ACCC Sues Valve

[AsRock]

Some of this shit is due to lack of or false info from the game company's too. About a year ago me and a friend picked up a rugby game ( think it was called Rugby challenge which the Steam front page claimed that it had coop.

So when we got in to dropping $100 all to find that the game only had coop if you played local cool, the company did not give a dam about the misleading details and the info was correct. How ever Steam did refund but all so included i would not be entitled to another refund. O yea they change the details soon later to just local coop.

If your sold the game that's printed\reported in some way to be some thing that it's not i think you should get a refund regardless of other bullshit as it's false advertising.

 

[Deleted member 67555]

I hope the ACCC wins and I hope people everywhere say "Fuck This Shit" as well...

I know I'm sick of getting bad software that was knowingly falsely advertised.

Sure it doesn't happen all the time but it does happen...

and it really really pisses me off when it does....

To me it's no different from stealing and like any thief that steals from me it makes me wanna do violent things to them.

 

[Melvis]

Valve cannot fix broken games (unless it is theirs). Publisher: developers don't deal with distributors (like Steam) unless it is self-published.

Exactly!! Just like ever other shop. Its still there responsibility to get the issue fixed no matter if its there's or not, this doesn't mean fixing the game or product but giving the customer back there money or getting it fixed some other way. Thats how the law works here in AUS, dont get it mixed up with other countries.

Because digital goods are infinite. There is virtually no cost to reproduce it and forgeries are just as easy to produce. It is about selling access to intellectual property and not something tangible. That's why virtually all countries distinguish between tangible and intangible goods.

No your not getting it, it makes no difference what so ever. It has nothing to do with been digital or not or how its produced or how its brought to the public, the law is the law and it states that ANYTHING that is sold here in Australia that the customer is not pleased with or seems to not work or whatever it may be can be returned for a refund or fixed, period, no if's or but's or anything, thats the law!

Define "faulty." Games, music, movies, etc. are all considered works of art. A game can be, therefore, be "faulty" by design. If Microsoft Word had something designed in a way you didn't like, is that "faulty?" All software is not without "faults." Where do you draw the line between something that is truly broken and something that is merely buggy? I, and most countries, say law cannot define that; the courts must on a case-by-case basis and usually on the premise of more concrete consumer protection law like false advertising. Because ACCC isn't bringing forward a specific case nor can they prove they were damaged, this rabbit hole leads nowhere.

I think your looking to deep into this and now grasping at straws, faulty in any terms is a product that doesnt work correctly as what is stated. Im not sure what these guys are saying whats wrong with there product and it doesnt matter either, if there is indeed a problem with the product then by LAW they can ask for a refund in this country for the item they have paid for, thats that. They have two choice to fix the issue in this county and thats either a refund or a replacement.

I hope the ACCC wins and I hope people everywhere say "Fuck This Shit" as well...

I know I'm sick of getting bad software that was knowingly falsely advertised.

Sure it doesn't happen all the time but it does happen...

and it really really pisses me off when it does....

To me it's no different from stealing and like any thief that steals from me it makes me wanna do violent things to them.

I have to agree, software these days needs to catch up, its getting beyond a joke buying a product that is no where near finished and then wait for patches or whatever to be released for the software to work correctly. Didnt have this issue yrs ago as the internet wasn't available as it is now for people, they had to make sure it was finished and working correctly back then, now they do a half ass job, get it out the door quickly and then fix there issues later with an update, its just lazyness honestly, id like to see them get away with it now if we didn't have the internet hey? lol and the funniest thing is they sometimes charge for the update LOL like wtf?

 

[RCoon]

Exactly!! Just like ever other shop. Its still there responsibility to get the issue fixed no matter if its there's or not, this doesn't mean fixing the game or product but giving the customer back there money or getting it fixed some other way. Thats how the law works here in AUS, dont get it mixed up with other countries.






No your not getting it, it makes no difference what so ever. It has nothing to do with been digital or not or how its produced or how its brought to the public, the law is the law and it states that ANYTHING that is sold here in Australia that the customer is not pleased with or seems to not work or whatever it may be can be returned for a refund or fixed, period, no if's or but's or anything, thats the law!




I think your looking to deep into this and now grasping at straws, faulty in any terms is a product that doesnt work correctly as what is stated. Im not sure what these guys are saying whats wrong with there product and it doesnt matter either, if there is indeed a problem with the product then by LAW they can ask for a refund in this country for the item they have paid for, thats that. They have two choice to fix the issue in this county and thats either a refund or a replacement.

While I entirely agree with you that a product that is broken, not working correctly, or otherwise entirely different as otherwise stated, should be allowed for a full refund. This applies to everything in most countries except digital stuffs (except mp3's and movies, which can be refunded). What Valve is doing is slightly shady, but well within their rights.
Simple answer, download a "demo" of the game, play it, if you like it, buy it, if it's broken, uninstall it. Alternatively, buy from GoG instead.

You need to bare in mind though, this is valve. They don't care. What will they do about this lawsuit? Nothing, nothing at all. They don't have to, and prefer silence above all else. Valve are like China. They don't care what anybody thinks, they are driven only by profits.

 

[seanmac]

and the Australians can go back to riding a kangaroo to a store to buy a physical copy that would suck I hear the aussie choice of entertaining media is pretty slim..

Troll much ?

Aussie choice = The Pirate Bay

 

[SaltyFish]

So... basically there's a clash because the Australian expectation of consumer protection/rights isn't being met by the much weaker American standard of consumer protection/rights?

 

[seanmac]

So... basically there's a clash because the Australian expectation of consumer protection/rights isn't being met by the much weaker American standard of consumer protection/rights?

ROFL

To miss-quote Tony Abbot, " American consumer law is a witches brew of complexity and danger".

 

[Melvis]

While I entirely agree with you that a product that is broken, not working correctly, or otherwise entirely different as otherwise stated, should be allowed for a full refund. This applies to everything in most countries except digital stuffs (except mp3's and movies, which can be refunded). What Valve is doing is slightly shady, but well within their rights.
Simple answer, download a "demo" of the game, play it, if you like it, buy it, if it's broken, uninstall it. Alternatively, buy from GoG instead.

You need to bare in mind though, this is valve. They don't care. What will they do about this lawsuit? Nothing, nothing at all. They don't have to, and prefer silence above all else. Valve are like China. They don't care what anybody thinks, they are driven only by profits.

Agreed a big company like valve will ignore it because they can afford to, it is indeed all about money and it could also back fire for us Aussie's also, but at least someone is fighting for the customer I guess? as there is an issue there and it should be addressed and maybe improved in the future? For me been a Aussie customer I have excepted that if I buy a game and it runs like shit then I know it should be fixed later with an update, just how it is everywhere, I dont like it, but I the customer cant do anything about it. I have never spent more then $30 for a game on steam and I dont bother buying the big titles till yrs later till the price has dropped and the bugs are fixed.

 

[seanmac]

Agreed a big company like valve will ignore it because they can afford to, it is indeed all about money and it could also back fire for us Aussie's also, but at least someone is fighting for the customer I guess? as there is an issue there and it should be addressed and maybe improved in the future? For me been a Aussie customer I have excepted that if I buy a game and it runs like shit then I know it should be fixed later with an update, just how it is everywhere, I dont like it, but I the customer cant do anything about it. I have never spent more then $30 for a game on steam and I dont bother buying the big titles till yrs later till the price has dropped and the bugs are fixed.

Agree. I can't envisage the ACCC pursuing Valve unless it's legally viable to do so, and to provide a favorable outcome to those consumers in Australia who have reported the issues in question to them.

 

[OneMoar]

it doesn't matter what your law's say the mighty Gaben operates above your insignificant rules and regulations should he so chose he can close all of steams operations in .AU with a mere glance

seriously if ACCC takes it to court this is exactly where its gonna go. so once again the Australians shoot them selves in the foot and lose yet another entertainment media and then complain about it
try being a smart consumer for a change Australia instead of making your government do it for you

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I think pretty much true but the opposite is what will likely happen. ACCC will go through with their case in Australia, Valve won't send legal consul to represent Newell, et. al., Valve will lose the case and be ordered by the Australian court to cease Steam services in Australia, and Valve will comply by closing the store down to all Australian IPs.

The reason: Valve's contracts with publishers don't allow them to hand out refunds left and right. Valve would have to renew contracts with clauses for processing refunds as the contracts come up for renewal. In other words, Australia is liable to lose access to the Steam Store for years.

 

[rtwjunkie]

I hope the ACCC wins and I hope people everywhere say "Fuck This Shit" as well...

I know I'm sick of getting bad software that was knowingly falsely advertised.

Sure it doesn't happen all the time but it does happen...

and it really really pisses me off when it does....

To me it's no different from stealing and like any thief that steals from me it makes me wanna do violent things to them.

But exactly how is bad software or an unfinished or buggy game Steam's fault? They are merely the store that a publisher is using to distribute their product. The publisher says "look what my developer just finished. We are selling it now. Please sell for us and we'll give you a percentage."

I agree that we should stop accepting buggy games or broken games, but the anger should be directed at the publisher. Let's say the piblisher also produces physical copies, and small mom and pop game store sells it. Do you hold mom and pop liable for the game being buggy, or unfinished, and expect them to fix the game code? This is effectively what ACCC is saying...that the seller is responsible. That's nonsense. The true seller is the publisher.

And what if the unimaginable happens? What if by some miracle ACCC wins, and a huge monetary judgement is enacted against Steam? Anyone who is hoping for that on here must not like PC gaming. Thanks to Steam, PC gaming not only has survived, but is flourishing! It would not be an overstatement to say Valve has been a crucial part of the revival of PC gaming. Do we really want to see what would happen if Valve and it's Steam service had a big financial judgement against them AND no longer had the income from Australian consumers?

Just food for thought.

 

[seanmac]

it doesn't matter what your law's say the mighty Gaben operates above your insignificant rules and regulations should he so chose he can close all of steams operations in .AU with a mere glance

seriously if ACCC takes it to court this is exactly where its gonna go. so once again the Australians shoot them selves in the foot and lose yet another entertainment media and then complain about it
try being a smart consumer for a change Australia instead of making your government do it for you

You're right !!!! There you go, feel better?

Now, back to reality.........

Smart consumers pursue their legal rights within their given country they purchase within. I can't see a business like Valve/Steam withdrawing from the Australian marketplace due to being sued. That's FAR more costly in the long run vs changing their refund policy to match consumer guidelines in Australia.Even if they cop a fine. That's if the "mighty Gaben" has any business sense at all.

 

[Mussels]

Only read some of the first page here, and people are missing the point.


Valves EULA goes against Australian law - so it doesn't matter if you read or agreed to the EULA, by selling it to an Australian, on an Australian variant of their online store in Australian dollars, they've agreed to follow Australian law.

Clearly this issue is not black and white and needs some good legal definitions - and that's exactly whats being sorted out now.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Smart consumers pursue their legal rights within their given country they purchase within. I can't see a business like Valve/Steam withdrawing from the Australian marketplace due to being sued. That's FAR more costly in the long run vs changing their refund policy to match consumer guidelines in Australia.Even if they cop a fine. That's if the "mighty Gaben" has any business sense at all.

But that's the problem. Valve doesn't own most of the games they sell. They can't change policies other publishers have set unless there is a clause in the agreement that lets them. It isn't clear how quickly, if even possible, Valve can change the policy. They might not have a choice. They might have to close parts of the store to Australia to comply with a ruling because they don't have an immediate alternative available.

 

[seanmac]

But that's the problem. Valve doesn't own most of the games they sell. They can't change policies other publishers have set unless there is a clause in the agreement that lets them. It isn't clear how quickly, if even possible, Valve can change the policy. They might not have a choice. They might have to close parts of the store to Australia to comply with a ruling because they don't have an immediate alternative available.

Yeh, will be interesting to see how it pans out.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Only read some of the first page here, and people are missing the point.


Valves EULA goes against Australian law - so it doesn't matter if you read or agreed to the EULA, by selling it to an Australian, on an Australian variant of their online store in Australian dollars, they've agreed to follow Australian law.

Clearly this issue is not black and white and needs some good legal definitions - and that's exactly whats being sorted out now.

It isn't an EULA. It is a subscription agreement. I do agree on the last line. Australia needs to clarify if their police extends to digital subscription services which are very different from physical or even licensed digital goods.

Perhaps a court could rule that Valve's payment structure isn't in line with typical subscriptions so they shouldn't be able to behave as a subscription service when it comes to refunds either.

It's not even clear Newell will try to defend Steam in this case.

 

[Deleted member 67555]

A company doesn't enter into a market and dictate the rules..
It's up to Valve to obey the law if they don't it is their fault...

The logic I'm hearing here is like this..
It's not Wal-Mart's fault the manufacturer made a defective product.
All that matters here is the point of sale...It was up to Valve to follow the laws of the market.

I think this needs done worldwide...Most publishers won't even deal with you unless you purchased from them again putting the responsibility at the point of sale...which is 100% reasonable.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Valve does remove and refund titles that falsely advertise:
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/va...rs-refunds-after-fans-speak-out/1100-6419451/

AsRock gave an example as well (also false advertising). Again, it's not even clear what ACCC is talking about because as far as I can tell, they can't claim damages. We're arguing about stated Valve policies and ideologies. Without something specific ACCC can site, it isn't even clear Valve violated Australian law.


Remember, some games on Steam can literally be beat in an hour (e.g. Dear Esther). Steam can't reasonably allow a refund on games like that because everyone could buy it, download it, beat it, and demand a refund regardless of whether or not they actually felt they got their monies worth. That would effectively make Steam a free service for any title that can be completed in whatever arbitrary guidelines are required by law (e.g. 30 days typical). With digital, physical goods at brick and mortar stores, the condition for refund is that the product still be in its factory shrink-wrap. On Steam, if you so much as start the game, you've technically broken the seal. Even by physical goods standards, you wouldn't be able to return it because it sucks. It falls on consumers to research before they buy, not sellers to accommodate to customer's every whim.

 

[AsRock]

Ok, if it's down to the publishers what probably happen is Valve will ask each of them for a yes \ no and those who say no refunds will have their games restricted from selling there as i cannot steam backing out of AUS completely unless they all say no refunds.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Valve can always sale their games (Portal, Half-Life, Counter-Strike) because they can change that policy almost immediately. It's other publishers that would likely vanish for a time anyway.

 

[Steevo]

But exactly how is bad software or an unfinished or buggy game Steam's fault? They are merely the store that a publisher is using to distribute their product. The publisher says "look what my developer just finished. We are selling it now. Please sell for us and we'll give you a percentage."

I agree that we should stop accepting buggy games or broken games, but the anger should be directed at the publisher. Let's say the piblisher also produces physical copies, and small mom and pop game store sells it. Do you hold mom and pop liable for the game being buggy, or unfinished, and expect them to fix the game code? This is effectively what ACCC is saying...that the seller is responsible. That's nonsense. The true seller is the publisher.

And what if the unimaginable happens? What if by some miracle ACCC wins, and a huge monetary judgement is enacted against Steam? Anyone who is hoping for that on here must not like PC gaming. Thanks to Steam, PC gaming not only has survived, but is flourishing! It would not be an overstatement to say Valve has been a crucial part of the revival of PC gaming. Do we really want to see what would happen if Valve and it's Steam service had a big financial judgement against them AND no longer had the income from Australian consumers?

Just food for thought.

I am sure they have recourse against the publisher, for example if a planetary drive on a machine breaks in the warranty period, we get paid for the parts, plus profit, plus service rate and accessories, diagnostic time.

If Steam sells game A for $10 and gives 7 to the publisher, keeps 3, and the game is broken, the publisher should give steam back their $7 plus whatever their contract allows, for most its 80% of MSRP, less cost, or cost plus 20%, list less 10% or whatever to pay the overhead for handling it. If steam isn't smart enough to do this I feel bad for them, but not bad enough to let them keep my money for selling a broken game.

 

[broken pixel]

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2012/01/05/the-corporate-capture-of-the-united-states/

U.S.A, Inc.

 

[AsRock]

I agree they should but there is no chance in hell they would, they have no reason to do so unless sales drop but that's not going happen.

I believe the idea is to charge as much as possible but pay as little as possible. Over the 10 years steams been running it's head has gotten pretty big and there is not one else really to get your games from.

People are not going stop buying from steam as good games out way bad ones due to the pricing so even if you did lose $60 on a game chances are you saved more than that over the last year.

 

[OneMoar]

this thread is going in circles /unsubbing