and gog is borderline profitable. 1 millions profit last year. sounds like a lot until you remember that having a world wide store with people downloading stuff all over the world cost billions...
Hard Agree, everyone wants the money Valve makes, but does not want to put in the 10+ years of work Valve spent on making Steam not suck. Steam sucked too, but it takes time to make a platform like this successful. Steam is not a "Get rich quick" scheme. it's changed the wya we play games. everyone under estimates it's.... Impact.
Not really, people are just die-hard loyal to valve for inexplicable reasons. Don't get me wrong, I use steam almost exclusively, but 90% of the reasons not to use Epic or GOG are nebulous at best. There isn't really anything aside from these three, unless you count these single publisher launchers.
Yeah. I always buy games from GOG when I can at all do so. Worse comes to worse I can at least store my games off line and never had to be connected to a service if I don't want to.
Gog is nearly as good as steam in every way, and they're infinitely better in many ways. If they could tripple or quadruple their library without adding more trash, they'll be bajillionaires and the entire industry will have to stop scamming purchasers.
Any thoughts on customers not getting recompense for items disappearing from their guild banks, and the topics talking about it on the WoW general forum? (Amazing how little coverage by content creators that story is getting.)
Forced arbitration is BS. It won't be long until every business requires you to agree to forced arbitration upon entering their doors, unless people collectively take a stand and STOP GIVING THEM MONEY.
Companies already all do that if you don’t want to engage with said companies you won’t be able to use any service the real solution is to get the federal government to ban forced arbitration.
It is but legal DDOSing is very much in vogue now. Far more people like money than there are people that can arbitrate. If a legal attack avenue goes viral arbitration can create a tidal wave of bs. I remember getting ads for the Valve litigation that lead up to this change.
They already do. Well all the big ones like Disney. Tho steam was different for saying we'll pay fees, which they got taken advantage of for. Good riddance that it's gone. The world is healing. Tho I wonder if steam will be destroyed.
You can still get yours through arbitration, but it is a little harder. Amazon or Google got a nice hit to the wallet after a bunch of people sued through arbitration. The fees piled up quickly
Some days I wonder if it's really the corporate suits doing this crap or if it's just a group of blood sucking lawyers. Then I remember it doesn't actually matter because the suits aren't stopping the lawyers on moral grounds and the lawyers aren't warning the suits where it will go. They both seem to forget that if you push hard enough the police and soldiers will stop protecting them when people start going for the mob solution.
Good or bad, banning the usage of Arbitration is a extremely smart move, and it proves just how loyal valve is to their player base. Arbitration is overall just a *really* shady system that is easily abused by corporations.
As previously mentioned, Valve did not do this because it was good for the consumer. They did it because many states require that if you mandate arbitration that you are on the hook to pay the cost of arbitration for the all parties involved. Arbitration is more expensive than going to court, but can prevent class action law suits, and generally rule in favor of the party paying. Valve removed this clause because people who would of had a class action lawsuit instead were going to have to do arbitration which would be extremely expensive. Instead of defending against a single case, Valve would have to pay for several hundred or thousand individual arbitration cases. Edit, other companies have done the same thing for similar reasons. They got hit by mass arbitration claims and then quickly changed their TOS.
Arbitration can be good for both sides. It benefits the company with no documents leaked and tarnishing public image. And it can benefit the consumer with a quick and much much cheaper case. Court cases can take months to years, the lawyer fees quickly stack up. Arbitration can be solved very quick depending on the proceding. Im not for arbitration but people make it seem like they take a random employee to decide who is right.
They should go after Nintendo because there prices for digital games is ridiculously high and it makes 2nd hand games literally a few pounds lower than that game new
They can't. Nintendo is completely within their legal right to do so with their first party exclusive games. Valve doesn't have first party exclusive titles.
Given the cost of producing new games today their prices aren't high at all. The prices of video games just haven't risen that much at all in the last 15 years.
i actually didnt know that we dont own the steam games kinda i did own them even if it was in a form of license and argument against steam on no you dont, they do use BUY and the SHOPPING CART thus they are showing your buying something wich by STANDARD CONTRACT in society we own what we buy as we bought it.
@KimAlmighty1 most games on steam are DMR free. Every DMR Free game I purchase, I install and move to my external storage so I have it forever. (Just In case)
You already don't, and that is not even because of Steam -- since the industry discovered that the big money was in Live Service Games, you'll find that for most games, you giving them money makes you a Subscriber, not an Owner.
um, isn't that just going to make steam just improve the platform more? making it so they cannot use price variations to dictate what they will/wont sell on the platform? Like it's just an incentive for steam to add more improvements like better FamilyShare, Market UI, Social Features, etc.
@@binary3111The Epic Games store kind of made an example of that. The “benefits” that they showcased before it’s launch were more beneficial to game developers/publishers, since it was really them taking less of a cut on each store purchase. It’s one of those things where it takes a substantial effort of matching the leading competitors quality, and enough funds to advertise and get some publicity. Nowadays, a lot of companies are making launchers for their games, and people have gotten sick of having to use (or be forced to install) so many different launchers when they just want one that fulfills their needs. That’s typically why people stick to brands (or in this case, launchers) they recognize or are more familiar with, since the competition doesn’t match the leader(s).
@@Dr.Oofers bs The insentive for devs to be in EPIC are not worth it, nobody wants a store 51% owned by Tencent, keep information leaking, once worked as a spyware in transparent mode in your system, and that actually participates in monopoly practices like locking games behind their shop as "exclusive" f Epic. With all that mentioned ppl with half of a brain would just wait until any game Epic releases to lock to be released later in the other shops, which means it won't help devs sale numbers until is out of that jail
@@Mr2ops I'm not saying I'm against it. I'm more looking at it. If Steam improves their platform more. It would just make it more of an incentive to use Steam.
Forced arbitration is most certainly a bad thing, and this is good. But arbitration itself isn't necessarily bad, and can be preferable in some cases to the cost & time involved in a court case.
Another important part is being able to say, jointly decide on who will arbitrate it. Letting one side pick the arbitrator and the rules (like forced arbitration does) is a very bad idea. But yes, being allowed to arbitrate as an option is good, when done right.
@@paledrake Neither? The law in question is a US-law as far as I understand it. It never applied to the europe. Nothing changed for us, nothing gained, nothing lost. (and over here ppl are less likely to sue compared to the US anyway)
I can't see how it'd be legal for a company to hold an already established business deal hostage to force you to drop your charges, after you've filed those charges. Isn't that intimidation?
In most places as far as I'm aware arbitration is by agreement. I believe you would have to take them to court and sue to get your case arbitrated. Kind of moot at that point I would think.
I like GOG fine, but to be realistic they will never have the library available on Steam. Too many companies wet themselves at the thought of not having DRM. I own a few on GOG, but the bulk of my library is on Steam. The only time I'm upset at Steam is because they force updates and all these companies that like to go in and force their launcher on old games they don't even support any more just to try to force you into their ecosystem.
@@TrackMediaOnly "I like GOG fine, but to be realistic they will never have the library available on Steam." Which is why the statement that "gaming is dead" is true, at least for now.
Saw the popup. Dismissed it. I didn't even bother to read it. Continue using Steam. Then again I have nothing against "Father Gabe" :D (Oh.. and I am also from the UK, so... I also have my account for 20 years. Not going to delete it ever :D My children's children will get to inherit it. Which is btw against the Subscriber Agreement :P)
@@Helifax19 your steam account cant be passed by a will or passed on. They will eventually ask for proof that the 110 year old account is owned by whoever first made it.
@@matthewalvarez6884 A lot can happen in 110 years. I never thought we'd see anything close to the new family sharing policy, and yet here we are. Just recently California passed consumer protections banning companies from passing off license agreements as ownership with certain marketing and POS language. Times are changing.
It's about "what" you buy nowadays... you don't buy the physical copy anymore, just the opportunity to play. Thus, is it possible to steal the opportunity to play? I mean, if they're just gonna redefine everything, then that pretty much just means you can interpret it however you want... lol, property/ ownership is thew new genderfluid...
TLDR is Valve nearly got buried alive in legal fees due to a couple law firms taking advantage of its old subscriber agreement by organizing 10s of thousands of individual arbitrations against Valve due to monopolistic practices, and a judge refused to dismiss those cases so they were all about to go forward. The new subscriber agreement does sound better because it removes the forced arbitration, but there's a couple weaselly things that were inserted to basically make the 10s of thousands of legal cases go away, you either delete your account to continue your case or drop it, and you're not given any other choices.
Tldr, valve goodwill is taken advantage by some people. Arbitration in simple terms is a way to solve an agreement problem between two parties outside the open court or tldr solving them privately behind the desk. Unlike most companies who would force customers to use arbitration, Valve is willing compensate the lawsuits as long as it is under $10k even if they lose. This good will however, is biting them in the ass. Some bastards use 75k individual users to charge 'arbitration' with valve as ask for that 10k compensation money. As a result, Valve has been forced to stop the arbitration option and opted for open court. Consumers won't be able to solve any agreement problems with valve privately.
It is unenforceable to require an amended contract while holding hostage the products already sold. That is contract by force and I hope whatever lawyers are on those cases bring that up. Not to mention expecting the new contract to be able to break existing cases.
It probably won't mess with the cases that were around before this, but it'll probably reduce the number of cases these law firms get going forward unless they can successfully challenge this change in Steam's terms of service.
It's crazy that they say "yeah if you want to take legal action against us you have to forefeit all the products you purchased from us" and people think valve are the good guys?
@@BloodwyrmWildheart they don’t know I exist and they may not care about me but they sure as heck treat me better than 90% of big corporations. *cough* and they make some really good games *cough cough* 😝
See my thing is, If this were true they would need evidence that Valve had been de-listing games on steam for selling cheaper elsewhere regardless of Steam Keys. One employee said something in an email, but does that make it true? "We wouldn't be okay with selling games on Steam if they are available at better prices on other stores, even if they don't use Steam Keys." Is out of context, we don't have the email or the email chain, I would love to read the entirety of where this quote is taken from. I'm not trying to come off as if I'm defending Valve as if they have never tried to do some really dog shit things, but in this case, without evidence of such actions I don't know how there could be any case at all. The quote seems to be addressing Valve's policy on pricing parity for games sold on Steam compared to other platforms or stores. Valve has been known to expect that games sold on Steam should not be offered at significantly lower prices on other stores, even if they don’t use Steam keys (which would still give Valve a cut of the sales). It could also relate to Valve's broader business strategy of protecting their revenue, considering that if other platforms can offer lower prices, customers might shift away from Steam for purchases. With this quote taken out of context, We don't know what this employee could be referring to, but we can inference, one of the two above conclusions, or both.
Honestly that email absolutely cooked them. Selling Steam keys for cheap is one thing, but selling the games themselves on platforms other than steam for cheaper is... well, monopolistic. Don't get me wrong, I love Steam (who doesn't), but that'd be a concerning thing to let slide if Steam wasn't as gracious to consumers as they currently are now.
I agree, but in grocery stores and other shops, you have the same deals, you can't outbid the person you are selling the stock to, they would then essentially be running a free marketing for you while you reap the benefits
@@KrissFliss It's because of steams fee. Other platforms cant promote cheaper games by offering lower fees to developers because developers cant lower their price without doing so on steam thereby at a loss
"...if Steam wasn't as gracious to consumers as they currently are now." You are literally simping for a megacorporation that doesn't know or care about you.
"Your failure to cancel your Account prior to the effective date of the amendment will consitute your acceptance of the amended terms." This is more common than uncommon, so not exclusive to Valve, heck Google, Netflix, Amazon, Facebook et.c et.c all use this clause (or VERY similar) and has been, FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS. EDIT: And I can't think of a time since ANY subscribtion EVER hasn't had this clause, so make it atleast 40 years old clause.
@@mrsearaphim4077 What exactly is "fair" about biased moderation and not even owning the things you pay for? For that matter, what is "fair" about lootboxes (that Valve invented) or their three-layer DRM infecting the entire industry?
the entire staff what? are we supposed to read the thumbnail at that point? naaah, I thought my connection went out, pls don't cut michael out like this
it also applies to doing distribution yourself as an alternative. Per Steam's rules, you can't offer your game on your own web site cheaper than you do on Steam, even though you're now paying for the distribution, and not them.
@@MajorCrisis He covers this in the video. Not selling your game to steam would devastate sales. Developers feel forced to comply. Things like this happen when one company owns too much market share. Consumers always pay more when this happens
Wait, what? What store credit? I always find games cheaper elsewhere (Fanatical, Humble, with Choice Discount, Greenmangaming with my XP discount) and they're not always also on sale on Steam so this makes zero sense to me. Literally just bought Atelier Ayesha for 17.95 instead of Steam's 19.99 and on top of that I got 1.5 store discount which would've been a flat out price reduction if I had an active Choice sub. Or was this always the case in Europe and in the US, you can't get your Steam key anywhere for less than on Steam already?
The agreement is between Steam and developers/publishers on it, not third-party key resellers. Most if not all of those keys are acquired either: by stolen means, as part of legitimate discounted bundles for charity purposes, or subject to regional pricing arbitrage and then resold for profit and not what's being discussed.
You can usually find games cheaper elsewhere, but not every game and some of them, like Humble, require you already have sub to them to get the better discount. Humble has been cheaper than Steam for years, but I think people just don't know and/or don't look at the price differences when a game is on sale on Steam. There are dozens of games I got from Humble for $5-10 cheaper than Steam, I even got Elden Ring 15% off at launch, but that all required a Choice sub. Although I can't say if it is the same outside the USA, since Steam does do regional pricing.
some of, if not all of, the lawfirms using the arbitration agreement have been using it in a self-distructive formate. I mean, they only wish to get the 70%-80% cut of the financial incentive. The agreement is EXTREMLY common with MANY business. Also, Arbetrators within the US are held high, but also can be overturned...with some effort. I mean, ZIeger and others are NOT doing it for you, the customer, they are doing it for money. Also, you CAN do the class action lawsuit, but it cost money and you may not get anything out of it either way.
Sounds to me like Valve tried to do something nice, and scummy lawyers tried to game the system, making it a matter of survival for Valve to strike back and force a change through the license agreement. I know who I consider the villains of this story.
I just noticed that account alert for the change in SSA. The wording in the screenshot shown here was a bit different from what I read as I recall, but I'm in the US.
That was my understanding that if you want to sell a game on steam while selling it at another store regardless of steam key. you have to have it as the same price as on steam. You could have discounted on the off platform site if you plan a equal discount on the steam store as well within a reasonable time frame.
Isn't extortion illegal? Holding the games I purchased using the steam storefront hostage sounds like extortion to me. (Love steam though, its a great storefront, had an active account for 19 years now)
i wonder if the new agreement is even valid for the ones that are already in the Arbitration cases because it shouldn't be possible to force the other party into a different agreement mid case.
Almost certainly not, for this whatever contract terms that were agreed to will prevail at the time the claim was submitted to the courts. The retroactive nature is likely just in relation to people who haven't filed lawsuits/arbitration claims for something steam did during the old contract terms and the customer might file in the future.
As someone here in the U.S. who is part of the MasonLP suit, I can say that accepting the new agreement does not nullify our cases. In fact, we received an email from the firm telling us that they do not recommend deleting our accounts and that this ploy by Steam isn't a slam-dunk for Steam as the U.S. court could nullify said agreement's retroactive clause as a way of getting out of these suits..
Ironically, if this happens to other companies, they will write EULA's that benefit consumers in the interest of self interest. Highly unlikely but given what we have seen what companies are doing with user agreements (see uber, disney, etc...) now, someone needs to start bullying these companies int o doing the right thing.
Retroactivity about already ongoing cases wouldn't hold water in court, nor probably in arbitration. Furthermore if they attempted to enforce that retroactivity it would be illegal because they are punishing the opposing side of a legal proceeding.
So... where can I go to ACTUALLY own all of my games? Because it sure as hell isn't Steam. And don't say GOG, because their library is very limited in comparison. The answer to this question (or rather lack thereof) highlights the problem with modern gaming.
I hate how everybody always tries to go after Valve simply because they're salty that their garbage storefront/launcher doesn't make equal money.. Provide a better service and more people will give you money, it's not THAT HARD to understand..
For quite a while i don't buy games on Steam because of how they treat devs. Especially small devs. They don't deserve good reputation they have now. Either buy games on GOG so you own them or on Epic so devs get paid a fair share because 30% cut is not fair at all!
1: audio cut at the end, not a big deal, but I've seen UA-cam doing this to a lot of other people, so just something to bring to you'all's attention. 2: I'm sick of retroactive contract stuff. I get that steam is far more on the consumer's side than any other game company currently, but it still not only sucks, it pushes the EU to speed their shit up on the thing that Unity started. If you all remember that, the EU started to look into blocking contracts from ever being retroactively altered. This whole thing? Yeah, this is one reason WHY they were doing that. Ugh, I like steam, but seriously, so many places are being attacked, businesses, companies, and just pure games getting burned from unseen areas all over. This is just one of many worries that I am sick of having dwell in the world I go to to get away from stress...
I do appreciate you said you're not lawyers, but a small value court case at the consumer level is highly unlikely to set precedent. Also class actions are beloved by the Americans but they're frankly a bit useless, the only people that generally benefit are the lawyers. The UK/EU model of small claims, which is usually essentially arbitration is better for consumers imo. Also that's not really genius it's an attempt at unilateral contract terms and I don't know the various flavours of US law but they (except Louisiana) are a common law jurisdiction and my contract law is rusty at best but I don't think unilateral contract is liked by Courts.
There are other ways to compete. GoG for example makes every game on their platform compatible with current Operating Systems. Say you buy Fallout 1 on Steam and GoG, the GoG one will work without third party patching. Steam version is "broken" out of the box if you use a modern OS. Another way to compete with Steam is to actually sell games and not licenses to games, like GoG does. Alright, that's enough shilling for GoG. I love both platforms. Gamers don't put all your eggs in one basket. Any one of these companies could be gone tomorrow...
🙏 For Gaben. I was there when steam launched and consumed counter strike 1.6 into its launcher. I thought and expected the worst, another greedy corp just finding new ways to exploit their users. Before long I discovered that I was wrong, steam has been a blessing to the gaming community. If not for Steam someone else would hold a monopoly and no doubt it would be, by now, an activist run shithole. Tons of your favorite games would be forced to make changes to appear on the platform, things like SBI detected would have been immediately removed, all discourse constantly cleansed for ideological conformity and the prices would no doubt rise as well to cover the bloated staffing. I hope Gaben has planned for Valve/Steam's future so it doesnt go down the drain when he passes. I did try epic games platform for a couple weeks because Genshin Impact wasnt available on steam- right up until they prompted me after I closed the game, to tell them if the characters were diverse and inclusive enough .. after that I downloaded the game on mobile just so I can use samsung store and never give epic games a dime.
If steam wasnt violating EU rules then its really nothing to worry about. Australias consumer laws are just copy pasted EU consumer laws with few minor changes, like different wording and the only real difference is the lack of 2 week cool off period. So i dont know anything about this lawsuit but i bet its some company crying about steam, not the consumers.
I'm sorry, but that ticks me off, what the judge did. It was pretty clearly a law firm looking to take advantage of a loophole in the arbitration. As a consumer, I think Steam has, for the most part, taken exceptional care of their customers. The judge should not have allowed this predatory law firm to continue with their case.
We haven’t had the 20th October 2024 yet. it’s only the 2 October 2024 today! So not possible for a ruling to have occurred in the future, you must have the date wrong!
It should honestly be illegal to 1. Make end user agreements and TOS that are so long and full of legalese that its impossible for the everyday person to read and 2. To sell items and be able to take those items back if you are no longer on the platform. We should OWN the product if we buy it, no matter what Steam or anyone else says in a TOS agreement, and we shouldnt be subject to legally bidnding agreements drafted specifically to be insanely difficult to understand. We shouldn't put up with this shit at all.
A lot of that was rubbish in other countries anyway. In most countries nobody can take away your right to sue - even in written agreements. It doesn't stand up. It's mostly put into contracts by companies in order to scare people who don't actually know that. That's certainly the case in Australia, and probably the case in most countries, I would guess. Sad that it's not the case in America, then??
i generally like steam. i dont think companies should be allowed to call licensing a game "buying" it, unless theyre willing to stand by the spirit of the word "buy". but thats not even what this is actually about. also, the part where failure to delete your steam account constitutes accepting the new terms might SEEM genius to you, but it won't hold up in court. in general, consent works the same in court as it does with women. not saying no isn't the same as saying yes. even if they say it in some document 100% of people who don't accept the agreement, and haven't deleted their accounts, will have not read.
I was foolish enough to watch the first 3 minutes. What a waste of time. No information was given. It was like watching Kamala Harris give a word salad speech. Blocking channel!!
Anytime arbitration is defeated it's a good thing. I've long held that Steam is not a monopoly despite popular opinions, but I didn't know this stuff was in the user agreements, so awesome. If Valve fucks up, they can afford to pay out.
I just clicked yes after reading the prompt and skimming things. I didn't know all this backstory, and now I know a lot of the stink isn't as bad as it's being made out to be. Thanks! I was very confused though. A company "forcing" us not to be "forced" into arbitration anymore, yet there were folks crying about it. They should cry about the actual reasons for a class action lawsuit I'm sure, and valve should update how they do things, but it's not the particular change that's the issue I see now.
Ah yes, flooding the legal systems with cases that totally benefit the consumer. Not to mention Steam almost always has price parity (or less) with PSN and Xbox.
Really seems to me like a company should not be able to retroactively adjust agreements after litigation starts to force customers to drop cases they have against them. And yes, giving the only option to continue active arbitration cases being 'delete your account' is forcing. I hope a judge comes down on them and says 'no, you can't do that', because if it is allowed then this is going to be what replaces force arbitration going forward, companies are going to force you to drop litigation by threatening to delete all your shit. Considering that for many people that totals in the thousands of dollars worth of purchases, I'd say that's a fairly significant anti-consumer threat if they're allowed to get away with this.
So what? People PAID for products and the products they PAID for are held hostage? "Well ya see, you've got a nice library there. Must have cost a lot of money. And all that time spent on all those games. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it, see? How about you go to the coppers and say you no longer want sue, eh?"
I dont understand why a gaming customer would have to sue. They have one of the best return policies of any online store. I have been with them since 2004. Its the one place on the net I feel safe. I can get cards to buy whatever I want without using any risky transactions with the ol bank card. Is this for customers and creators/developers then.
I read through the popup and was surprised by the removal of forced arbitration, because it's so atypical in the modern business world. Seeing this backstory explains a lot.
Arbitration should never be binding. A due process should always be a choice. Changes should never be retroactive. Agreement to anything needs to be opt-in not opt-out. Generally the law is so pro-comapnies that its insane.
All of the content sites are just selling you a license to use the product. From Amazon onward. We need to fight against that. In the past, you bought a physical copy that is yours forever. I've got games that go back decades and I never have to worry that some corporation is going to take that away.
I have my doubts about the exact legality of those moves. You simply cannot revoke a steam account because the company decides to mess around with their agreement to whatever suits them best at any point in time. I simply feel like this move could in fact get them into more legal trouble .. as now we have some kind of extortive behavior between valve and their customers.. I still think this whole case is a huge mess and far from over or resolved.
What I find funny is that valve is anti competition for the pricing thing, but no one say that about Epic and their dealer strategy consisting of giving free gateway drugs... and yet despise that they still can't compete.
I doubt that one line is legally enforceable. If they delete their account, they no longer have standing and if they don't delete their account they no longer have standing. More to the point, if someone stopped using Steam they are unable to accept any new terms of service changes. Legally, the line could be considered extortionate and/or blackmail.
My 21 year old account with 2 thousand dollars worth of games was unbanned after the new agreement. I immediately traded all my stuff off the account. Very relieved but im not sure that it was intentional. I hope so.
Added attention to Valve's business practices is a good thing. US money-grubbing lawyers just trying to take a piece is the worst possible outcome though.
I am to delete my account but I dont have the money to buy the games I enjoy on disc right now. most of the games I play I can get physical copies but the games I played on the N64 like rogue squadron and the pc games like command & conquer I dont know what to do these days i want to get age of mythology remake love the game but I cant get it on disc anywhere because pc disc gaming is dead
nah you cant retroactively create legal clauses that users might not have seen. I get it... it happens all the time but a former employer was nuked from orbit. Basically the judge ruled that a contract at face value must be agreed upon by both parties or it is null and void.
No, you do not need to take them to court where they are located. You can take them to court in any jurisdiction in which you interact with their business, whether you reside there or are merely passing through. I am not an attorney, but I had a similar experience with another large corporation, also located in Bellevue, WA, and I took them to court in Oregon.
As an old gamer who remembers owning my own games I've never trusted Steam and never liked the idea of letting a 3rd party control all my licenses, but the market chose convenience over control and made them the monster they are today. Gabe may be a benevolent dictator, but I have no faith in Valve once he's gone.
It's kind of a weird "you get to have your cake and eat it too" in regards to people suing steam while continuing to use the service. A surprisingly tough choice to have to make to delete your account but really doesn't affect those who's accounts were already nuked by false flags or because the person looking at it decided they wanted to remove it that day.
I still don't get how any lawmaker can expect regular Joe's to understand any EULA in a legal sense, not to mention actually read it in full every time so nothing goes under your radar.
► Enjoy games, without the bs: bellular.games
► Read the latest Loading Screen: bellular.games/valve-retroactively-protect-themselves-from-lawsuits/
Valve sure makes a lot of money, but that's because every other launcher/shop (except GOG) sucks.
and gog is borderline profitable. 1 millions profit last year. sounds like a lot until you remember that having a world wide store with people downloading stuff all over the world cost billions...
Hard Agree, everyone wants the money Valve makes, but does not want to put in the 10+ years of work Valve spent on making Steam not suck.
Steam sucked too, but it takes time to make a platform like this successful.
Steam is not a "Get rich quick" scheme. it's changed the wya we play games. everyone under estimates it's.... Impact.
Not really, people are just die-hard loyal to valve for inexplicable reasons. Don't get me wrong, I use steam almost exclusively, but 90% of the reasons not to use Epic or GOG are nebulous at best. There isn't really anything aside from these three, unless you count these single publisher launchers.
Yeah. I always buy games from GOG when I can at all do so. Worse comes to worse I can at least store my games off line and never had to be connected to a service if I don't want to.
Gog is nearly as good as steam in every way, and they're infinitely better in many ways. If they could tripple or quadruple their library without adding more trash, they'll be bajillionaires and the entire industry will have to stop scamming purchasers.
20TH OF AUGUST NOT OCTOBER /FACEPALM
Voice audio also cut off early at the end. Ends with 'the entire staff' and then it cuts.
The audio gets cut off at the end before you can pitch the next video btw...
I thought that seemed off!
@@mightydeekin the entire staff looked for a bear shi**ing in the woods??🤣
Any thoughts on customers not getting recompense for items disappearing from their guild banks, and the topics talking about it on the WoW general forum?
(Amazing how little coverage by content creators that story is getting.)
Forced arbitration is BS. It won't be long until every business requires you to agree to forced arbitration upon entering their doors, unless people collectively take a stand and STOP GIVING THEM MONEY.
And they'll murder you without any repercussion because you blinked in their direction once, kind of like that woman at disneyland not that long ago.
You watch Louis Rossmann? It's pretty much already here.
Companies already all do that if you don’t want to engage with said companies you won’t be able to use any service the real solution is to get the federal government to ban forced arbitration.
It is but legal DDOSing is very much in vogue now. Far more people like money than there are people that can arbitrate. If a legal attack avenue goes viral arbitration can create a tidal wave of bs. I remember getting ads for the Valve litigation that lead up to this change.
They already do. Well all the big ones like Disney.
Tho steam was different for saying we'll pay fees, which they got taken advantage of for.
Good riddance that it's gone. The world is healing.
Tho I wonder if steam will be destroyed.
Arbitration should be illegal for big companies vs individuals
*illegal, period
The issue is we have constructed a society such that they couldn't handle even more of a case burden than they are already
Arbitration is okay, what should be illegal is forcing a person into arbitration without them being able to appeal to an actual court of justice.
You can still get yours through arbitration, but it is a little harder. Amazon or Google got a nice hit to the wallet after a bunch of people sued through arbitration. The fees piled up quickly
ABSOLUTELY
of course LAWYERS are taking advantage of good will
Always
Some days I wonder if it's really the corporate suits doing this crap or if it's just a group of blood sucking lawyers. Then I remember it doesn't actually matter because the suits aren't stopping the lawyers on moral grounds and the lawyers aren't warning the suits where it will go. They both seem to forget that if you push hard enough the police and soldiers will stop protecting them when people start going for the mob solution.
Free Money Glitch
Good or bad, banning the usage of Arbitration is a extremely smart move, and it proves just how loyal valve is to their player base.
Arbitration is overall just a *really* shady system that is easily abused by corporations.
@@OrigionalCigarette they're more so doing it because enough arbitration cases are more expensive than a class action law suit.
As previously mentioned, Valve did not do this because it was good for the consumer. They did it because many states require that if you mandate arbitration that you are on the hook to pay the cost of arbitration for the all parties involved. Arbitration is more expensive than going to court, but can prevent class action law suits, and generally rule in favor of the party paying. Valve removed this clause because people who would of had a class action lawsuit instead were going to have to do arbitration which would be extremely expensive. Instead of defending against a single case, Valve would have to pay for several hundred or thousand individual arbitration cases.
Edit, other companies have done the same thing for similar reasons. They got hit by mass arbitration claims and then quickly changed their TOS.
Arbitration can be good for both sides. It benefits the company with no documents leaked and tarnishing public image. And it can benefit the consumer with a quick and much much cheaper case. Court cases can take months to years, the lawyer fees quickly stack up. Arbitration can be solved very quick depending on the proceding.
Im not for arbitration but people make it seem like they take a random employee to decide who is right.
Bad thing fs. Just some organised criminals wants Velve to bleed(probably BlackRock). New ToS is extremely bad for everyone, except lawyers
@@kurtfrederiksen5538 arbitration is almost never more expensive than going to court.
Last time i was this early Ubisoft was innovative
nice
"the entire staff-" the entire staff what. THE ENTIRE STAFF WHAT!?
THE ENTIRE STAFF!
@@GinaRanChaosdiver ..of Annapurna Interactive resigned.
Know where you are and are coming to get you!
Just wanted to speak to you about your cars extended warranty.
@@t3chsupp0rt12why not shortend warranty?
They should go after Nintendo because there prices for digital games is ridiculously high and it makes 2nd hand games literally a few pounds lower than that game new
@dnakatomiuk at least they hold value though
They can't. Nintendo is completely within their legal right to do so with their first party exclusive games. Valve doesn't have first party exclusive titles.
@@CGoody564 tf2, portal, portal 2 cs2
Given the cost of producing new games today their prices aren't high at all. The prices of video games just haven't risen that much at all in the last 15 years.
i actually didnt know that we dont own the steam games kinda i did own them even if it was in a form of license and argument against steam on no you dont, they do use BUY and the SHOPPING CART thus they are showing your buying something wich by STANDARD CONTRACT in society we own what we buy as we bought it.
@KimAlmighty1 most games on steam are DMR free. Every DMR Free game I purchase, I install and move to my external storage so I have it forever. (Just In case)
Your argument won't work because steam will say that you bought a license, which is a thing people do.
@@nsmetroid3403Why does my Skyrim refuse to open without Steam then?
@@bobSeigar Some games require being online and connected to a server to play. Even some single player games.
@@classarank7youtubeherokeyb63 but they didnt say it and when i did i was a child and so their argument kinda doesnt work.
We should OWN the games we PURCHASE
So who will pay for the server and cost associated with that!
This. This is what we fight for in the end. Valve want us to literally "own nothing and be happy".
You already don't, and that is not even because of Steam -- since the industry discovered that the big money was in Live Service Games, you'll find that for most games, you giving them money makes you a Subscriber, not an Owner.
Buy physical then
If you owned the game you purchased, what would stop you from giving out free digital copies to everyone who didn't purchase the game?
Seems like a step in the right direction to me. Hope it keeps going that way.
11:50 What a cliff hanger xD
@@asweet93 they were testing us if we actually watch to the end
THE ENTIRE STAFF-
The entire staff what..? the entire staff whaaaaat??? 😫
um, isn't that just going to make steam just improve the platform more? making it so they cannot use price variations to dictate what they will/wont sell on the platform?
Like it's just an incentive for steam to add more improvements like better FamilyShare, Market UI, Social Features, etc.
@@PanicOregon competition doesn't always mean better services for the consumer. It should, but it doesn't necessarily
Yes that's exactly why monopolies are bad
@@binary3111The Epic Games store kind of made an example of that. The “benefits” that they showcased before it’s launch were more beneficial to game developers/publishers, since it was really them taking less of a cut on each store purchase.
It’s one of those things where it takes a substantial effort of matching the leading competitors quality, and enough funds to advertise and get some publicity. Nowadays, a lot of companies are making launchers for their games, and people have gotten sick of having to use (or be forced to install) so many different launchers when they just want one that fulfills their needs. That’s typically why people stick to brands (or in this case, launchers) they recognize or are more familiar with, since the competition doesn’t match the leader(s).
@@Dr.Oofers bs
The insentive for devs to be in EPIC are not worth it, nobody wants a store 51% owned by Tencent, keep information leaking, once worked as a spyware in transparent mode in your system, and that actually participates in monopoly practices like locking games behind their shop as "exclusive" f Epic.
With all that mentioned ppl with half of a brain would just wait until any game Epic releases to lock to be released later in the other shops, which means it won't help devs sale numbers until is out of that jail
@@Mr2ops I'm not saying I'm against it. I'm more looking at it. If Steam improves their platform more. It would just make it more of an incentive to use Steam.
Forced arbitration is most certainly a bad thing, and this is good.
But arbitration itself isn't necessarily bad, and can be preferable in some cases to the cost & time involved in a court case.
Another important part is being able to say, jointly decide on who will arbitrate it. Letting one side pick the arbitrator and the rules (like forced arbitration does) is a very bad idea.
But yes, being allowed to arbitrate as an option is good, when done right.
Like most things in life, it's good if consensual, and abhorrent if not.
I'm in europe this dosn't apply to me
I'm stupid, is that a good or a bad thing?
@@paledrake Neither? The law in question is a US-law as far as I understand it. It never applied to the europe. Nothing changed for us, nothing gained, nothing lost. (and over here ppl are less likely to sue compared to the US anyway)
Its good, @@paledrakebecause no forced arbitration bs.
"getting a popup announcement for the new terms" as a European, i didn't get it. :D
I can't see how it'd be legal for a company to hold an already established business deal hostage to force you to drop your charges, after you've filed those charges.
Isn't that intimidation?
Entrapment maybe.
it's intimidation, entrapment, and extortion.
In most places as far as I'm aware arbitration is by agreement. I believe you would have to take them to court and sue to get your case arbitrated. Kind of moot at that point I would think.
I know there is more to watch here... but I'm stuck on the first line.
The 20th of October 2024... hasn't happened yet.
We are in the matrix friend
valve invented time travel, nintendo is currently scrambling to draft a patent so they can sue them.
Happens all the time in our ''news'
@@Thejigholeman "No time traveru for you!" -nintendo, maybe...
This is the reason why I stick with GOG when I can at least possess off line installers.
@dogofwar6769 been slowly switching and happy after I have been
I like GOG fine, but to be realistic they will never have the library available on Steam. Too many companies wet themselves at the thought of not having DRM. I own a few on GOG, but the bulk of my library is on Steam.
The only time I'm upset at Steam is because they force updates and all these companies that like to go in and force their launcher on old games they don't even support any more just to try to force you into their ecosystem.
@@TrackMediaOnly "I like GOG fine, but to be realistic they will never have the library available on Steam."
Which is why the statement that "gaming is dead" is true, at least for now.
Saw the popup. Dismissed it. I didn't even bother to read it. Continue using Steam. Then again I have nothing against "Father Gabe" :D (Oh.. and I am also from the UK, so... I also have my account for 20 years. Not going to delete it ever :D My children's children will get to inherit it. Which is btw against the Subscriber Agreement :P)
@@Helifax19 your steam account cant be passed by a will or passed on. They will eventually ask for proof that the 110 year old account is owned by whoever first made it.
Family sharing
@@matthewalvarez6884 A lot can happen in 110 years. I never thought we'd see anything close to the new family sharing policy, and yet here we are. Just recently California passed consumer protections banning companies from passing off license agreements as ownership with certain marketing and POS language. Times are changing.
If buying it is not owning it, stealing it is not theft.
This statement makes no sense. I'm fine with piracy, just be honest about what you're doing.
It's about "what" you buy nowadays... you don't buy the physical copy anymore, just the opportunity to play. Thus, is it possible to steal the opportunity to play?
I mean, if they're just gonna redefine everything, then that pretty much just means you can interpret it however you want... lol, property/ ownership is thew new genderfluid...
@@flamegrylls8965your statement actually don't make sense
@@flamegrylls8965 Deprogram your consoomer brain, and then it will.
@@jasonrouse8215💯
That the law can used to create pure wealth through sophistry is an absolutely horrendous thought.
American law is truly a joke in the world.
you dont need to qualify "American Law" just "America"
@@Thugblader92 evry country has laws wich if properly examined are stupid and serve only to make things worse.
I'm so confused on what this video told me
TLDR is Valve nearly got buried alive in legal fees due to a couple law firms taking advantage of its old subscriber agreement by organizing 10s of thousands of individual arbitrations against Valve due to monopolistic practices, and a judge refused to dismiss those cases so they were all about to go forward.
The new subscriber agreement does sound better because it removes the forced arbitration, but there's a couple weaselly things that were inserted to basically make the 10s of thousands of legal cases go away, you either delete your account to continue your case or drop it, and you're not given any other choices.
Something, something arbitration. Something, something monolopoly. Valve good, D4 bad.
Tldr, valve goodwill is taken advantage by some people. Arbitration in simple terms is a way to solve an agreement problem between two parties outside the open court or tldr solving them privately behind the desk. Unlike most companies who would force customers to use arbitration, Valve is willing compensate the lawsuits as long as it is under $10k even if they lose. This good will however, is biting them in the ass. Some bastards use 75k individual users to charge 'arbitration' with valve as ask for that 10k compensation money.
As a result, Valve has been forced to stop the arbitration option and opted for open court. Consumers won't be able to solve any agreement problems with valve privately.
It is unenforceable to require an amended contract while holding hostage the products already sold. That is contract by force and I hope whatever lawyers are on those cases bring that up. Not to mention expecting the new contract to be able to break existing cases.
Like with everything in court it depends on the Judge(and then maybe the appeals court).
It probably won't mess with the cases that were around before this, but it'll probably reduce the number of cases these law firms get going forward unless they can successfully challenge this change in Steam's terms of service.
It's crazy that they say "yeah if you want to take legal action against us you have to forefeit all the products you purchased from us" and people think valve are the good guys?
Valve is the one company I don’t want sued
Drone. They don't care or even know about you.
@@BloodwyrmWildheart they don’t know I exist and they may not care about me but they sure as heck treat me better than 90% of big corporations.
*cough* and they make some really good games *cough cough*
😝
Not really fan of cracking down on a company that's been in almost all ways great for consumers.
It's dismissed without prejudice which will allow Valve to refile appeal.
It's like a corporate marathon towards losing their user base to piracy.
See my thing is, If this were true they would need evidence that Valve had been de-listing games on steam for selling cheaper elsewhere regardless of Steam Keys. One employee said something in an email, but does that make it true?
"We wouldn't be okay with selling games on Steam if they are available at better prices on other stores, even if they don't use Steam Keys."
Is out of context, we don't have the email or the email chain, I would love to read the entirety of where this quote is taken from.
I'm not trying to come off as if I'm defending Valve as if they have never tried to do some really dog shit things, but in this case, without evidence of such actions I don't know how there could be any case at all.
The quote seems to be addressing Valve's policy on pricing parity for games sold on Steam compared to other platforms or stores. Valve has been known to expect that games sold on Steam should not be offered at significantly lower prices on other stores, even if they don’t use Steam keys (which would still give Valve a cut of the sales).
It could also relate to Valve's broader business strategy of protecting their revenue, considering that if other platforms can offer lower prices, customers might shift away from Steam for purchases.
With this quote taken out of context, We don't know what this employee could be referring to, but we can inference, one of the two above conclusions, or both.
Honestly that email absolutely cooked them. Selling Steam keys for cheap is one thing, but selling the games themselves on platforms other than steam for cheaper is... well, monopolistic.
Don't get me wrong, I love Steam (who doesn't), but that'd be a concerning thing to let slide if Steam wasn't as gracious to consumers as they currently are now.
I agree, but in grocery stores and other shops, you have the same deals, you can't outbid the person you are selling the stock to, they would then essentially be running a free marketing for you while you reap the benefits
Can't you just move the price down on steam, then it gets cheaper other places too?
@@KrissFliss It's because of steams fee. Other platforms cant promote cheaper games by offering lower fees to developers because developers cant lower their price without doing so on steam thereby at a loss
"...if Steam wasn't as gracious to consumers as they currently are now."
You are literally simping for a megacorporation that doesn't know or care about you.
"Your failure to cancel your Account prior to the effective date of the amendment will consitute your acceptance of the amended terms." This is more common than uncommon, so not exclusive to Valve, heck Google, Netflix, Amazon, Facebook et.c et.c all use this clause (or VERY similar) and has been, FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS.
EDIT: And I can't think of a time since ANY subscribtion EVER hasn't had this clause, so make it atleast 40 years old clause.
Grubby lawyers find a loop hole and Valve knocks them down a peg. Nice
Valve didn't knock anyone but their creepy corporate selves down.
I think Valve is one of the only companies that Arbitration is ok.
This "double standard" is so common with Valve it's hilarious but it's usually because Valve tends to keep things fair while others don't
@@mrsearaphim4077 What exactly is "fair" about biased moderation and not even owning the things you pay for?
For that matter, what is "fair" about lootboxes (that Valve invented) or their three-layer DRM infecting the entire industry?
"For valve, the 20th of October 2024 hasn't happened yet, as they haven't cracked the code of time travel."
the entire staff what? are we supposed to read the thumbnail at that point? naaah, I thought my connection went out, pls don't cut michael out like this
hate the "anti competition" arguments. Mainly because i use steam, because everything else sucks ass lmao
it also applies to doing distribution yourself as an alternative. Per Steam's rules, you can't offer your game on your own web site cheaper than you do on Steam, even though you're now paying for the distribution, and not them.
@@Eclipse-lw4vf the problem is they’re pro-consumer, & being pro-consumer in & of itself is seen as being anti-competition.
@@halofreak1990 Then don't put your game on Steam. Simple as.
@@lyokianhitchhiker how exactly is disallowing games to be sold cheaper "pro consumer"?
@@MajorCrisis He covers this in the video. Not selling your game to steam would devastate sales. Developers feel forced to comply. Things like this happen when one company owns too much market share. Consumers always pay more when this happens
The USA is a country like a bad reality TV show... You can just shake your head
This is just a procedural dismissal because of jurisdictional issues. Valve is allowed to do another appeal in a different jurisdiction.
I have over 167 games in my Steam library. Why would I delete my account?
Because You own none of these games. So if Valve ever goes out of business, you'll lose access to all of them.
What’s with the dialogue cut right at the end?
Wait, what? What store credit? I always find games cheaper elsewhere (Fanatical, Humble, with Choice Discount, Greenmangaming with my XP discount) and they're not always also on sale on Steam so this makes zero sense to me. Literally just bought Atelier Ayesha for 17.95 instead of Steam's 19.99 and on top of that I got 1.5 store discount which would've been a flat out price reduction if I had an active Choice sub. Or was this always the case in Europe and in the US, you can't get your Steam key anywhere for less than on Steam already?
The agreement is between Steam and developers/publishers on it, not third-party key resellers. Most if not all of those keys are acquired either: by stolen means, as part of legitimate discounted bundles for charity purposes, or subject to regional pricing arbitrage and then resold for profit and not what's being discussed.
You can usually find games cheaper elsewhere, but not every game and some of them, like Humble, require you already have sub to them to get the better discount. Humble has been cheaper than Steam for years, but I think people just don't know and/or don't look at the price differences when a game is on sale on Steam. There are dozens of games I got from Humble for $5-10 cheaper than Steam, I even got Elden Ring 15% off at launch, but that all required a Choice sub. Although I can't say if it is the same outside the USA, since Steam does do regional pricing.
some of, if not all of, the lawfirms using the arbitration agreement have been using it in a self-distructive formate. I mean, they only wish to get the 70%-80% cut of the financial incentive. The agreement is EXTREMLY common with MANY business. Also, Arbetrators within the US are held high, but also can be overturned...with some effort.
I mean, ZIeger and others are NOT doing it for you, the customer, they are doing it for money. Also, you CAN do the class action lawsuit, but it cost money and you may not get anything out of it either way.
Sounds to me like Valve tried to do something nice, and scummy lawyers tried to game the system, making it a matter of survival for Valve to strike back and force a change through the license agreement. I know who I consider the villains of this story.
First words of your presentation, "October 20th of 2024 was" .... ?!?! .... That's 19 days from now?
I just noticed that account alert for the change in SSA. The wording in the screenshot shown here was a bit different from what I read as I recall, but I'm in the US.
That was my understanding that if you want to sell a game on steam while selling it at another store regardless of steam key. you have to have it as the same price as on steam. You could have discounted on the off platform site if you plan a equal discount on the steam store as well within a reasonable time frame.
Seeing people find creative ways to CRUSH Forced Arbitration puts a massive :) on my face.
Isn't extortion illegal? Holding the games I purchased using the steam storefront hostage sounds like extortion to me. (Love steam though, its a great storefront, had an active account for 19 years now)
I may not know law too well, but isn't it illegal to change t&c and expect it to be enforeced retroactively?
11:50 "The entire staff...(silence)"
something got accidently cut there XDD
11:49 Your voice audio cuts out suddenly. Back ground audio keeps going though.
i wonder if the new agreement is even valid for the ones that are already in the Arbitration cases because it shouldn't be possible to force the other party into a different agreement mid case.
Almost certainly not, for this whatever contract terms that were agreed to will prevail at the time the claim was submitted to the courts. The retroactive nature is likely just in relation to people who haven't filed lawsuits/arbitration claims for something steam did during the old contract terms and the customer might file in the future.
@@TheLuceon i'm just wondering because he said that most of the Arbitration cases will collabse because of this.
11:50 THE ENTRIE STAFF?!
Even after having it explained to me I still don't know what any of this means
The entire staff what?
As someone here in the U.S. who is part of the MasonLP suit, I can say that accepting the new agreement does not nullify our cases. In fact, we received an email from the firm telling us that they do not recommend deleting our accounts and that this ploy by Steam isn't a slam-dunk for Steam as the U.S. court could nullify said agreement's retroactive clause as a way of getting out of these suits..
Yep. The threat of potentially losing thousands of dollars worth of product is flat out ridiculous and I hope the courts call them on it.
@@TSD4027then again what's the stop valve from simply deleting your account
@@joshallen128 more lawsuits
The 20th of October 2024? That hasn't happened yet.
Steam is the best the other platforms need to go away.
Ironically, if this happens to other companies, they will write EULA's that benefit consumers in the interest of self interest. Highly unlikely but given what we have seen what companies are doing with user agreements (see uber, disney, etc...) now, someone needs to start bullying these companies int o doing the right thing.
Retroactivity about already ongoing cases wouldn't hold water in court, nor probably in arbitration. Furthermore if they attempted to enforce that retroactivity it would be illegal because they are punishing the opposing side of a legal proceeding.
Micheal how can a judge dismiss an appeal on Oct 20th 2024 when that date hasn't even occurred yet? Correction needed?
Video voice cuts out mid-sentence at the end
So... where can I go to ACTUALLY own all of my games? Because it sure as hell isn't Steam. And don't say GOG, because their library is very limited in comparison.
The answer to this question (or rather lack thereof) highlights the problem with modern gaming.
I hate how everybody always tries to go after Valve simply because they're salty that their garbage storefront/launcher doesn't make equal money.. Provide a better service and more people will give you money, it's not THAT HARD to understand..
For quite a while i don't buy games on Steam because of how they treat devs. Especially small devs. They don't deserve good reputation they have now. Either buy games on GOG so you own them or on Epic so devs get paid a fair share because 30% cut is not fair at all!
1: audio cut at the end, not a big deal, but I've seen UA-cam doing this to a lot of other people, so just something to bring to you'all's attention.
2: I'm sick of retroactive contract stuff. I get that steam is far more on the consumer's side than any other game company currently, but it still not only sucks, it pushes the EU to speed their shit up on the thing that Unity started. If you all remember that, the EU started to look into blocking contracts from ever being retroactively altered. This whole thing? Yeah, this is one reason WHY they were doing that.
Ugh, I like steam, but seriously, so many places are being attacked, businesses, companies, and just pure games getting burned from unseen areas all over. This is just one of many worries that I am sick of having dwell in the world I go to to get away from stress...
I do appreciate you said you're not lawyers, but a small value court case at the consumer level is highly unlikely to set precedent. Also class actions are beloved by the Americans but they're frankly a bit useless, the only people that generally benefit are the lawyers. The UK/EU model of small claims, which is usually essentially arbitration is better for consumers imo.
Also that's not really genius it's an attempt at unilateral contract terms and I don't know the various flavours of US law but they (except Louisiana) are a common law jurisdiction and my contract law is rusty at best but I don't think unilateral contract is liked by Courts.
There are other ways to compete. GoG for example makes every game on their platform compatible with current Operating Systems. Say you buy Fallout 1 on Steam and GoG, the GoG one will work without third party patching. Steam version is "broken" out of the box if you use a modern OS. Another way to compete with Steam is to actually sell games and not licenses to games, like GoG does. Alright, that's enough shilling for GoG. I love both platforms. Gamers don't put all your eggs in one basket. Any one of these companies could be gone tomorrow...
🙏 For Gaben. I was there when steam launched and consumed counter strike 1.6 into its launcher. I thought and expected the worst, another greedy corp just finding new ways to exploit their users.
Before long I discovered that I was wrong, steam has been a blessing to the gaming community. If not for Steam someone else would hold a monopoly and no doubt it would be, by now, an activist run shithole.
Tons of your favorite games would be forced to make changes to appear on the platform, things like SBI detected would have been immediately removed, all discourse constantly cleansed for ideological conformity and the prices would no doubt rise as well to cover the bloated staffing.
I hope Gaben has planned for Valve/Steam's future so it doesnt go down the drain when he passes.
I did try epic games platform for a couple weeks because Genshin Impact wasnt available on steam- right up until they prompted me after I closed the game, to tell them if the characters were diverse and inclusive enough .. after that I downloaded the game on mobile just so I can use samsung store and never give epic games a dime.
If steam wasnt violating EU rules then its really nothing to worry about. Australias consumer laws are just copy pasted EU consumer laws with few minor changes, like different wording and the only real difference is the lack of 2 week cool off period. So i dont know anything about this lawsuit but i bet its some company crying about steam, not the consumers.
I'm sorry, but that ticks me off, what the judge did. It was pretty clearly a law firm looking to take advantage of a loophole in the arbitration. As a consumer, I think Steam has, for the most part, taken exceptional care of their customers. The judge should not have allowed this predatory law firm to continue with their case.
We haven’t had the 20th October 2024 yet. it’s only the 2 October 2024 today! So not possible for a ruling to have occurred in the future, you must have the date wrong!
It should honestly be illegal to 1. Make end user agreements and TOS that are so long and full of legalese that its impossible for the everyday person to read and 2. To sell items and be able to take those items back if you are no longer on the platform.
We should OWN the product if we buy it, no matter what Steam or anyone else says in a TOS agreement, and we shouldnt be subject to legally bidnding agreements drafted specifically to be insanely difficult to understand. We shouldn't put up with this shit at all.
A lot of that was rubbish in other countries anyway. In most countries nobody can take away your right to sue - even in written agreements. It doesn't stand up. It's mostly put into contracts by companies in order to scare people who don't actually know that. That's certainly the case in Australia, and probably the case in most countries, I would guess. Sad that it's not the case in America, then??
i generally like steam. i dont think companies should be allowed to call licensing a game "buying" it, unless theyre willing to stand by the spirit of the word "buy". but thats not even what this is actually about.
also, the part where failure to delete your steam account constitutes accepting the new terms might SEEM genius to you, but it won't hold up in court.
in general, consent works the same in court as it does with women. not saying no isn't the same as saying yes. even if they say it in some document 100% of people who don't accept the agreement, and haven't deleted their accounts, will have not read.
Gross, epic ad.
I was foolish enough to watch the first 3 minutes. What a waste of time. No information was given. It was like watching Kamala Harris give a word salad speech. Blocking channel!!
Anytime arbitration is defeated it's a good thing.
I've long held that Steam is not a monopoly despite popular opinions, but I didn't know this stuff was in the user agreements, so awesome. If Valve fucks up, they can afford to pay out.
I just clicked yes after reading the prompt and skimming things. I didn't know all this backstory, and now I know a lot of the stink isn't as bad as it's being made out to be. Thanks! I was very confused though. A company "forcing" us not to be "forced" into arbitration anymore, yet there were folks crying about it. They should cry about the actual reasons for a class action lawsuit I'm sure, and valve should update how they do things, but it's not the particular change that's the issue I see now.
Ah yes, flooding the legal systems with cases that totally benefit the consumer.
Not to mention Steam almost always has price parity (or less) with PSN and Xbox.
0:02 do you have a time machine sir?, you did say the 20th of October 2024 there right, replayed it lol cause I thought feck I'm losing my mind lol :D
Really seems to me like a company should not be able to retroactively adjust agreements after litigation starts to force customers to drop cases they have against them.
And yes, giving the only option to continue active arbitration cases being 'delete your account' is forcing. I hope a judge comes down on them and says 'no, you can't do that', because if it is allowed then this is going to be what replaces force arbitration going forward, companies are going to force you to drop litigation by threatening to delete all your shit.
Considering that for many people that totals in the thousands of dollars worth of purchases, I'd say that's a fairly significant anti-consumer threat if they're allowed to get away with this.
So what? People PAID for products and the products they PAID for are held hostage?
"Well ya see, you've got a nice library there. Must have cost a lot of money. And all that time spent on all those games. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it, see? How about you go to the coppers and say you no longer want sue, eh?"
I dont understand why a gaming customer would have to sue. They have one of the best return policies of any online store. I have been with them since 2004. Its the one place on the net I feel safe. I can get cards to buy whatever I want without using any risky transactions with the ol bank card. Is this for customers and creators/developers then.
I read through the popup and was surprised by the removal of forced arbitration, because it's so atypical in the modern business world. Seeing this backstory explains a lot.
Arbitration should never be binding. A due process should always be a choice.
Changes should never be retroactive.
Agreement to anything needs to be opt-in not opt-out.
Generally the law is so pro-comapnies that its insane.
All of the content sites are just selling you a license to use the product. From Amazon onward. We need to fight against that. In the past, you bought a physical copy that is yours forever. I've got games that go back decades and I never have to worry that some corporation is going to take that away.
I have my doubts about the exact legality of those moves.
You simply cannot revoke a steam account because the company decides to mess around with their agreement to whatever suits them best at any point in time.
I simply feel like this move could in fact get them into more legal trouble .. as now we have some kind of extortive behavior between valve and their customers..
I still think this whole case is a huge mess and far from over or resolved.
What I find funny is that valve is anti competition for the pricing thing, but no one say that about Epic and their dealer strategy consisting of giving free gateway drugs... and yet despise that they still can't compete.
I doubt that one line is legally enforceable. If they delete their account, they no longer have standing and if they don't delete their account they no longer have standing. More to the point, if someone stopped using Steam they are unable to accept any new terms of service changes. Legally, the line could be considered extortionate and/or blackmail.
My 21 year old account with 2 thousand dollars worth of games was unbanned after the new agreement. I immediately traded all my stuff off the account. Very relieved but im not sure that it was intentional. I hope so.
Added attention to Valve's business practices is a good thing. US money-grubbing lawyers just trying to take a piece is the worst possible outcome though.
I am to delete my account but I dont have the money to buy the games I enjoy on disc right now. most of the games I play I can get physical copies but the games I played on the N64 like rogue squadron and the pc games like command & conquer I dont know what to do these days i want to get age of mythology remake love the game but I cant get it on disc anywhere because pc disc gaming is dead
nah you cant retroactively create legal clauses that users might not have seen. I get it... it happens all the time but a former employer was nuked from orbit. Basically the judge ruled that a contract at face value must be agreed upon by both parties or it is null and void.
No, you do not need to take them to court where they are located. You can take them to court in any jurisdiction in which you interact with their business, whether you reside there or are merely passing through. I am not an attorney, but I had a similar experience with another large corporation, also located in Bellevue, WA, and I took them to court in Oregon.
As an old gamer who remembers owning my own games I've never trusted Steam and never liked the idea of letting a 3rd party control all my licenses, but the market chose convenience over control and made them the monster they are today. Gabe may be a benevolent dictator, but I have no faith in Valve once he's gone.
It's kind of a weird "you get to have your cake and eat it too" in regards to people suing steam while continuing to use the service. A surprisingly tough choice to have to make to delete your account but really doesn't affect those who's accounts were already nuked by false flags or because the person looking at it decided they wanted to remove it that day.
I still don't get how any lawmaker can expect regular Joe's to understand any EULA in a legal sense, not to mention actually read it in full every time so nothing goes under your radar.
Crazy, Valve tried to be good guys by paying the costs just for law firms to act like they found an infinite money glitch