Topic: Steam's SSA changed to...try to stop class-action lawsuits.

[MysterD]

NEWS:
Steam's SSA & Privacy Policy has been changed to try to stop class-action lawsuits -- info on update here.

INFO LINKS:
Steam's SSA.
Steam's Privacy Policy.

[idolminds]

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.

[MysterD]

Some people on Steam forums are pissed.

EDIT:
ArsTechnica and Kotaku are already all over this.

EDIT 2:
And Bluesnews, too.

[gpw11]

Best quote from that steam thread:

I'm not a selfish baby either, dear. I'm an accountant well versed in business law.

 

[Xessive]

So, basically "people can legally gang up on us."

[Pugnate]

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?

[scottws]

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.

[shock]

^^ This.  Courts are extremely hesitant to uphold these types of contracts in contracts because they are notoriously one-sided.

[Xessive]

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.

[idolminds]

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:


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).

[idolminds]

So...how about this?


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!

[Xessive]

Haha that's best terms screen evaaar!

I agree! A thousand times, I agree!

[MysterD]

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?  

[MysterD]

Forbes on this whole ordeal.

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.”

[gpw11]

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.

[scottws]

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.

[idolminds]

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.

[scottws]

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.

[scottws]

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.

[Quemaqua]

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.

[Cobra951]

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.

[PyroMenace]

Lets get it started then. What do you mean by "the faithful"?

[Xessive]

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.

[idolminds]

Hey scott, dunno if you got a response yet but someone on Reddit asked something similar:

[Pugnate]

WTF? They didn't even answer his question.

[Cobra951]

Lets get it started then. What do you mean by "the faithful"?

That's my point, right there.  Peace out.

[Cobra951]

WTF? They didn't even answer his question.

Yes they did Pug.  "Submit or be fucked" is my read on their answer.

[MysterD]

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).

[PyroMenace]

That's my point, right there.  Peace out.

Okayy.... this thread was going fine till you trolled your way in here. Nice one!

[Pugnate]

hahaha that's true. Cobra did troll his way out. What a trolling cobra. 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.

[MysterD]

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.

[Cobra951]

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.  

[PyroMenace]

So you bait and dodge instead of discussion. Again, nice one.

[idolminds]

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?

[PyroMenace]

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.

[idolminds]

We all own Steam games

Pretty sure Valve has made it clear now that this is not the case.

[MysterD]

Pretty sure Valve has made it clear now that this is not the case.

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.

[Cobra951]

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.

[MysterD]

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.

[Cobra951]

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.