ACCC Sues Valve

[arbiter]

Wal-Mart isn't a subscription service, Steam is. Like I said, the closest equivalent would be a movie you didn't like you watched on Netflix. Netflix wouldn't refund your subscription just because there was a product on their service you didn't like. They would simply advise you to steer clear of it.

you don't pay a monthy fee for steam so not really a subscription service.

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.

Question is, when they top you would not be entitled to another, They could ment for THAT game again if you bought it later and still found it bad and tried to request a refund.

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.

I think best way for steam to work that out is Stop selling games in Australia from the publishers don't allow them to work within AU law. Would it piss off AU people, sure as heck would but its not valves fault. Its the publisher and ACCC for forcing it on them. If the game in question which relies on steam for it to work well then its tough. People whine about games liek dayz being broke, the game is "Early Access Game" as it says on the store page for it. So you take the risk when you buy it.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

you don't pay a monthy fee for steam so not really a subscription service.

How it is paid for doesn't establish whether or not it is a subscription. It's the fact you have an account, you're paying for access to content, and your subscription to the service may be denied at any time, for any reason, and potentially without refund.

 

[Frick]

How it is paid for doesn't establish whether or not it is a subscription. It's the fact you have an account, you're paying for access to content, and your subscription to the service may be denied at any time, for any reason, and potentially without refund.

You would still be able to play the games though.

 

[Recus]

If I understood it correctly that kid is mad because he can't get refund, he hasn't bought anything yet. His plan is simple, buy game, play 2-3 days, ask refund, buy game, play 2-3 days, ask refund...

 

[FordGT90Concept]

You would still be able to play the games though.

If you violated the agreement and they terminated your account, no. The agreement is very clear on that.

 

[Frick]

If you violated the agreement and they terminated your account, no. The agreement is very clear on that.

How does that work if the games are saved locally anyway?

 

[rtwjunkie]

How does that work if the games are saved locally anyway?

I'm pretty sure that, although you can play offline, eventually the Steam code installed with your game has to "call home" briefly. At that point, Steam service would probably automatically inform your game it no longer works.

 

[arbiter]

How it is paid for doesn't establish whether or not it is a subscription. It's the fact you have an account, you're paying for access to content, and your subscription to the service may be denied at any time, for any reason, and potentially without refund.

Well then by that logic ANY site you sign up for is a subscription even here? Generally subscription means pay money monthly for it. Steam you just buy games you want to buy, which would same as going to best buy or local game store.

 

[INSTG8R]

Well then by that logic ANY site you sign up for is a subscription even here? Generally subscription means pay money monthly for it. Steam you just buy games you want to buy, which would same as going to best buy or local game store.

AH but you don't OWN your games on Steam you buy a "subscription" to play the games you buy.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

How does that work if the games are saved locally anyway?

You wouldn't be able to log in. The only games that would still work after that point are those that don't use Steamworks. If you lose any of the games you already have installed (e.g. HDD crashed), you wouldn't be able to redownload them.

Well then by that logic ANY site you sign up for is a subscription even here? Generally subscription means pay money monthly for it. Steam you just buy games you want to buy, which would same as going to best buy or local game store.

Indeed, and the same policy applies. TPU could delete your account, all of your posts, deny access, etc. without warning or consent. Again, the only difference money makes is it gives you the ability to claim damages in a legal context. For example, if TPU banned you, you can't claim any damages because you lost was time. A court can't order anyone refund you time because that's impossible. On the other hand, if you've unloaded thousands of dollars into Steam and Valve deleted your account denying you access to all those services you paid for, you could legally challenge Valve to recover some of your lost investment. It would be an uphill climb for you but a judge will likely hear the case instead of simply outright dismissing it.

Think of it like you said something nasty to a car dealership that violated some sales agreement and the car dealership repossessed your car you bought from them a month ago but you didn't owe any money to them to warrant a repossession. You could go to court and likely win your car or at least the value of the car returned to you because what they did basically amounted to theft even if you agreed to it. You have undeniably damaged. The same could be said about Valve terminating your account. The threat of lawsuit is the reason why Valve (or any company with a similar clause in the agreement) doing so is extremely rare.

 

[Frick]

I honestly have no idea what the problem is. To be even more honest I don't even know what the argument is about.

 

[rtwjunkie]

AH but you don't OWN your games on Steam you buy a "subscription" to play the games you buy.

Actually if you read the fine print you just clicked through to install 99% of the games out there, you don't even own THEM, even if not used through Steam or Origin or U-play. You buy a license to basically Rent said product from them. Publishers are allowing you to use the game.

 

[INSTG8R]

Actually if you read the fine print you just clicked through to install 99% of the games out there, you don't even own THEM, even if not used through Steam or Origin or U-play. You buy a license to basically Rent said product from them. Publishers are allowing you to use the game.

Yeah I was simplifying it. Without the Service you don't play the games. but yeah EULA's pretty much state your only buying a license to play said game

 

[rtwjunkie]

OK! Hopefully no offense taken as none was intended. I just didn't know if you knew that, since most of my friends (normal gamers, not enthusiasts like us) don't realize this.

 

[INSTG8R]

None at all. I actually read the odd EULA just to see how much power I have. The last Watch_Dogs EULA was an interesting read.