Valve head talks digital ownership

[mindcycle]

Analysts are constantly proclaiming a digital future for games, but that notion is still uneasy for some customers. The lack of a physical object brings up questions of ownership, and Valve boss Gabe Newell has addressed those concerns head-on in an interview.

"It's sort of like this kind of messy issue, and it doesn’t really matter a whole lot what the legal issues are, the real thing is that you have to make your customers happy at the end of the day," he said.

Speaking to The PA Report, Newell side-stepped the legal issue brought up by a recent customer complaint, and consistently stated that satisfaction must be the number one priority. "If you're not making your customers happy you're doing something stupid and we certainly always want to make our customers happy," Newell said. "And I think we have a track record of having done that."

The instance of the Russian gamer who lost his games, in particular, is being dealt with from a customer service angle. "If you're asking me to render a legal opinion then I'm just not the super useful person to render a legal opinion," he explained. "At first blush it sounded like we were doing something stupid and then we'll get it fixed."

He also points out that the issue of ownership doesn't worry customers as much after they've had some experience with Steam. "So, you know, people were worried when we started using Steam initially because, oh my gosh, if I don’t have my discs what happens when I get a new machine?" he said. "And after they’ve done this a couple times they're like 'oh my god, this is so much better, I'm so much more likely' - you know, this isn't a legal argument, this is a real world argument - 'I'm so much more likely to lose my discs than I am to have any problem with my Steam account, that seems way better than having a physical token that I use to access my content.'"

While the question of ownership isn't fully settled, Newell's remarks are a good reminder that customers can vote for their wallets. If Steam or a service like it mistreats its customers as we burrow more heavily into the digital future, they can at least be held accountable by taking business elsewhere. Of course, doing such would mean sacrificing all semblance of "ownership" one has over their purchased digital content.

via: http://www.shacknews.com/article/72536/valve-head-talks-digital-ownership

For me personally, if I purchase a game for full price I will always purchase the physical version. I've never purchased a digital game for $60, it just doesn't feel "right" to me, for lack of a better description.

However, i'll gladly purchase digital games if the price is right. Sales on Steam, Green Man Gaming, etc.. have helped me purchase a lot of older games for a price that I feel is worth the trade off of not owning a physical copy.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I generally agree, and I distrust the cloud and digital sales for exactly that reason; if the company goes under or if my internet goes out, I still want a physical copy of my game so I can play it. That said, there is truth to Steam being incredibly convenient; I had a hard drive die on me a while back, and I was able to download a bunch of Steam stuff based solely on one login. Meanwhile, I had the CD Keys to all my old games written on a piece of paper which I lost, so I'm basically screwed on those. There's positives and negatives to both sides of the issue.

 

[TheKub]

Meh, pay $60 and have the onus on myself to no loose\scratch\stolen the physical media vs $60 and have that hassle lay with another party. Granted 95%+ of all my steam purchases have been sub $10-$20.

If Valve disappeared over night yes I would be upset but with the activation requirements on numerous games now a days just because you have the physical disk doesn’t mean you can activate your game 8 years from now when the publisher disables the servers. Yes, likely you can download a crack\no-cd patch, likewise I can just torrent the full game. I know I purchased it so I would feel that I fulfilled my moral obligations.

 

[you2]

Well I think what valve did (banning) was probably not legal but the effort to test it in court is expensive and time consuming.

The bigger question is the question on 'ownership' and the ability to sell purchased games. This one is very sticky and has not been tested in court. It really doesn't matter what the license suggest ( that would be one of the arguing point in courts of course) as there are consumer laws which is why the question is a bit open. Having said that who wants to spend several years and million dollars proving the point ? I suspect there will eventually be a class action suite here and the issue will be resolved.

 

[Barfo]

Obligatory when will HL3 be released post.

Carry on with the discussion.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

The instance of the Russian gamer who lost his games, in particular, is being dealt with from a customer service angle. "If you're asking me to render a legal opinion then I'm just not the super useful person to render a legal opinion," he explained. "At first blush it sounded like we were doing something stupid and then we'll get it fixed."

How about right and wrong? If you first make sure you're not stupidly wronging your customers from a moral standpoint, you'll have a lot less legal issues to think about.

With that said, this is the first steam ban I've ever heard of and it got resolved except for his trading ability, and frankly EA has done much worse. Banning people from all their games over forum violations? I don't know the law, but regardless of the law, that's wrong. Unless you have committed a SEVERE act on the forums such as death threats, forum violations such as mere trolling or stupidity should merit a forum ban and nothing further.

http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/battlefield-3/1470514-i-want-file-complaint-against-canuck.html

check this link out where an EA forum moderator suggests that the poster could be Origin banned(losing all his games) if he appealed his ban to anyone higher up. While I applaud this moderator for not having already forwarded it to EA, he has basically confirmed that EA is treating their customers this way. And posting pornography on the forum is no worse than any other trolling violation UNLESS it is, for example, child pornography, in which case then yes that would be a severe act just like death threats would be. NOTE: I suspect the moderator over at EA UK will at some point delete the thread I linked to, just in case it disappears. Also note to be VERY clear: This moderator in question is a good guy. I'm talking about EA's policy higher up than him.

 

[surfsatwerk]

Obligatory when will HL3 be released post.

Carry on with the discussion.

They killed Benson off and then for years now we get nothing!@!!@?!

 

[JamesV]

Gabe is exactly right in my case. At first I hated Steam simply because it was a wrapper around my games, and with a $700 PC, I liked to run lean and mean.

After using Steam for a few years, I want all my games on Steam. I'll even pay more at Steam for a Steam-enabled game then buy it on sale elsewhere.

The physical copy issue was also important to me, but again, after using Steam for a long time, I have no reservations. I've actually started to buy games I physically own on Steam (on sale), and then sell the physical game on Ebay.

As for people getting banned, 99% of the time they deserve it. They will come up with some sob story to make it sound like they didn't do anything, or did something insignificant, but in reality their stories are never as bad as what they actually did.

 

[AFurryReptile]

They killed Benson off...

Who?

I guess it's pretty bad when I've forgotten the entire plot to HL2.

 

[wuliheron]

Gabe is right about one thing, the issue is service. It doesn't matter if its on a physical medium or digital if the service sucks. With all the driver issues and DRM issues people have had in recent years PC gamers need all the decent service they can get and Steam is the first to really provide any. That's why Steam has been so successful and why EA is suddenly stepping up to plate with better service. Hopefully the increased competition will make others like Microsoft step up to the plate as well and give PC gamers decent service instead of the joke that is Games for Windows Live.

Where the chips might fall with digital rights is anyone's guess, but without decent service I couldn't care less.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Well I think what valve did (banning) was probably not legal but the effort to test it in court is expensive and time consuming.

The bigger question is the question on 'ownership' and the ability to sell purchased games. This one is very sticky and has not been tested in court. It really doesn't matter what the license suggest ( that would be one of the arguing point in courts of course) as there are consumer laws which is why the question is a bit open. Having said that who wants to spend several years and million dollars proving the point ? I suspect there will eventually be a class action suite here and the issue will be resolved.

You do not buy games. You license the right to use them under specific conditions. The laws for licensed right to use is well established and actually pre-date computers. Consumers do not have much protection in this.

The problem is that consumers are not used to purchasing licensing agreements. They think, and are encouraged at every opportunity to think, that they are purchasing a product or service when they are not. Each person in this thread has talked about ‘owning’ a game. It clearly shows that the software industry is working at making you think you are buying a product instead of licensing an instant of use.

The problem with this is that because they think of it as a property purchase the average consumer is not paying attention to the terms of this use license, and those terms are continually getting more and more one sided for the property owner.

I’m appalled at the terms of the contracts I’m expected to accept to play a video game. We need to form a watchdog group to negotiate these terms, because right now no one has any power to negotiate and so the property owners are getting anything they want.

 

[surfsatwerk]

Who?

I guess it's pretty bad when I've forgotten the entire plot to HL2.

The black dude in Benson voiced the black dude in HL2.

 

[lupi]

he's so full of it, that's the #1 reason for most people who have objections about using a service like steam.

 

[Lonyo]

You do not buy games. You license the right to use them under specific conditions. The laws for licensed right to use is well established and actually pre-date computers. Consumers do not have much protection in this.

The problem is that consumers are not used to purchasing licensing agreements. They think, and are encouraged at every opportunity to think, that they are purchasing a product or service when they are not. Each person in this thread has talked about ‘owning’ a game. It clearly shows that the software industry is working at making you think you are buying a product instead of licensing an instant of use.

The problem with this is that because they think of it as a property purchase the average consumer is not paying attention to the terms of this use license, and those terms are continually getting more and more one sided for the property owner.

I’m appalled at the terms of the contracts I’m expected to accept to play a video game. We need to form a watchdog group to negotiate these terms, because right now no one has any power to negotiate and so the property owners are getting anything they want.

Steam takes away even more rights in addition to what the EULA that the game ships with makes you sign away.
If normally you might have 20 rights, a game makes you "sign away" 10 of them by clicking "agree" to the EULA, and then Steam removes another 8 of them.

And then you're still expected to pay full price for it 50.86 weeks of the year.

Gabe talking shit about rights and ownership and DRM is hilarious when he's spearheading the campaign to remove what we used to have on PC.
Consoles have it potentially even harder because they have a single gatekeeper per console. Valve is the de facto gatekeeper for PC gaming and that's why they can talk shit with a straight face and act like it's all awesome. Because it is. For them.

 

[Dankk]

Gabe talking shit about rights and ownership and DRM is hilarious when he's spearheading the campaign to remove what we used to have on PC.

Wow. Hyperbole much?

 

[Anteaus]

I think it's just a matter of time before the EULA becomes archaic and laws are passed that deal with this in a very specific way. Reason being that eventually all software will be distributed this way, not just games. Right now its just gamers, but once the mainstream gets involved it won't take long before some average joe gets screwed and someone shines a flashlight on the situation.

 

[sandorski]

I prefer buying on Steam(or other Download service) than a physical disk.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Steam takes away even more rights in addition to what the EULA that the game ships with makes you sign away.

Oh, I agree. Steam is another layer of licensing you have to go though to get to your use license.

I think it's just a matter of time before the EULA becomes archaic and laws are passed that deal with this in a very specific way. Reason being that eventually all software will be distributed this way, not just games. Right now its just gamers, but once the mainstream gets involved it won't take long before some average joe gets screwed and someone shines a flashlight on the situation.

I disagree. This has already happened. Software licensing is really no different then books or music licensing when you get down to the legal nuts and bolts. Both are just licensing you the right to use something under specific conditions. Average people have already been screwed by both of those industries as companies come and go.

 

[thespyder]

How about right and wrong? If you first make sure you're not stupidly wronging your customers from a moral standpoint, you'll have a lot less legal issues to think about.

Surprisingly not so true. Although most people group moral and legal together, one does not necesarily equate to the other. Which is why there are so many lawyers in the world and so many bogus lawsuits that are settled in favor of obviously greed motivated plaintiffs.

And at the end of the day, Laws are not intended to be morals.

With that having been said, I think that Gabe is taking the right approach in asking, instead of "Did we do something illegal", asking "Did we do something stupid?"

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

Surprisingly not so true. Although most people group moral and legal together, one does not necesarily equate to the other. Which is why there are so many lawyers in the world and so many bogus lawsuits that are settled in favor of obviously greed motivated plaintiffs.

And at the end of the day, Laws are not intended to be morals.

With that having been said, I think that Gabe is taking the right approach in asking, instead of "Did we do something illegal", asking "Did we do something stupid?"

In this case I think it's backwards. Stealing a consumer's games by banning their Origin, or Steam account, is theft, and if the law doesn't see it that way, it should. If someone buys a car from your dealership, and then a month later, while obtaining oil change service, commits a crime of some sort, should you be able to seize the car back? No, you report it to the police and they take care of it.

Now, since there are some specific aspects that pertain to online businesses like this, obviously, for example, if you think someone is hacking your system, sure, a ban, including IP ban, might be justified there to prevent it from reoccuring. But if someone is committing mere forum trolling, or if they are abusing the gifting system, things like that, then sure, you ban them from those services, but you shouldn't take away all their games. Just like, ultimately, the guy referrenced in the article in the OP, he got banned from gifting and trading but his rightfully purchased games were restored. That's how it should be.

And I'm aware that the EULAs may turn these into licensing agreements that allow them to do this to you for the most minor of things, but the point is that it shouldn't.

 

[Nebor]

Just chiming in with the "I'd pay more for it on Steam" crowd. I'll do you one better, if it's not available on Steam, I'm not buying it. Sucks because I really wanted to play Starcraft 2, Diablo 3, and Battlefield 3.

 

[Anteaus]

I disagree. This has already happened. Software licensing is really no different then books or music licensing when you get down to the legal nuts and bolts. Both are just licensing you the right to use something under specific conditions. Average people have already been screwed by both of those industries as companies come and go.

Oh I agree that software will continue to be licensed. What will change is the introduction of a sort of "bill of rights" for software users. For example, if you buy a game on Steam or any other digital service there is nothing that says they can't simply remove the game from the service one month after you buy it. EA has already set precedent that after a "reasonable" amount of time, as defined by the publisher, they will just start shutting down servers, both activation and multiplayer. What then?

I foresee a situation where open ended software licenses will no longer be offered, and all software will have a time limit on them, during which software availability must be guaranteed. It would be incredibly naive to believe that Steam will still maintain a game once the platform of origin is outdated or obsolete. We sort of assume Steam will be good guys about this, but there are no legal protections against them simply pulling the plug. As of today there is no legal precedent established to deal with this scenerio, which will be inevitable in the future.

Basically, instead of some arbitrary and vague EULA, we will likely buy a license that has a start and finish time (i.e. 5 years) after which the provider can choose to remove access or charge for an extention. There are members in congress already drafting what will ultimately replace the DMCA, though the specifics aren't available yet. I'm willing to bet they are waiting to see where the industry goes in the regard before committing anything to law.

 

[irishScott]

Oh I agree that software will continue to be licensed. What will change is the introduction of a sort of "bill of rights" for software users. For example, if you buy a game on Steam or any other digital service there is nothing that says they can't simply remove the game from the service one month after you buy it. EA has already set precedent that after a "reasonable" amount of time, as defined by the publisher, they will just start shutting down servers, both activation and multiplayer. What then?

I foresee a situation where open ended software licenses will no longer be offered, and all software will have a time limit on them, during which software availability must be guaranteed. It would be incredibly naive to believe that Steam will still maintain a game once the platform of origin is outdated or obsolete. We sort of assume Steam will be good guys about this, but there are no legal protections against them simply pulling the plug. As of today there is no legal precedent established to deal with this scenerio, which will be inevitable in the future.

Basically, instead of some arbitrary and vague EULA, we will likely buy a license that has a start and finish time (i.e. 5 years) after which the provider can choose to remove access or charge for an extention. There are members in congress already drafting what will ultimately replace the DMCA, though the specifics aren't available yet. I'm willing to bet they are waiting to see where the industry goes in the regard before committing anything to law.

What will happen is things like Steam and Origin. The activation issues are gone as all it comes down to is a user's purchase history. Likewise they can easily stop offering a game for purchase while continuing to offer it for download to existing users. Gabe has one thing right: so long as the customer is happy, it doesn't matter.

 

[Via]

I can see Steam ending one day, when it's saturated the market. They'll just close it down and say the same types of things that are always said: "Do you still play your 8 track tapes? Then STFU"

That's why my pipe dream is an act of congress that requires all online sales organizations to fund a trust that would keep servers up indefintely for those who have purchased games, even if they deactivate the service. But who am I kidding? Nobody gives a shit what we think.

 

[sandorski]

I can see Steam ending one day, when it's saturated the market. They'll just close it down and say the same types of things that are always said: "Do you still play your 8 track tapes? Then STFU"

That's why my pipe dream is an act of congress that requires all online sales organizations to fund a trust that would keep servers up indefintely for those who have purchased games, even if they deactivate the service. But who am I kidding? Nobody gives a shit what we think.

The Servers are unnecessary. They would just release a Dummy Server App or simply remove the need for a Server Call in the first place.