Valve head talks digital ownership

[wanderer27]

Blind support?

So, having a sale 4 times a year where a large chunk of their products can be bought for much less than market price is a rare sale?

I have the internet. I have reliable internet. I am willing to trade needing the internet to have all my games and most of my save files backed up at another location.

Anyone who complains about Steam and uses Windows is a hypocrite.

If you look again you'll see I denoted "new".

Historically I've seen physical media cheaper that Steam's digital media (newer titles).

I have Cable Internet myself, and frankly, the last couple of months it hasn't been all that reliable. Another thing to consider is that a lot of ISP's are going to usage caps, and not all of them are that generous, but that's another issue.

Although I haven't used them for games (yet), I've seen better pricing on Amazon (one I forgot earlier), so there's even less incentive to go the abuse route.
I don't know if they (Amazon) use a Client (I doubt), or how they work, but I suspect it's probably a lot more customer friendly than Steam.

Yes, of course there are Steam "exclusives" like Civ5 (dud) and Skyrim, but there are plenty of other options out there as well.


.

 

[wanderer27]

Yes, you are miss-understanding my point. Personally, I have no view on the topic at all, except that RPS article is painting a big red X on Valve for their stance without all (or even most) of the facts. Which is causing a big up-roar in the community.

What I was trying to point out is, that from Valve's perspective, THEY think they were robbed. Not just of the "Extra" money that the person selling the product made, but also from a full sale to the end purchaser at full price. I make no judgement as to if they are correct. merely that they probably feel that this is Fraud and therefore theft.

As such, and since we are talking about international sales and thus probably very VERY complecated Legal processing, Valve's probably figured that the best way to get the "Offender's" attention was to pull his account. A bit heavy handed, I agree. But from their perspective, probably not overly so.

They see that someone is gouging their profits and they want it stopped. Taking the action they did got lots of attention and told people who were on the fence that "If you mess with us and our TOS, we will REVOKE your game privilages.

But the community is taking a very "Entitlement" perspective in that they want to be able to claim ownership of the IP that is the game. and they want to limit reprocussions for "Gifting" games to other players (at a profit) without understanding that the Game Distributors might have an issue with that.

I don't think either side is in the right. I see it like this. If I sold both cars and gas, and then found that you were stealing gas and selling it somewhere else, I might very well feel perfectly justified in stoping selling you gas. without Gas, your car won't run. It gets your attention, and then we work things out (as happened with Valve). But the consumers are making it into "Valve broke into my house and STOLE my games. OK, I was stealing from them but that should be OK so long as they can't do it back to me."

And I really don't like the "Arm Chair Lawyers" who think that their interpratation based on situational ethics (even when they don't realize that they are being situational about it) should be the whole of the law.

Greed.


So basically that's what it's really all boiled down too.

Valve is pissed that they didn't get the maximum $ $ $ $ $ from the sale of the game (and it was "sold" to be "gifted").

Nevermind the fact that at the normal price the copy may not have been a sale in the first place - so Value made some money.

For that matter, were all these "gifts" even a resale and not just a flat out "gift"?


Business and all, trying to get the best deal, but there may not have been one in the first place, and robbing the guy that just effectively sold a few extra copies for you . . . well, I just can't make a Business case out of that.


Just reeks too much of Corporate greed to me, and we've got/had way too much of that already.


Not picking on you, just trying to make a point.


.

 

[thespyder]

Greed.

So basically that's what it's really all boiled down too.

Valve is pissed that they didn't get the maximum $ $ $ $ $ from the sale of the game (and it was "sold" to be "gifted").

Nevermind the fact that at the normal price the copy may not have been a sale in the first place - so Value made some money.

For that matter, were all these "gifts" even a resale and not just a flat out "gift"?

Business and all, trying to get the best deal, but there may not have been one in the first place, and robbing the guy that just effectively sold a few extra copies for you . . . well, I just can't make a Business case out of that.

Just reeks too much of Corporate greed to me, and we've got/had way too much of that already.

Not picking on you, just trying to make a point..

Which is more or less the attitude that RPS is stirring up. We don't know all of the facts. what if, for instance, the offender wasn't even a gamer himself? And that ALL of the purchases were with the intent of Gifting at a profit?

Point is, the community is trying to crucify Valve. Maybe they deserve it. Maybe they had perfectly valid and reasonable reasons for taking the actions they took. But since we don't know the whole story, we none of us can say. And judging them based on a definitely biased and wholly incomplete (not to mention journalistically unethical) news article is just as bad as any preceived ill they may be causing.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

Which is more or less the attitude that RPS is stirring up. We don't know all of the facts. what if, for instance, the offender wasn't even a gamer himself? And that ALL of the purchases were with the intent of Gifting at a profit?

Point is, the community is trying to crucify Valve. Maybe they deserve it. Maybe they had perfectly valid and reasonable reasons for taking the actions they took. But since we don't know the whole story, we none of us can say. And judging them based on a definitely biased and wholly incomplete (not to mention journalistically unethical) news article is just as bad as any preceived ill they may be causing.

I'm not crucifying Valve. Sounds like they made the right decision by banning him from gifting games but restoring his own games. You suggest that he may not be a gamer himself but the article does seem pretty clear that he did, in fact, own some games of his own. If he didn't, or for anyone who gets banned that doesn't own their own games, it's a moot point.

The issue however, is that even though in this specific case they restored his games, you are saying it's OK for a company to ban someone from their games. Just because someone isn't a lawyer doesn't mean they can't have a valid opinion about how legal matters should work (you have to be a licensed attorney to provide people with legal advice about how the law does work, not to offer an opinion on how it should work), with that said, OK, so someone may be committing fraud by doing this. If Valve loses X number of dollars in the fraud, then Valve should go to court and obtain a judgement for X number of dollars. If the perpetrator does not pay the judgement, the court may authorize the seizure of his assets to pay the judgement. But, how much money can be recouped by seizing digital assets of which Valve can already provide infinite copies? That's right, none. It only harms the perpetrator and does nothing to indemnify the victim.

Note that I'm assuming a clear cut case where we know for a fact that fraud has been committed AND where the amount of damage is known. The victim still can't steal from the perpetrator, and as shown above, no money can be recouped by seizing digital assets.

In no way does my argument in favor of protecting your previously and separately purchased games mean that I am suggesting that there should be no consequences for committing fraud.

And this isn't just about fraud. As I mentioned before, EA is doing this to people for mere forum trolling violations. Those aren't even crimes and don't represent financial losses.

 

[Anteaus]

I think the crux of this is that from what I understand the person was Russian, and therefore outside of Steams legal reach. Considering that Steam is merely a distributor and is reponsible to the developers/producers of the games that they sell, it was "likely" in their best interest to simply sever the account and move on. It was only after major media scrutiny did Steam give the account back, albeit restricted to not gift. Also, some here don't realize that with any other product there are international trade laws that deal with these types of situations yet don't apply to these types of transactions because the laws were created before they existed. I'm sure it will come up in the next few years because I'm sure the government will want to tax it lol.

As I said in earlier posts this thread, this only underlines the necessity of a "digital consumer bill of rights" to get rid of all this EULA ambiguity and provide legal guidelines in which companies like Steam should operate. Until that time though, we will just need to consider any money spent on such products completely and utterly disposible in the event they do decide to cut or reduce access.

 

[wanderer27]

Has anyone read some of the Forum posts on the RPC article?

The problem is that this isn't really all that isolated of an event, just more publicized.

I saw one guy that got banned (actually a group of users were banned) because of some kind of glitch on Valve's end.

His efforts in dealing with Customer Support was appalling - they essentially told the guy he was never getting unbanned and that they weren't even going to tell him why he got banned.

Some days/weeks later, he gets an email from Gabe saying - sorry, our bad


Piss poor Customer Service and overreaching heavy handed authority does not mix well with a Customer oriented Business.


The ability to arbitrarily nuke someone's personal property is just too much power.


.

 

[thespyder]

I'm not crucifying Valve. Sounds like they made the right decision by banning him from gifting games but restoring his own games. You suggest that he may not be a gamer himself but the article does seem pretty clear that he did, in fact, own some games of his own. If he didn't, or for anyone who gets banned that doesn't own their own games, it's a moot point.

The issue however, is that even though in this specific case they restored his games, you are saying it's OK for a company to ban someone from their games. Just because someone isn't a lawyer doesn't mean they can't have a valid opinion about how legal matters should work (you have to be a licensed attorney to provide people with legal advice about how the law does work, not to offer an opinion on how it should work), with that said, OK, so someone may be committing fraud by doing this. If Valve loses X number of dollars in the fraud, then Valve should go to court and obtain a judgement for X number of dollars. If the perpetrator does not pay the judgement, the court may authorize the seizure of his assets to pay the judgement. But, how much money can be recouped by seizing digital assets of which Valve can already provide infinite copies? That's right, none. It only harms the perpetrator and does nothing to indemnify the victim.

Note that I'm assuming a clear cut case where we know for a fact that fraud has been committed AND where the amount of damage is known. The victim still can't steal from the perpetrator, and as shown above, no money can be recouped by seizing digital assets.

In no way does my argument in favor of protecting your previously and separately purchased games mean that I am suggesting that there should be no consequences for committing fraud.

And this isn't just about fraud. As I mentioned before, EA is doing this to people for mere forum trolling violations. Those aren't even crimes and don't represent financial losses.

Ok, to be clear (again). I am NOT being a proponent of ANY of the actions. I am NOT saying that the guy was definitely doing anything wrong. And I am not saying that anything I have put down has any Legal precedent or is based on any Legal background. And I am not saying Valve is good or bad in all of this. I do not know. Because (wait for it.....) we don't have enough of the information.

However, hypothetically you provide a scenario wherein "If there is confirmed fraud and an amount can be determined, Valve should go to court... etc..." Are you aware of how much court proceedings cost? Are you are aware of how messy International legal proceedings are? Or how much it costs to collect from parties in foreign countries? let me tell you that in order to cover the costs, Valve would have to spend thousands of dollars to collect a few hundred bucks. So short of a class action suit against a large number of defendants, Valve would lose more money (by orders of mangatude) than they could ever recoup.

And if the Courts awarded "Court Costs" to Valve, the individual defendants would lose a heck of a lot more than the money they made skimming (and significantly more than the total sum of the games that got "Stolen" from them). It is simply not feasable and short of Valve taking a dive on Moral grounds, it isn't going to happen. So, until that happens there won't be any Legal recourse. And that pretty much gives a blank check to skimmers with (if the community has it's way) no recourse on the part of the Developers. I don't know about you but I like games. And if the developers go bankrupt, guess what.... NO MORE GAMES.

In a perfect world, what you say makes sense. And most of the community thinks that "All things being equal" law suit, without considering the cost/benefit of the whole thing. IF there was wrong doing (and I am not saying there was), Valve took actions which appear to be actually more reasonable than all of that to all parties involved. IMHO.

This is all speculation.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

Ok, to be clear (again). I am NOT being a proponent of ANY of the actions. I am NOT saying that the guy was definitely doing anything wrong. And I am not saying that anything I have put down has any Legal precedent or is based on any Legal background. And I am not saying Valve is good or bad in all of this. I do not know. Because (wait for it.....) we don't have enough of the information.

However, hypothetically you provide a scenario wherein "If there is confirmed fraud and an amount can be determined, Valve should go to court... etc..." Are you aware of how much court proceedings cost? Are you are aware of how messy International legal proceedings are? Short of a class action suit against a large number of (potential) perpatrators, Valve would lose more money than they could ever recoup. And if the Courts awarded "Court Costs" to Valve, the individual defendants would lose a heck of a lot more than the money they made skimming. It is simply not feasable.

In a perfect world, what you say makes sense. And most of the community thinks that "All things being equal" law suit, without considering the cost/benefit of the whole thing. IF there was wrong doing (and I am not saying there was), Valve took actions which were actually more reasonable than all of that to all parties involved. IMHO. this is all speculation.

While I understand the idea of legal costs making it ineffective to pursue it in court, if Valve or any other gaming company is able to take action without going to court, then that creates a moral hazard where they aren't required to account for their actions. I mean, the basis for such actions may be from EULAs under contract instead of specifically dealt with by law, but when the allegedly wronged party is victim, and judge, jury and executioner, that creates a chaotic situation.

That aside, though, I'm more worried about that happening here in the US, AND I'm more worried about it occurring for different reasons: Such as EA banning Origin accounts for forum violations. That's the biggest reason I would like to see this practice stopped cold.

 

[thespyder]

While I understand the idea of legal costs making it ineffective to pursue it in court, if Valve or any other gaming company is able to take action without going to court, then that creates a moral hazard where they aren't required to account for their actions. I mean, the basis for such actions may be from EULAs under contract instead of specifically dealt with by law, but when the allegedly wronged party is victim, and judge, jury and executioner, that creates a chaotic situation.

That aside, though, I'm more worried about that happening here in the US, AND I'm more worried about it occurring for different reasons: Such as EA banning Origin accounts for forum violations. That's the biggest reason I would like to see this practice stopped cold.

It's a problem. And one that skimmers bank on. So long as it costs more to actually pursue them than they are taking from the companies they are defrauding, they are absolutely the winners.

And I share your concern that, when the system is left to police itself, there is always the possibility of corruption. However, even with independant policing, there is still corruption.

Mine may be an unpopular opinion, but I think that Valve, for the most part and in as much as we have seen only a very few crumbs of the facts, acted in a measured and reasonable manner. I wouldn't want it to happen to me, but then I don't skim or steal or commit fraud. And so I don't expect this type of action to happen to me. Sure it was shocking. Absolutely it was a bit heavy handed. But I will say that it got the attention of the defendant. And it got publicity such that I am sure a lot of people who were casual skimmers, or some that were thinking about skimming, probably won't now. So in that I bet it did pretty much what Valve wanted it to do. It was an example. And one that resonates. And if they get a bit of bad press over it, even that is to their advantage to a degree. AND they relented in giving his games back to him, thus showing that they weren't trying to be judge, jury and executioner.

Now, if it becomes a habit, then there is a big problem.

But I still think that irresponsible journalism like what RPS did that sparked the whole thing is just all kinds of wrong. What are the, FOX?

One final note and adendom. Judgement in a court of law is not intended to be "Compensation". It isn't enforced comerce. It is intended to be a levy laid on the guilty party as a deterant to prevent activity which society has determined to be against it's better interests. In that, no. It shouldn't be that party X steals $20 and they are ONLY intended to pay $20 back in compensation. that is not the intent, nor the way it is implemented in real life. That is why people sue large corporations. the settlement isn't in comparison to the damage done, but in relation to what is deemed reasonable to make sure that the "Offender" doesn't do it again.

 

[Phynaz]

Although I haven't used them for games (yet), I've seen better pricing on Amazon (one I forgot earlier), so there's even less incentive to go the abuse route.
I don't know if they (Amazon) use a Client (I doubt), or how they work, but I suspect it's probably a lot more customer friendly than Steam.

Many of the digital download games on Amazon just get you a Steam authentication code - they say right in the description that Steam is required. During the big sales, pricing is a big battle between Steam and Amazon for these titles - and we win!

Others require you to use the Amazon client and register the game with a unique cd key that is provided via the download client (and is in your Amazon account)