrong and seeing smoke where there is none. This community has some of the biggest, most outspoken Valve haters anywhere, and nowhere in this thread did anyone defend Valve from what I can tell. In several posts I expressed how incensed I was at Valve for my issue with DX:HR and no one came swooping in to Valve's defense. Frankly the way this thread reads, it's almost like you are responding to posts that are invisible to me and everyone else.
Anyway, back to the topic at hand, a lot of people have chimed in and the important bits have boiled down to this:
- The way Steam works as a service, they essentially have the right to change their terms whenever they want and there is nothing you can do about it except decide you are giving up all games you've previously purchased through Steam as well as retail titles that use Steamworks and decide not to purchase new titles from Steam.
- Pretty must every online PC game storefront works like this and has similar terms, so it's only a matter of time before you are basically completely screwed. The only real recourse other than just dealing with itis to only buy indie games that are sold independently or through things like the Humble Indie Bundle, or to buy from GOG.com. At this point games you've bought through Steam or its ilk or games that require Steam should be considered not yours and at risk for loss.
Frankly, this sucks and at this point we require protection from Congress or sanity in the courtrooms behind the bench. Honestly I'd trust the latter more, but AT&T won that one court case that required binding arbitration so maybe we can't trust anything anymore.
-
Snuck is not a word. That is all. :-[
-
- Pretty must every online PC game storefront works like this and has similar terms, so it's only a matter of time before you are basically completely screwed. The only real recourse other than just dealing with itis to only buy indie games that are sold independently or through things like the Humble Indie Bundle, or to buy from GOG.com. At this point games you've bought through Steam or its ilk or games that require Steam should be considered not yours and at risk for loss.
Some digital download store-fronts don't have a forced-client & might even sell some games to you as DRM-FREE. Often, going DRM-FREE is up to the dev's and publisher w/ some of these digital download store-fronts. You can still buy some DRM-FREE games from stores like Gamersgate, Amazon DVG, GameStop PC App, etc - you just have to look at the game's page and see if its DRM is explicitly stated and listed as (hopefully) DRM-FREE.
i.e. Gamersgate has like 65 pages worth of DRM-FREE games -> including EgoSoft's X1, X2 + X3 series; Many of the old Epic Unreal games; Velvet Assassin; Risen 1; etc etc.
-
Snuck is not a word. That is all. :-[
Yes, it is. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/snuck)
Past participle form of "sneak."
So... :P
-
Yes, it is. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/snuck)
Past participle form of "sneak."
So... :P
Chiefly US and Canadian not standard a past tense and past participle of sneak.
English, my good man! We speak English! Indubitably! Harrrumph! Pardon me while I twirl my walrus moustache.
EDIT:
Successful hijacking of thread? Yes?
-
@Xessive
I don't speak English-English. I speak American-English. :P
EDIT:
Though, reading EULA's is like reading Legalese-English.
-
Yep. They do tend to rely on confusing the end-user a lot more often than any legal binding document should.
-
Yeah its made very confusing. For example, they use language like "Purchase for myself, purchase as a gift" when you go to buy something. Purchase is very specific language and is different from a subscription.
With Steam we are dealing with 3 things: Steam, the game license, and the game. You have a free "subscription" to Steam, which is your account. It has its own agreement. Steam then sells you a game license (again with that "purchase" language) that allows you to play the game. The game has its own EULA. As part of your Steam subscription they let you download the actual game files so that you can play it with your license.
If you no longer agree with the terms of your Steam subscription, what happens to your paid for game licenses? Technically shouldn't you have those still since you still agree with their individual usage terms and have paid in full? Maybe Steam doesn't have to serve you the files anymore but you damn well should still be able to play.
Really its going to take a court case to decide digital property and what all this shit even means. With so many people buying digital content on a wide range of services its only a matter of time before it gets decided.
I mean the alternative scenario for Steam is that they don't ever sell you anything. Steam keeps ownership of the game licenses for itself and gives you a one time payment to access their games, which they can revoke at any time. Essentially we are simply borrowing from Valves vast game library.
-
I mean the alternative scenario for Steam is that they don't ever sell you anything. Steam keeps ownership of the game licenses for itself and gives you a one time payment to access their games, which they can revoke at any time. Essentially we are simply borrowing from Valves vast game library.
Isn't that how OnLive and Gaikai work?
The advantage of EA having their own digital distribution platform is having the option. When I buy an EA title on Steam, I can activate its key in Origin and I can have it there too. This is, of course, an exceptional scenario. Ubisoft seem to be moving in a similar direction with their Uplay titles. But is that the answer? For each publisher to have their own independent distribution channels to download their games? That could be great. Imagine, purchasing a game (retail or digital) entitles the player to download directly from the publisher along with their original digital purchase location. This could also add a lot of stress on the publishers' servers, causing games to get yet another price hike.
This is why I like the Indie bundles, since they give me access to my purchases from multiple channels: Steam, Desura, or direct download. Most of them do anyway.
-
Its kind of a wild west so who knows how it will end up. I think more and more companies will sell their games directly simply because why bother sharing all their profits with someone else? Though I don't think each company running their own Origin/Steam/Uplay, etc is going to fly. No one really wants that. So an ideal solution would be to sell the games self contained...no matter where you buy. So buy direct, but it from a "generic" online store like Steam, or Amazon, or whatever.
But first we need to get through the period when things like Uplay sound like a great ideas to the head honchos. It's going to get worse before it gets better.
-
ArenaNet took an interesting path with Guild Wars 2. It's a quasi-retail option; wherever you buy the game (retail or online) you have to activate the key with ArenaNet and either use your disc to install the content or download the client directly from them. It's essentially the same idea as an in-house distribution platform but exclusively for that one game. The obvious advantage is if you take any issue with the game's agreements or terms you only risk that one game and its platform. A different game from the same publisher/developer may be bound by other terms and conditions but you're still bound by your user account and its terms and conditions.
That's pretty much what I do with EA games. Wherever I get them I activate them on Origin.
Uplay, on the other hand, is built right into the games, so wherever I get the game I have to use it regardless, then again it is not a full distribution platform yet.
I like the idea of a single location to access my games and their relevant details. But again, that's panning out to be a "putting all your eggs in one basket" scenario.
-
I tried to stay out of it, snuck in to make a short oblique comment in response to Que's short post, and ended up getting called a troll anyway, just as if I had flown off the handle against holy Steam and the Valve saints once again. That's what I find so ironic. That's why I'm laughing. There's no way to even briefly allude to the absolute, inevitably corrupting power of Steam without getting pelted, anywhere, not even here, where I've been for years.
haha Cobra are you sure you aren't projecting? Or just jumping at shadows? I feel to the contrary everyone was upset about this whole Steam thing for once. Even the people here who like the platform, such as myself.
It is all good. We all just needs to chill. :)
-
Isn't that how OnLive and Gaikai work?
The advantage of EA having their own digital distribution platform is having the option. When I buy an EA title on Steam, I can activate its key in Origin and I can have it there too. This is, of course, an exceptional scenario. Ubisoft seem to be moving in a similar direction with their Uplay titles. But is that the answer? For each publisher to have their own independent distribution channels to download their games? That could be great. Imagine, purchasing a game (retail or digital) entitles the player to download directly from the publisher along with their original digital purchase location. This could also add a lot of stress on the publishers' servers, causing games to get yet another price hike.
This is why I like the Indie bundles, since they give me access to my purchases from multiple channels: Steam, Desura, or direct download. Most of them do anyway.
Origin is a decent EXTRA option, yes. Especially w/ Steam-purchased EA games that do activate up on Origin. That's GREAT. So, if something happens to Steam, as long as Origin's still around, you can just swing over to them.
Not liking Origin as a forced-requirement on some games, though. The problem w/ EA is they are making Origin a requirement on certain games -- i.e. Mass Effect 3; Battlefield 3; KOA: Reckoning (Non-Steam versions); Syndicate (2012 FPS); NFS: The Run; etc etc.
And of late, this trend of EA doing this - and copying Steam, on that matter - is continuing.
Oh, and their Origin EULA - just like Steam's SSA & Privacy Policy - is pretty ridiculous, on certain things.
EDIT:
1Up has a look at the future of gaming - since things like changes in Steam's SSA; UPlay's security flaws; and some of Dragon Quest X's issues. (http://www.1up.com/news/distressing-glimpses-gamings-future)
-
So hey, this ain't dead!
Valve faces legal challenge over Steam. (http://www.develop-online.net/news/42059/Valve-faces-legal-challenge-over-Steam-EULA) (in Germany)
German consumer rights group says agreement 'coerces' players into signing
The Federation of German Consumer Organisation has given Valve until October 10 to give a reasonable response to its desist order or face legal action.
The umbrella group of consumer rights agencies says the Steam EULA agreement, which requires consumers to waive thier right to class action lawsuits against Valve, is coercive.
Failure to consent to the new terms left several Steam users without access to their library of games.
The Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V., or VZBV, also seeks to bring Valve into compliance with the European Union's recent ruling on the resale of digital goods: a feature available only on Steam.
"Valve has a new deadline (10.10.2012) to respond to our letter now. Maybe after this time we will resolve the dispute in the court," the VZBV's Carola Elbrecht, chief officer and coordinator of advocacy for digital consumerism, told Cinemablend.
Too bad its just the Germans smart enough to not take that horseshit. I don't know where forcing them to allow resale part is going to go, but I can't see them being able to wiggle out of the coercion charge with that updated EULA. That's exactly what they did.
-
Gotta love the EU. They're the only civilized Western society that still cares about consumer rights. Great news, even if not on the home front.