Digital game purchases: do we really "own" them?
  1 / 2    
I know a lot of members here use Steam for all their game purchases. I mostly fall into that category, but only because my local B&M stores don't actually stock a wide selection of PC games anymore. I have always had my issues with Steam, but my primary fear stems from their ability to terminate your account with no explanation, which would render your whole game collection unusable. I have serious problems with that notion. If Steam wants to terminate your account, that's their prerogative. However, they should not be allowed to prevent banned users from accessing the games they legitimately paid for.

I came across [url="http://www.techspot.com/news/47402-digital-game-purchases-do-we-really-own-them.html"]this article[/url] on TechSpot (originally published by the gaming website "Rock, Paper and Shotgun") that describes how this happened to a PC gamer from Russia, named Gimperial. Valve completely disabled his account and refused to even explain why they did it. Imagine having 250 games in your library that you can no longer access. Gimperial himself had contacted Valve numerous times to demand an explanation as to why his account was disabled, to which they ultimately replied "we will not be able to help you further with this issue".

It was only after Rock, Paper and Shotgun contacted Valve on Gimperial's behalf that his account was restored, which is disturbing in and of itself. It seems Valve simply didn't want any bad press.

Anyway, this is all food for thought. You may want to think twice about using Steam as your primary source of games.
I know a lot of members here use Steam for all their game purchases. I mostly fall into that category, but only because my local B&M stores don't actually stock a wide selection of PC games anymore. I have always had my issues with Steam, but my primary fear stems from their ability to terminate your account with no explanation, which would render your whole game collection unusable. I have serious problems with that notion. If Steam wants to terminate your account, that's their prerogative. However, they should not be allowed to prevent banned users from accessing the games they legitimately paid for.



I came across this article on TechSpot (originally published by the gaming website "Rock, Paper and Shotgun") that describes how this happened to a PC gamer from Russia, named Gimperial. Valve completely disabled his account and refused to even explain why they did it. Imagine having 250 games in your library that you can no longer access. Gimperial himself had contacted Valve numerous times to demand an explanation as to why his account was disabled, to which they ultimately replied "we will not be able to help you further with this issue".



It was only after Rock, Paper and Shotgun contacted Valve on Gimperial's behalf that his account was restored, which is disturbing in and of itself. It seems Valve simply didn't want any bad press.



Anyway, this is all food for thought. You may want to think twice about using Steam as your primary source of games.

EVGA E758 A1 X58 // Core i7 920@4Ghz // OCZ Platinum DDR3 1600 // EVGA GTX 670 SLI // Seasonic X Series Gold 1050w // Corsair 800D // Dual Dell Ultrasharp U2410 displays // Dell Ultrasharp 2408WFP

#1
Posted 02/14/2012 06:50 PM   
All of your egg's in one basket, nope [img]http://forums.nvidia.com/public/style_emoticons/default/yes.gif[/img] Wal-Mart for a Hard disk [img]http://forums.nvidia.com/public/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif[/img] Yep
All of your egg's in one basket, nope Image Wal-Mart for a Hard disk Image Yep

CM HAF 932 - ASUS Rampage IV Extreme- Intel i7 3930K - Mushkin Redline 16GB 2133 - Antec HCP 1200kw - Galaxy GTX 670 3 way SLI - 2 WD 1TB Black,WD 640GB Black, WD SSD 64GB - Thermaltake CLW0217 Water 2.0 Extreme - ASUS 24x - Logitech G9 - Logitech G105 - I INC 28" Monitor at 1920 X 1200 (Native) Wow Gaming is great! Speakers - Logitech 530's - Win 7 Ultimate 64bit

Posted by Rsabatino, techjesse you are the people's champ of overclocking

Vantage P70249ORB
Image

#2
Posted 02/14/2012 06:55 PM   
I think it's worth stating up front that the user was violating Steam Subscriber Agreement by selling content from his account, a big no-no.

Edit: After further review, I'm not sure what his issue was. Steam suspended his account for account security purposes and restored it after an e-mail exchange he documented <a href="http://pastebin.com/wZB8d2cz" target="_blank">here</a>. Maybe I'm missing something? Don't get me wrong, I think "ownership of digital content" is going to be a valuable conversation to have, I just don't see the claimed misconduct by Valve.


Amorphous

[quote name='slamscaper' date='14 February 2012 - 10:50 AM' timestamp='1329245427' post='1369456']
I know a lot of members here use Steam for all their game purchases. I mostly fall into that category, but only because my local B&M stores don't actually stock a wide selection of PC games anymore. I have always had my issues with Steam, but my primary fear stems from their ability to terminate your account with no explanation, which would render your whole game collection unusable. I have serious problems with that notion. If Steam wants to terminate your account, that's their prerogative. However, they should not be allowed to prevent banned users from accessing the games they legitimately paid for.

I came across [url="http://www.techspot.com/news/47402-digital-game-purchases-do-we-really-own-them.html"]this article[/url] on TechSpot (originally published by the gaming website "Rock, Paper and Shotgun") that describes how this happened to a PC gamer from Russia, named Gimperial. Valve completely disabled his account and refused to even explain why they did it. Imagine having 250 games in your library that you can no longer access. Gimperial himself had contacted Valve numerous times to demand an explanation as to why his account was disabled, to which they ultimately replied "we will not be able to help you further with this issue".

It was only after Rock, Paper and Shotgun contacted Valve on Gimperial's behalf that his account was restored, which is disturbing in and of itself. It seems Valve simply didn't want any bad press.

Anyway, this is all food for thought. You may want to think twice about using Steam as your primary source of games.
[/quote]
I think it's worth stating up front that the user was violating Steam Subscriber Agreement by selling content from his account, a big no-no.



Edit: After further review, I'm not sure what his issue was. Steam suspended his account for account security purposes and restored it after an e-mail exchange he documented <a href="http://pastebin.com/wZB8d2cz" target="_blank">here</a>. Maybe I'm missing something? Don't get me wrong, I think "ownership of digital content" is going to be a valuable conversation to have, I just don't see the claimed misconduct by Valve.





Amorphous



[quote name='slamscaper' date='14 February 2012 - 10:50 AM' timestamp='1329245427' post='1369456']

I know a lot of members here use Steam for all their game purchases. I mostly fall into that category, but only because my local B&M stores don't actually stock a wide selection of PC games anymore. I have always had my issues with Steam, but my primary fear stems from their ability to terminate your account with no explanation, which would render your whole game collection unusable. I have serious problems with that notion. If Steam wants to terminate your account, that's their prerogative. However, they should not be allowed to prevent banned users from accessing the games they legitimately paid for.



I came across this article on TechSpot (originally published by the gaming website "Rock, Paper and Shotgun") that describes how this happened to a PC gamer from Russia, named Gimperial. Valve completely disabled his account and refused to even explain why they did it. Imagine having 250 games in your library that you can no longer access. Gimperial himself had contacted Valve numerous times to demand an explanation as to why his account was disabled, to which they ultimately replied "we will not be able to help you further with this issue".



It was only after Rock, Paper and Shotgun contacted Valve on Gimperial's behalf that his account was restored, which is disturbing in and of itself. It seems Valve simply didn't want any bad press.



Anyway, this is all food for thought. You may want to think twice about using Steam as your primary source of games.

NVIDIA | Technical Marketing Manager
GeForce Forums - Special Counsel

#3
Posted 02/14/2012 07:06 PM   
[quote name='Amorphous@NVIDIA' date='14 February 2012 - 07:06 PM' timestamp='1329246379' post='1369464']
I think it's worth stating up front that the user was violating Steam Subscriber Agreement by selling content from his account, a big no-no.

Edit: After further review, I'm not sure what his issue was. Steam suspended his account for account security purposes and restored it after an e-mail exchange he documented <a href="http://pastebin.com/wZB8d2cz" target="_blank">here</a>. Maybe I'm missing something? Don't get me wrong, I think "ownership of digital content" is going to be a valuable conversation to have, I just don't see the claimed misconduct by Valve.


Amorphous
[/quote]

I never claimed that Valve was guilty of any misconduct. One could argue that reversing their decision after being contacted by Rock, Paper and Shotgun is rather shady, but I wouldn't go as far as to call it "misconduct". It's likely that Gimperial did in fact violate the terms of service when he profited off of games he gifted to someone else. That's really not my point. My point is that Valve's terms of service need to change. I have no issues with Valve banning end-users from the service if they break the rules, but I do have issues with them preventing access to content that was purchased legitimately.

If a Steam member has a large game collection and has acquired that collection legitimately, they should always be able to access that content regardless of the fact that they violated the terms of service after the fact.

I also think that Valve should be obligated to disclose exactly why they have disabled an end-user's account.
[quote name='Amorphous@NVIDIA' date='14 February 2012 - 07:06 PM' timestamp='1329246379' post='1369464']

I think it's worth stating up front that the user was violating Steam Subscriber Agreement by selling content from his account, a big no-no.



Edit: After further review, I'm not sure what his issue was. Steam suspended his account for account security purposes and restored it after an e-mail exchange he documented <a href="http://pastebin.com/wZB8d2cz" target="_blank">here</a>. Maybe I'm missing something? Don't get me wrong, I think "ownership of digital content" is going to be a valuable conversation to have, I just don't see the claimed misconduct by Valve.





Amorphous





I never claimed that Valve was guilty of any misconduct. One could argue that reversing their decision after being contacted by Rock, Paper and Shotgun is rather shady, but I wouldn't go as far as to call it "misconduct". It's likely that Gimperial did in fact violate the terms of service when he profited off of games he gifted to someone else. That's really not my point. My point is that Valve's terms of service need to change. I have no issues with Valve banning end-users from the service if they break the rules, but I do have issues with them preventing access to content that was purchased legitimately.



If a Steam member has a large game collection and has acquired that collection legitimately, they should always be able to access that content regardless of the fact that they violated the terms of service after the fact.



I also think that Valve should be obligated to disclose exactly why they have disabled an end-user's account.

EVGA E758 A1 X58 // Core i7 920@4Ghz // OCZ Platinum DDR3 1600 // EVGA GTX 670 SLI // Seasonic X Series Gold 1050w // Corsair 800D // Dual Dell Ultrasharp U2410 displays // Dell Ultrasharp 2408WFP

#4
Posted 02/14/2012 08:06 PM   
Good Topic.

Ownership of anything is all equitable, which means you have the right to use, you do not own the title in allodium, which is required for true ownership.

The right to use, as in all things equity, is conducive to certain conditions being met, or performance being compelled as defined by the grantor of the license.

In the case of steam, they offer a digital distribution service that trades in LICENSES for software that is OWNED by its parent corporation.

So signing into your steam account and accessing games you paid money for, is a 100% revocable privlidge (just as posting content on this board is a revocable privledge subject to terms and conditions, anything we say is owned by nvidia limited liability corporation despite any incinuation to the contrary, or claims of 'intellectual property' which were contracted away when you hit the "i have read and agree" button upon sign up)

The ambiguity arises as people are lead to believe that if you pay for something, you then own it. This is simply not the case.

I should add I do not agree with it, but it is one of the drawbacks of a proffesionalized legal culture.
Good Topic.



Ownership of anything is all equitable, which means you have the right to use, you do not own the title in allodium, which is required for true ownership.



The right to use, as in all things equity, is conducive to certain conditions being met, or performance being compelled as defined by the grantor of the license.



In the case of steam, they offer a digital distribution service that trades in LICENSES for software that is OWNED by its parent corporation.



So signing into your steam account and accessing games you paid money for, is a 100% revocable privlidge (just as posting content on this board is a revocable privledge subject to terms and conditions, anything we say is owned by nvidia limited liability corporation despite any incinuation to the contrary, or claims of 'intellectual property' which were contracted away when you hit the "i have read and agree" button upon sign up)



The ambiguity arises as people are lead to believe that if you pay for something, you then own it. This is simply not the case.



I should add I do not agree with it, but it is one of the drawbacks of a proffesionalized legal culture.

CPU: Core i7 930 @ 4.20ghz 1.3v cooled by Antec Kuhler 920

MOBO: Asus P6X58D Premium

GFX: 2x Asus GTX 560Ti Direct CUII @ 900mhz Core 2200mhz Memory

RAM: Corsair CMG6GX3M3A1600C7 6gb 1600mhz 7-7-7-20 2t

PSU: Thermaltake Toughpower 850 watt

CASE: Antec 1200

APU: X-fi Titanium Fatality SPEAKERS: Logitech X-530 5.1

HDD: 1x OCZ Agility 3 60gb SSD GAMES 2x Western Digital Caviar Black 500gb in RAID 0

DISPLAY: Acer H243HX 24" @ 1920x1080 Resolution

KEYBOARD: Logitech G19 MOUSE: Logitech G5 WHEEL Logitech G25 JOYSTICK Logitech G940

OPERATING SYSTEM: Windows 7 Ultimate x64 RTM

#5
Posted 02/14/2012 09:38 PM   
Sorry for being unclear, I was discussing the linked article and other posted material and not trying to put words in your mouth.


Amorphous

[quote name='slamscaper' date='14 February 2012 - 12:06 PM' timestamp='1329249995' post='1369490']
I never claimed that Valve was guilty of any misconduct. One could argue that reversing their decision after being contacted by Rock, Paper and Shotgun is rather shady, but I wouldn't go as far as to call it "misconduct". It's likely that Gimperial did in fact violate the terms of service when he profited off of games he gifted to someone else. That's really not my point. My point is that Valve's terms of service need to change. I have no issues with Valve banning end-users from the service if they break the rules, but I do have issues with them preventing access to content that was purchased legitimately.

If a Steam member has a large game collection and has acquired that collection legitimately, they should always be able to access that content regardless of the fact that they violated the terms of service after the fact.

I also think that Valve should be obligated to disclose exactly why they have disabled an end-user's account.
[/quote]
Sorry for being unclear, I was discussing the linked article and other posted material and not trying to put words in your mouth.





Amorphous



[quote name='slamscaper' date='14 February 2012 - 12:06 PM' timestamp='1329249995' post='1369490']

I never claimed that Valve was guilty of any misconduct. One could argue that reversing their decision after being contacted by Rock, Paper and Shotgun is rather shady, but I wouldn't go as far as to call it "misconduct". It's likely that Gimperial did in fact violate the terms of service when he profited off of games he gifted to someone else. That's really not my point. My point is that Valve's terms of service need to change. I have no issues with Valve banning end-users from the service if they break the rules, but I do have issues with them preventing access to content that was purchased legitimately.



If a Steam member has a large game collection and has acquired that collection legitimately, they should always be able to access that content regardless of the fact that they violated the terms of service after the fact.



I also think that Valve should be obligated to disclose exactly why they have disabled an end-user's account.

NVIDIA | Technical Marketing Manager
GeForce Forums - Special Counsel

#6
Posted 02/14/2012 10:32 PM   
IMO, if its bought its yours. If you want to revoke online rights then so be it but single player should aways be granted access to. Or you will just have to pirate it to get it back which really does no one any good BUT it will be what happens.
IMO, if its bought its yours. If you want to revoke online rights then so be it but single player should aways be granted access to. Or you will just have to pirate it to get it back which really does no one any good BUT it will be what happens.
#7
Posted 02/14/2012 11:28 PM   
[quote name='cravinmild' date='14 February 2012 - 11:28 PM' timestamp='1329262131' post='1369551']
IMO, if its bought its yours. If you want to revoke online rights then so be it but single player should aways be granted access to. Or you will just have to pirate it to get it back which really does no one any good BUT it will be what happens.
[/quote]

In MY opinion your right.

But in the eyes of the law, that is just not the case.

This is why I have always defended the CAUSE & CONDITIONS in which piracy becomes a viable alternative. (not piracy, itself)

However what needs to be clearly understood is that the purveyors of the software are acting as if they are under the banner of the jolly rodger in the first place.
[quote name='cravinmild' date='14 February 2012 - 11:28 PM' timestamp='1329262131' post='1369551']

IMO, if its bought its yours. If you want to revoke online rights then so be it but single player should aways be granted access to. Or you will just have to pirate it to get it back which really does no one any good BUT it will be what happens.





In MY opinion your right.



But in the eyes of the law, that is just not the case.



This is why I have always defended the CAUSE & CONDITIONS in which piracy becomes a viable alternative. (not piracy, itself)



However what needs to be clearly understood is that the purveyors of the software are acting as if they are under the banner of the jolly rodger in the first place.

CPU: Core i7 930 @ 4.20ghz 1.3v cooled by Antec Kuhler 920

MOBO: Asus P6X58D Premium

GFX: 2x Asus GTX 560Ti Direct CUII @ 900mhz Core 2200mhz Memory

RAM: Corsair CMG6GX3M3A1600C7 6gb 1600mhz 7-7-7-20 2t

PSU: Thermaltake Toughpower 850 watt

CASE: Antec 1200

APU: X-fi Titanium Fatality SPEAKERS: Logitech X-530 5.1

HDD: 1x OCZ Agility 3 60gb SSD GAMES 2x Western Digital Caviar Black 500gb in RAID 0

DISPLAY: Acer H243HX 24" @ 1920x1080 Resolution

KEYBOARD: Logitech G19 MOUSE: Logitech G5 WHEEL Logitech G25 JOYSTICK Logitech G940

OPERATING SYSTEM: Windows 7 Ultimate x64 RTM

#8
Posted 02/15/2012 12:15 AM   
[quote name='Saijan Prince.' date='15 February 2012 - 12:15 AM' timestamp='1329264946' post='1369566']
In MY opinion your right.

But in the eyes of the law, that is just not the case.

This is why I have always defended the CAUSE & CONDITIONS in which piracy becomes a viable alternative. (not piracy, itself)

However what needs to be clearly understood is that the purveyors of the software are acting as if they are under the banner of the jolly rodger in the first place.
[/quote]

Everything you have stated is spot on. However, what I'm asking everyone to ponder really has nothing to do with the actual laws. I think most informed PC gamers know that they are buying a "license" when they buy any software, including games.

I suggest comparing Valve's service with other forms of digital content (games are what I'm primarily referring to here though). For example, if you mod your 360 to run unsigned code and are then subsequently banned from XBOX Live because of it, you can still play any of the games you have purchased in SP mode, even though you don't actually "own" the software stored on the disc. This is also true in regards to the PS3. MS and Sony are not cold-blooded enough to completely disable your system for violating their terms of service. After all, you did in fact pay for the hardware and software, and they do acknowledge this on some level. Sure, they'll ban you from their online service, but I think this is a fair punishment considering the cost of fighting piracy, cheaters, and hackers.

Another good example is retail PC games. If you buy a retail PC game and get banned from MP due to cheating, you can still play the game in SP mode. You may not "own" the software in this case either, but at least you can be assured that your money did in fact buy you the right to play the game "forever", at least on some level.

I really think that Valve needs to take a good hard look at their terms of service. They need to ensure that they're treating their customers fairly. I also think that more gamers need to speak out on this. It's likely that Valve will never change their policies unless their members speak out. In all seriousness, we are all getting a bum deal presently. We're paying full-price for games that they can take away from us at any time without warning, for any reason they deem appropriate. They don't even have to tell use why they took them away either.

My opinion is that Valve has WAY to much power here.
[quote name='Saijan Prince.' date='15 February 2012 - 12:15 AM' timestamp='1329264946' post='1369566']

In MY opinion your right.



But in the eyes of the law, that is just not the case.



This is why I have always defended the CAUSE & CONDITIONS in which piracy becomes a viable alternative. (not piracy, itself)



However what needs to be clearly understood is that the purveyors of the software are acting as if they are under the banner of the jolly rodger in the first place.





Everything you have stated is spot on. However, what I'm asking everyone to ponder really has nothing to do with the actual laws. I think most informed PC gamers know that they are buying a "license" when they buy any software, including games.



I suggest comparing Valve's service with other forms of digital content (games are what I'm primarily referring to here though). For example, if you mod your 360 to run unsigned code and are then subsequently banned from XBOX Live because of it, you can still play any of the games you have purchased in SP mode, even though you don't actually "own" the software stored on the disc. This is also true in regards to the PS3. MS and Sony are not cold-blooded enough to completely disable your system for violating their terms of service. After all, you did in fact pay for the hardware and software, and they do acknowledge this on some level. Sure, they'll ban you from their online service, but I think this is a fair punishment considering the cost of fighting piracy, cheaters, and hackers.



Another good example is retail PC games. If you buy a retail PC game and get banned from MP due to cheating, you can still play the game in SP mode. You may not "own" the software in this case either, but at least you can be assured that your money did in fact buy you the right to play the game "forever", at least on some level.



I really think that Valve needs to take a good hard look at their terms of service. They need to ensure that they're treating their customers fairly. I also think that more gamers need to speak out on this. It's likely that Valve will never change their policies unless their members speak out. In all seriousness, we are all getting a bum deal presently. We're paying full-price for games that they can take away from us at any time without warning, for any reason they deem appropriate. They don't even have to tell use why they took them away either.



My opinion is that Valve has WAY to much power here.

EVGA E758 A1 X58 // Core i7 920@4Ghz // OCZ Platinum DDR3 1600 // EVGA GTX 670 SLI // Seasonic X Series Gold 1050w // Corsair 800D // Dual Dell Ultrasharp U2410 displays // Dell Ultrasharp 2408WFP

#9
Posted 02/15/2012 06:13 AM   
[quote name='slamscaper' date='15 February 2012 - 06:13 AM' timestamp='1329286409' post='1369662']
Everything you have stated is spot on. However, what I'm asking everyone to ponder really has nothing to do with the actual laws. I think most informed PC gamers know that they are buying a "license" when they buy any software, including games.

I suggest comparing Valve's service with other forms of digital content (games are what I'm primarily referring to here though). For example, if you mod your 360 to run unsigned code and are then subsequently banned from XBOX Live because of it, you can still play any of the games you have purchased in SP mode, even though you don't actually "own" the software stored on the disc. This is also true in regards to the PS3. MS and Sony are not cold-blooded enough to completely disable your system for violating their terms of service. After all, you did in fact pay for the hardware and software, and they do acknowledge this on some level. Sure, they'll ban you from their online service, but I think this is a fair punishment considering the cost of fighting piracy, cheaters, and hackers.

Another good example is retail PC games. If you buy a retail PC game and get banned from MP due to cheating, you can still play the game in SP mode. You may not "own" the software in this case either, but at least you can be assured that your money did in fact buy you the right to play the game "forever", at least on some level.

I really think that Valve needs to take a good hard look at their terms of service. They need to ensure that they're treating their customers fairly. I also think that more gamers need to speak out on this. It's likely that Valve will never change their policies unless their members speak out. In all seriousness, we are all getting a bum deal presently. We're paying full-price for games that they can take away from us at any time without warning, for any reason they deem appropriate. They don't even have to tell use why they took them away either.

My opinion is that Valve has WAY to much power here.
[/quote]

Quite Right my friend! Spot on as the english say!

I am keen to speak out, seems to me that you are as well. Why don't we try and organize something to show them how we feel about it? Lot's of other people here likely feel the same way, and many of them are also connected and respected amongst other forum communities, I see no reason why we cannot have our collective voices heard.

I think one reason they have been able to get away with this so far is the whole smear campaign and diversion that the "piracy issue" is.

Our console brethern do not have the same level of stigma associated with their hardware or software.

With all that has been happening of recent months with anti piracy laws and such being on the forefront of the agenda, the entire concept of digital ownership is on the precipice of changing into something we may not get a chance to reverse if we continue to ignore it.
[quote name='slamscaper' date='15 February 2012 - 06:13 AM' timestamp='1329286409' post='1369662']

Everything you have stated is spot on. However, what I'm asking everyone to ponder really has nothing to do with the actual laws. I think most informed PC gamers know that they are buying a "license" when they buy any software, including games.



I suggest comparing Valve's service with other forms of digital content (games are what I'm primarily referring to here though). For example, if you mod your 360 to run unsigned code and are then subsequently banned from XBOX Live because of it, you can still play any of the games you have purchased in SP mode, even though you don't actually "own" the software stored on the disc. This is also true in regards to the PS3. MS and Sony are not cold-blooded enough to completely disable your system for violating their terms of service. After all, you did in fact pay for the hardware and software, and they do acknowledge this on some level. Sure, they'll ban you from their online service, but I think this is a fair punishment considering the cost of fighting piracy, cheaters, and hackers.



Another good example is retail PC games. If you buy a retail PC game and get banned from MP due to cheating, you can still play the game in SP mode. You may not "own" the software in this case either, but at least you can be assured that your money did in fact buy you the right to play the game "forever", at least on some level.



I really think that Valve needs to take a good hard look at their terms of service. They need to ensure that they're treating their customers fairly. I also think that more gamers need to speak out on this. It's likely that Valve will never change their policies unless their members speak out. In all seriousness, we are all getting a bum deal presently. We're paying full-price for games that they can take away from us at any time without warning, for any reason they deem appropriate. They don't even have to tell use why they took them away either.



My opinion is that Valve has WAY to much power here.





Quite Right my friend! Spot on as the english say!



I am keen to speak out, seems to me that you are as well. Why don't we try and organize something to show them how we feel about it? Lot's of other people here likely feel the same way, and many of them are also connected and respected amongst other forum communities, I see no reason why we cannot have our collective voices heard.



I think one reason they have been able to get away with this so far is the whole smear campaign and diversion that the "piracy issue" is.



Our console brethern do not have the same level of stigma associated with their hardware or software.



With all that has been happening of recent months with anti piracy laws and such being on the forefront of the agenda, the entire concept of digital ownership is on the precipice of changing into something we may not get a chance to reverse if we continue to ignore it.

CPU: Core i7 930 @ 4.20ghz 1.3v cooled by Antec Kuhler 920

MOBO: Asus P6X58D Premium

GFX: 2x Asus GTX 560Ti Direct CUII @ 900mhz Core 2200mhz Memory

RAM: Corsair CMG6GX3M3A1600C7 6gb 1600mhz 7-7-7-20 2t

PSU: Thermaltake Toughpower 850 watt

CASE: Antec 1200

APU: X-fi Titanium Fatality SPEAKERS: Logitech X-530 5.1

HDD: 1x OCZ Agility 3 60gb SSD GAMES 2x Western Digital Caviar Black 500gb in RAID 0

DISPLAY: Acer H243HX 24" @ 1920x1080 Resolution

KEYBOARD: Logitech G19 MOUSE: Logitech G5 WHEEL Logitech G25 JOYSTICK Logitech G940

OPERATING SYSTEM: Windows 7 Ultimate x64 RTM

#10
Posted 02/15/2012 06:59 AM   
[quote name='Saijan Prince.' date='15 February 2012 - 06:59 AM' timestamp='1329289179' post='1369671']
Quite Right my friend! Spot on as the english say!

I am keen to speak out, seems to me that you are as well. Why don't we try and organize something to show them how we feel about it? Lot's of other people here likely feel the same way, and many of them are also connected and respected amongst other forum communities, I see no reason why we cannot have our collective voices heard.

I think one reason they have been able to get away with this so far is the whole smear campaign and diversion that the "piracy issue" is.

Our console brethern do not have the same level of stigma associated with their hardware or software.

With all that has been happening of recent months with anti piracy laws and such being on the forefront of the agenda, the entire concept of digital ownership is on the precipice of changing into something we may not get a chance to reverse if we continue to ignore it.
[/quote]

Sadly, most Steam members have nothing but praise for the service. It does have a lot of positive attributes, as it makes buying and maintaining your game library a cinch. These positive attributes have clouded the judgement of many, who blindly follow the TOS without fully understanding what the "fine print" actually means. In fact, their judgement is so clouded that just mentioning Valve's service in a negative light causes them to lash out at those responsible. They'll hear about some random Steam member being banned from the service and they'll immediately say "they deserved it because they broke the rules", without even considering that there are two sides to every story.

I'm sure their opinion would change if they ended up getting banned over something they didn't even do (say, if their account was hijacked) and then lost their whole game library without so much as a simple explanation as to why it happened.

It just BOTHERS me that Valve can do this sort of thing and get away with it. It bothers me even more that a lot of folks try to justify it. Remember when Microsoft added the "reduced functionality mode" to their OS? This mode would kick in when the end-user was found to be using a fraudulent version of Windows. It virtually rendered the OS unusable, except for allowing the user to connect to MS's website to buy a valid license. MS received so much flak over this that they had no choice but to remove this code from the OS completely. It was replaced with simple nag screens that prompted the user to buy a valid license every so often (WGA). This is a good example of what can happen when the people speak out.

My question is, why do we continue to let Valve get away with the things THEY are doing? Is it because they provide a wonderful UI and a reliable service? Is it because they make syncing our game files ridiculously easy by storing everything in the cloud? Is it because they have "50% off" deals frequently? These are all great things that Valve has enabled for us. However, they are well paid for their labor. The fact that they've put in long hours to create this wonderful service should not give them the right to snatch away purchased content that they didn't even create.
[quote name='Saijan Prince.' date='15 February 2012 - 06:59 AM' timestamp='1329289179' post='1369671']

Quite Right my friend! Spot on as the english say!



I am keen to speak out, seems to me that you are as well. Why don't we try and organize something to show them how we feel about it? Lot's of other people here likely feel the same way, and many of them are also connected and respected amongst other forum communities, I see no reason why we cannot have our collective voices heard.



I think one reason they have been able to get away with this so far is the whole smear campaign and diversion that the "piracy issue" is.



Our console brethern do not have the same level of stigma associated with their hardware or software.



With all that has been happening of recent months with anti piracy laws and such being on the forefront of the agenda, the entire concept of digital ownership is on the precipice of changing into something we may not get a chance to reverse if we continue to ignore it.





Sadly, most Steam members have nothing but praise for the service. It does have a lot of positive attributes, as it makes buying and maintaining your game library a cinch. These positive attributes have clouded the judgement of many, who blindly follow the TOS without fully understanding what the "fine print" actually means. In fact, their judgement is so clouded that just mentioning Valve's service in a negative light causes them to lash out at those responsible. They'll hear about some random Steam member being banned from the service and they'll immediately say "they deserved it because they broke the rules", without even considering that there are two sides to every story.



I'm sure their opinion would change if they ended up getting banned over something they didn't even do (say, if their account was hijacked) and then lost their whole game library without so much as a simple explanation as to why it happened.



It just BOTHERS me that Valve can do this sort of thing and get away with it. It bothers me even more that a lot of folks try to justify it. Remember when Microsoft added the "reduced functionality mode" to their OS? This mode would kick in when the end-user was found to be using a fraudulent version of Windows. It virtually rendered the OS unusable, except for allowing the user to connect to MS's website to buy a valid license. MS received so much flak over this that they had no choice but to remove this code from the OS completely. It was replaced with simple nag screens that prompted the user to buy a valid license every so often (WGA). This is a good example of what can happen when the people speak out.



My question is, why do we continue to let Valve get away with the things THEY are doing? Is it because they provide a wonderful UI and a reliable service? Is it because they make syncing our game files ridiculously easy by storing everything in the cloud? Is it because they have "50% off" deals frequently? These are all great things that Valve has enabled for us. However, they are well paid for their labor. The fact that they've put in long hours to create this wonderful service should not give them the right to snatch away purchased content that they didn't even create.

EVGA E758 A1 X58 // Core i7 920@4Ghz // OCZ Platinum DDR3 1600 // EVGA GTX 670 SLI // Seasonic X Series Gold 1050w // Corsair 800D // Dual Dell Ultrasharp U2410 displays // Dell Ultrasharp 2408WFP

#11
Posted 02/15/2012 08:31 AM   
[quote name='slamscaper' date='15 February 2012 - 02:31 AM' timestamp='1329294715' post='1369684']
Sadly, most Steam members have nothing but praise for the service. It does have a lot of positive attributes, as it makes buying and maintaining your game library a cinch. These positive attributes have clouded the judgement of many, who blindly follow the TOS without fully understanding what the "fine print" actually means. In fact, their judgement is so clouded that just mentioning Valve's service in a negative light causes them to lash out at those responsible. They'll hear about some random Steam member being banned from the service and they'll immediately say "they deserved it because they broke the rules", without even considering that there are two sides to every story.

I'm sure their opinion would change if they ended up getting banned over something they didn't even do (say, if their account was hijacked) and then lost their whole game library without so much as a simple explanation as to why it happened.

It just BOTHERS me that Valve can do this sort of thing and get away with it. It bothers me even more that a lot of folks try to justify it. Remember when Microsoft added the "reduced functionality mode" to their OS? This mode would kick in when the end-user was found to be using a fraudulent version of Windows. It virtually rendered the OS unusable, except for allowing the user to connect to MS's website to buy a valid license. MS received so much flak over this that they had no choice but to remove this code from the OS completely. It was replaced with simple nag screens that prompted the user to buy a valid license every so often (WGA). This is a good example of what can happen when the people speak out.

My question is, why do we continue to let Valve get away with the things THEY are doing? Is it because they provide a wonderful UI and a reliable service? Is it because they make syncing our game files ridiculously easy by storing everything in the cloud? Is it because they have "50% off" deals frequently? These are all great things that Valve has enabled for us. However, they are well paid for their labor. The fact that they've put in long hours to create this wonderful service should not give them the right to snatch away purchased content that they didn't even create.
[/quote]

If a game has online activation it's not any different than Steam. You can't install without cracking if your account is banned or the servers are down.
What's your personal beef with Valve? I don't see you getting pissed off at EA for revoking Origin accounts...
[quote name='slamscaper' date='15 February 2012 - 02:31 AM' timestamp='1329294715' post='1369684']

Sadly, most Steam members have nothing but praise for the service. It does have a lot of positive attributes, as it makes buying and maintaining your game library a cinch. These positive attributes have clouded the judgement of many, who blindly follow the TOS without fully understanding what the "fine print" actually means. In fact, their judgement is so clouded that just mentioning Valve's service in a negative light causes them to lash out at those responsible. They'll hear about some random Steam member being banned from the service and they'll immediately say "they deserved it because they broke the rules", without even considering that there are two sides to every story.



I'm sure their opinion would change if they ended up getting banned over something they didn't even do (say, if their account was hijacked) and then lost their whole game library without so much as a simple explanation as to why it happened.



It just BOTHERS me that Valve can do this sort of thing and get away with it. It bothers me even more that a lot of folks try to justify it. Remember when Microsoft added the "reduced functionality mode" to their OS? This mode would kick in when the end-user was found to be using a fraudulent version of Windows. It virtually rendered the OS unusable, except for allowing the user to connect to MS's website to buy a valid license. MS received so much flak over this that they had no choice but to remove this code from the OS completely. It was replaced with simple nag screens that prompted the user to buy a valid license every so often (WGA). This is a good example of what can happen when the people speak out.



My question is, why do we continue to let Valve get away with the things THEY are doing? Is it because they provide a wonderful UI and a reliable service? Is it because they make syncing our game files ridiculously easy by storing everything in the cloud? Is it because they have "50% off" deals frequently? These are all great things that Valve has enabled for us. However, they are well paid for their labor. The fact that they've put in long hours to create this wonderful service should not give them the right to snatch away purchased content that they didn't even create.





If a game has online activation it's not any different than Steam. You can't install without cracking if your account is banned or the servers are down.

What's your personal beef with Valve? I don't see you getting pissed off at EA for revoking Origin accounts...

Done.

#12
Posted 02/15/2012 08:49 AM   
[quote name='D1llw33d' date='15 February 2012 - 06:49 PM' timestamp='1329295794' post='1369691']
What's your personal beef with Valve? [b]I don't see you getting pissed off at EA for revoking Origin accounts...[/b]
[/quote]
Because this topic is about Steam/Valve, maybe?
[quote name='D1llw33d' date='15 February 2012 - 06:49 PM' timestamp='1329295794' post='1369691']

What's your personal beef with Valve? I don't see you getting pissed off at EA for revoking Origin accounts...



Because this topic is about Steam/Valve, maybe?

Custom built PC | Intel Core i7 920 @ 2.66GHZ | ASUS P6T Motherboard | 6GB DDR3 1600 RAM | 2x 500GB SATA2 HDD's | Auzentech Forte S/C | Gainward Geforce GTX 560Ti "Phantom 2" 2048MB | Windows 7 Home Premium: Service Pack 1 - x64 | Thermaltake 750watt Toughpower Power Supply | Thermaltake Armor+ MX case.

#13
Posted 02/15/2012 08:56 AM   
[quote name='Franpa' date='15 February 2012 - 02:56 AM' timestamp='1329296177' post='1369694']
Because this topic is about Steam/Valve, maybe?
[/quote]

I was actually referring to Slam's longstanding grudge against Steam for being unable to return a game, but being fine with buying Origin.

I'm adressing his bais.
[quote name='Franpa' date='15 February 2012 - 02:56 AM' timestamp='1329296177' post='1369694']

Because this topic is about Steam/Valve, maybe?





I was actually referring to Slam's longstanding grudge against Steam for being unable to return a game, but being fine with buying Origin.



I'm adressing his bais.

Done.

#14
Posted 02/15/2012 09:01 AM   
[quote name='D1llw33d' date='15 February 2012 - 08:49 AM' timestamp='1329295794' post='1369691']
If a game has online activation it's not any different than Steam. You can't install without cracking if your account is banned or the servers are down.
What's your personal beef with Valve? I don't see you getting pissed off at EA for revoking Origin accounts...
[/quote]

The online activation has nothing to do with MP. This activation is always handled by third-party DRM (like Securom online activation). If you're banned from MP you can still activate your copy online, provided that you have a valid product key (not a pirated, black listed key).

This is the reason that you have to enter your product key twice for GFWL games (Once for the actual activation, and once for GFWL). In this scenario, your product key could be banned by GFWL (say for cheating), but it will still activate fine using Securom's servers, which would allow you to play SP mode offline.

No personal beef with Valve, only their standards and practices. I didn't mention Origin because I've never once talked to anyone that ever had their Origin account revoked.
[quote name='D1llw33d' date='15 February 2012 - 08:49 AM' timestamp='1329295794' post='1369691']

If a game has online activation it's not any different than Steam. You can't install without cracking if your account is banned or the servers are down.

What's your personal beef with Valve? I don't see you getting pissed off at EA for revoking Origin accounts...





The online activation has nothing to do with MP. This activation is always handled by third-party DRM (like Securom online activation). If you're banned from MP you can still activate your copy online, provided that you have a valid product key (not a pirated, black listed key).



This is the reason that you have to enter your product key twice for GFWL games (Once for the actual activation, and once for GFWL). In this scenario, your product key could be banned by GFWL (say for cheating), but it will still activate fine using Securom's servers, which would allow you to play SP mode offline.



No personal beef with Valve, only their standards and practices. I didn't mention Origin because I've never once talked to anyone that ever had their Origin account revoked.

EVGA E758 A1 X58 // Core i7 920@4Ghz // OCZ Platinum DDR3 1600 // EVGA GTX 670 SLI // Seasonic X Series Gold 1050w // Corsair 800D // Dual Dell Ultrasharp U2410 displays // Dell Ultrasharp 2408WFP

#15
Posted 02/15/2012 09:05 AM   
  1 / 2    
Scroll To Top