Et tu, Brute? :(

@DriftSPace: Preach. Plus, in most civil court cases, the law isn't exactly set in stone, at least compared those of criminal court cases. I hate to sound facile on the subject, but based on personal experience, the language of law, well, they make it up as they go. The company is merely an institution with virtually unlimited resources to draw from to better define that language which would inevitably benefit their own best interests. Some here say it's no big deal and doesn't impact them, but you're only looking at the short-term, to which I would say it's high time you increase your purview, if only so you're not so easily taken advantage of. Of course, this is of no concern for those consumed by apathy.

This is actually really sad for me

@iAmJohn said:

The AT&T; case is slightly different because it only applies to their employees under a very specific part of their employment contract with the company. It's never been tested in a provider-vs.-consumer context.

That's not what the article I linked to says - it was specifically about consumers: "The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that consumers can be bound by an arbitration clause in a cellphone deal or other contract even when state law permits a class-action lawsuit for claims arising from the deal."

@tourgen said:

If class action is busted then it should be fixed not removed.

Welcome to western ideology; instead of solving the problem, we'll just treat the symptom.

@studnoth1n said:

I hate to sound facile on the subject, but based on personal experience, the language of law, well, they make it up as they go. The company is merely an institution with virtually unlimited resources to draw from to better define that language which would inevitably benefit their own best interests. Some here say it's no big deal and doesn't impact them, but you're looking at the short-term only, to which I would say it's high time you increase your purview, if only so you're not so easily taken advantaged.

Amen, but since there is usually a modicum of effort required to "increase" one's "purview," most people would rather say "fuck it; it's just video games." Argh, self-improvement is such a bitch, but now you want us to improve the social self instead of just myself?

Yikes, I read the title as "Valve joins EA" and nearly had a heart attack.

It's sad to hear that Valve is agreeing with microsoft and sony on anything, but after reading Valve's reasoning, I can understand where they are coming from and it sounds reasonable.

Still, I would think since I bought their product under a different set of legal conditions, if I do not accept their new terms, shouldn't they give me a refund for the product I purchased but will no longer be able to use?

Terms and conditions never supersede the word of the law. No matter if you click agree to it, sign it, lick it and spill man juice on it.

You have a right to engage in a class action lawsuit for whatever legitimate purpose you require. These companies should be held to account for their scare tactics.

This seems like a move to stop a class action suit to enable us in the euro to sell on our games second hand. I notice valve hasn't implemented that lovely bit of legislation yet.

After hearing about people being "awarded" $2 for their $60 copies of Madden 12 in that EA NFL monopoly class action suit (that ended with EA still having exclusive rights to make NFL games) while the lawyer who filed walked away with millions (probably a dude who's never even played Madden), it's hard to feel bad about Valve doing this.

Class action suits are a scam perpetrated by lawyers to fill their pockets while not actually fixing anything, big payouts and then back to business as usual. They're the quick,easy cash alternative to a "non-profit" charity. Any gamer who supports them is naive at best.

Your other option? Not play your games, I guess.

See there's the first misconception. In what part of this equation are the bits flipped on my Steam profile "my games"? Without launching Steam.exe, those games don't exist. Not without subterfuge.

When you decide whether to buy the same game from Steam or GOG, think about what kind of conveniences invisible DRM really gets you, in the name of being able to run an .EXE with a few less clicks. But that's too short term, changes in law and legal erosion of rights are insidious. That's what I think Patrick is getting at.

Now I'm a big fan of what Valve does, and the culture they've created. But just because of the recent "300" Bombcast, I'll pull this devil's advocate out: Xerxes said that to have everything you ever wanted, all you had to do was kneel to him. Pretty simple. That is what living gods and kings were, historically, unquestioned authority. They retained their power by remaining unquestioned.

When the day comes, as it always does, for a king or a company to disappear; and that company is Valve; and the service is Steam; and millions of customers are not able to participate in a lawsuit over the unfathomable (to us) decision to NOT flip the anti-DRM switch on the way out; then we'll see whose convenience will be served. Then we'll see what corporations have done to lobby governments; to strengthen copyrights and penalties; to insist that you "buy" it again if you want your children to experience gaming's history.

So no, "just don't buy a game" if you don't like its DRM isn't even close to where this could potentially go bad. It's not just about the product now, we've moved on, it's about delivery mechanisms. The fact that "we" don't care now about what's going to happen in 15 years is exactly what the industry is hoping for. We're shortsighted, instant gratification, consumers. And we're kneeling.

Doesn't mean much on this side of the Atlantic, In Europe EULA's might as well be speculative fiction, works describing rules software companies wished their customers had to abide by. End of the day they can't alter european consumer law or personal legal entitlements.

Blame the Supreme Court for this one. Businesses are getting more powerful in the U.S. by the day.

@Krakn3Dfx said:

After hearing about people being "awarded" $2 for their $60 copies of Madden 12 in that EA NFL monopoly class action suit (that ended with EA still having exclusive rights to make NFL games) while the lawyer who filed walked away with millions (probably a dude who's never even played Madden), it's hard to feel bad about Valve doing this.

Class actions aren't supposed to make the plaintives rich, they're supposed to punish companies for abusive practices that are too minor to make it worth it for a single person to sue. As such, it sounds like they worked as intended in that example.

I read just the first three words "Valve joins EA" and my brain leaked out of my ass.

@BlackLagoon: Stop using facts!

Have these ever held up in court or stopped class action lawsuits?

This is pretty fucking sad. And just as sad that there are people who don't care because they "like Valve." Fuck that shit.

I barely use Steam anyway so it's no big deal if I don't agree to this, but in the case of Microsoft I basically had no choice. Sure I could have refused it but I have literally thousands of dollars tied up in the system. It sucks.

I know I'm getting old because I feel like gaming is "getting away from what it should be." Not because of this issue by itself, but just a lot of trends that have popped up with major game companies since around 2006. I feel like I'm probably getting out (as in continuing to play what I have, but not jumping to the new generation) come later 2013.

@ArchTeckGuru8: yeah, I clicked disagree and i can't play any of my games.

Jesus Patrick, I really would have thought you would understand that disagreeing with class-action lawsuits doesn't necessarily stem from ignorance. It can be a fully-formed, well thought out conclusion to arrive at.

EDIT: But also yeah, living in the UK this doesn't affect me anyway.

@BlackLagoon said:

@Krakn3Dfx said:

After hearing about people being "awarded" $2 for their $60 copies of Madden 12 in that EA NFL monopoly class action suit (that ended with EA still having exclusive rights to make NFL games) while the lawyer who filed walked away with millions (probably a dude who's never even played Madden), it's hard to feel bad about Valve doing this.

Class actions aren't supposed to make the plaintives rich, they're supposed to punish companies for abusive practices that are too minor to make it worth it for a single person to sue. As such, it sounds like they worked as intended in that example.

A million times this. I hate when they bring up how the lawyers are making all the money, like that's an argument. What do I give a shit if some lawyer somewhere is making millions off a class-action lawsuit? The entire point is to punish the company for their business practices, not for every individual person attached with the case to get rich.

@doesnoevil said:

HA HA... "Valve Joins EA, Sony, OTHERS?" how about MICRO$OFT?" i know you guys love your xboxes, but c'mon!

Yeah, he should name every single company that ever inserted these new clauses, in order to placate the fanboys like you!

@RadixNegative2: That's the whole point. Make it impossible for people to organize a joint lawsuit against a company, the intention being to make it difficult for the company to take advantage of practices that would be deemed unethical, specifically on the customer's behalf. Now if you have a lawsuit, you deal with the company on an individual basis, which is just you versus the goliath, which essentially removes any real threat for the company. Making it impossible to file a class-action lawsuits benefits the company ENTIRELY, there should be no confusion of that fact.

So if we disagree with the terms being thrown at us can we no longer play all the games we have on steam? That would be rather twisted. Perhaps someone should start up a class action suit against these rather underhand terms of service, especially if it locks you out of all the products you bought. That would be amusingly ironic.

@TehPickle said:

Woah for a moment at the end there, Patrick started sounding distinctly like Jim Sterling. It's a good point though, and well made.

Ugh, I wish Sterling was here, then I could stop going to Dtoid for actual reviews.

I don't really understand what a class action lawsuit is, but I doubt I'll be moving one against Valve or any of these companies any time soon, so whatever. Honestly I hope Valve monopolizes the market faster so that we can have genuine quality in pricing and marketing, among other things. Monopolies aren't all bad, you know.

"SECTION 12 CONTAINS A BINDING ARBITRATION AGREEMENT AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER. IT AFFECTS YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS. PLEASE READ IT. IF YOU LIVE OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES, SOME OR ALL OF SECTION 12 MIGHT NOT APPLY TO YOU."

Phew, dodged a legal bullet by not being a yank.

Class action lawsuits mostly benefit greedy lawyers.

Anybody who disagrees most likely hasn't actively been in a class action or is a greedy lawyer. I've been a part of a class action lawsuit and trust me when I say nobody cares about justified consumer remedy. Valve is right on this one, even if they are just trying to cover their own ass.

Pretty sure this wouldn't be binding in the EU. I think there are certain laws which mean companies cannot take away consumer rights, even if the consumer willingly gives it up. I suppose it really comes down to someone has to try and sue them, then we'll see what happens. But as far as I can make out, UK law at least extends to the fact that you're allowed to sue whoever you want so long as you have a valid reason and enough money.

I like how much of a shit storm this was around Sony and EA, but everyone is just kind of chill about Valve. I don't get why these big PC companies can walk all over people and no one gives a shit, but the second anyone in the console space steps a toe out of line there are boycotts and everyone is outraged.

Also, @Brackynews summed up my fear about the way all this shit works.

@Peanut For the same reason people still think Apple is the greatest company in the world. If you were ever an underdog at any point in time you will remain so forever, regardless of how big you get.

I really hope I see these terms get tested some day. I really, really do.

This "rent games" thing. Will it ever actually hold up in court?

This is dumb, why would you ever sue a game company? You should be more concerned about things that actually impact your lives like the Patriot Act.

So many stupid comments for this news article from people who clearly have only read the headline.

Isn't this Valve basically saying "C'mon, just the tip, just for a second...I promise...and we'll take away all the games you "bought" if you say no! " ?

Contract law as practiced by banks, entertainment, and high tech companies needs a serious enema. EULAS and default agreements with no consideration are one sided and NEVER in the interest of the person being asked to consent automatically often merely by purchasing and attempting to use a product

Doesn't apply to me, but I have to say that while companies attempting to block your rights is kind of shitty, I somewhat appreciate that Valve have attempted to offer something else that benefits the consumer in return (themselves too, natch).

Euthanize all lawyers.

Well Valve has joined the club, guess I better change my mind and decide these kinds of EULA's are good now.

I remember people crying bloody murder when SONY did this. The reaction to this is tepid. Nobody really gets hard on Valve.

It's crazy to me that a company can decide what kind of lawsuit people can file.

Eh. Don't care.

if you personally sue valve for personally doing shit to you (whatever it may be), you have the right to sue them for it, and they'll even pay the costs to be sued? Sounds FUCKING AWESOME. Don't think anyone would ever use this unless they cheated and want to be unbanned or something else lame like that.

Well i dont like it, the thing is most class action suits dont do jack for the average person anyways.

The vast majority of class action suits are really freaking stupid anyways. They generally just end up hurting the customer in the long run. Class action lawsuits benefit lawyers and literally noone else.

For people thinking Valve is now immune to the law: you're an idiot. Stop being a hippie. This is class action lawsuits only.

@ONIKAGEI said:

Not sure i want to live in a world where companies can say, "hey, you cant hold us accountable for stuff" and have it enforced. I would hope that the shaky legal ground would bring this to a halt if challenged in reality, but if it didn't it's all a bit "Dystopian future" for me.

They seem to be totally cool with you suing them on a "one-on-one" basis or whatever it was they called it.

"Our super-lawyers will crush your measly solitary strip-mall lawyer but they have trouble with mega-class-action lawyers"

@Peanut said:

I like how much of a shit storm this was around Sony and EA, but everyone is just kind of chill about Valve. I don't get why these big PC companies can walk all over people and no one gives a shit, but the second anyone in the console space steps a toe out of line there are boycotts and everyone is outraged.

Also, @Brackynews summed up my fear about the way all this shit works.

Because PC users are generally older, mature, and thus more informed about how legal language and the legal system works and don't throw a tissy fit over nothing.

@gbrading said:

Pretty sure this wouldn't be binding in the EU. I think there are certain laws which mean companies cannot take away consumer rights, even if the consumer willingly gives it up. I suppose it really comes down to someone has to try and sue them, then we'll see what happens. But as far as I can make out, UK law at least extends to the fact that you're allowed to sue whoever you want so long as you have a valid reason and enough money.

They say in the agreement that it does not cover citizens of EU members. I found another line about EU I hadn't seen in the Steam EULA either - that you're explicitly allowed to cancel a purchase as long as you haven't in any way downloaded the purchased software yet (somewhat hard to avoid when it comes to DLC purchases made from the Steam client, as there's no option to not install that directly after purchase like you can with regular software - it is avoidable if you purchase through a browser and cancel before starting up the Steam client). I'm pretty sure that section wasn't in the EULA before, previously making EU citizens risk getting banned from Steam would they decide to use their right as consumers to return to the goods and ask for a refund.

I'm not buying that class action lawsuits never benefit the consumer. Remember how shitty the original PS2s are and how great a number of them eventually got the Disc Read Error? And remember how Sony eventually decided to fix them free of charge? That was the result of a class action lawsuit.

This shit is fucked. Gaming is becoming something truly vile.

I could careless about any of this because a game company would have to come to my house and burn it down for me to be mad enough to want to sue them.

And i think they have the right to protect themselves from frivolousness lawsuits.