Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: Nov 2010
Location: UK
K
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
K
Joined: Nov 2010
Location: UK
Originally Posted by Stargazer
Originally Posted by eisberg
...Do you seriously believe that Valve would do such a boneheaded thing like that?
Why would it be boneheaded?

Do the figures - Valve claim to have over 30 million active accounts. Imposing a $5/month "maintenance fee" would bring in an extra $1.4 billion per year, assuming an 80% acceptance rate, with virtually no extra work needed on their part.

The only downside would be the loss of new customers but that could be countered by buying in more "Steam exclusives" - half of the $1.4 billion should cover a fair few, leaving the rest for other things (Bugatti Veyrons, lap dancers, champagne, etc).
Originally Posted by eisberg
Seriously, who in their right mind would pay a monthly subscription to play their fully bought games...
Any subscriber with more than, say, $100, linked to their Steam account who would face considerable expense trying to obtain (legitimate) non-Steam versions.

With Steam, Valve have a life-or-death power over all your purchases which they have been perfectly willing to exercise.

Given this and the increasing incentive for Valve to force a subscription fee onto purchases, I would consider Steam the most dangerous form of DRM available. No other system has the same ability to hold you to ransom (other digital distribution systems like GamersGate or Impulse could pull a similar stunt, but you would only lose the ability to reinstall if you refused). GOG is the only safe digital distributor being totally DRM-free.

And for those extolling Steam's offline mode, there are plenty of reports of it not working. If Valve do intend to bring in a subscription fee, then it would clearly be in their interest to keep it from working properly - anyone care to suggest another reason for it not being fixed after so long?



Well said Stargazer

Its nice to see that someone else can also take a clinical view of Valves actions and see the possible future outcomes of millions of gamers blindly agreeing to an SSA that they can't be bothered to read or simply don't understand.


To others:

I know full well what a monopoly is, it seems that some of you do not, some of you seem to argue rather too fiercely, its almost as if you think that by arguing as you do, that you will make what you want to happen, happen.

There's a large flightless bird that does what you're doing.

You can argue all you like, and you can chuck all the insults you like too, as it won't change my opinion, Steam is a monopoly and its growing.

Joined: Nov 2010
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Nov 2010
I never hurled any insults, I am stating from my point of view that it is not a monopoly, and can never be one. Should Valve decide to try and turn it into one, well the US government steps in and forces them to break it up. Its an old law that still comes into affect alot, there was (though for the life of me I can't remember) a case recently where a company had a perceived monopoly here in the States and so the government forced them to split into 3 companies or shut down operations.

As long as Valve is within the US they can't go for, or try to become a monopoly as it would end up cutting them apart in the process, and then there would be all the angered customers who having bought products from Steam would be at the new companies throats in order to get money back or a hard copy product shipped to them at no charge.

Now, the reason I say it is not a monopoly is that no one forces anyone to buy from Steam, it is a choice. There is no developer that is told by Valve, you must have Steam for this game, it is a choice made by each studio. Valve does not own the rights to all distribution (Which in itself disqualifies it as a monopoly anyways) with competitors like impulse, D2D, etc Valve can never have a monopoly unless they buy out every single one of their distribution competitors which won't happen.

A true monopoly is a 100% control of a select good with no competition to worry about, which as stated Valve has competitors. You must also have 100% control of the ingredients needed to make the product you have complete control over, which Valve being one game studio compared to all the game studios that make a choice to put their games on Steam, as well as/or in other distribution means disqualifies this. For Valve to gain a monopoly they need to shut down all other online distributors, then they need to close out all the stores that sell games without the use of Steam, and then they would need to get control of every game studio to force Steam to be the only choice.

TL,DR

It will never happen, Valve is not, nor will it ever be a monopoly as they don't have the necessary control to be one.

Last edited by Setch Dreskar; 11/12/10 02:02 AM.
Joined: Nov 2010
Location: OH
D
stranger
Offline
stranger
D
Joined: Nov 2010
Location: OH
Originally Posted by Knight Flyer
its almost as if you think that by arguing as you do, that you will make what you want to happen, happen.


Heh, the only thing I've argued thus far is that nothing will happen. As in, they are not a monopoly, do not have the control needed to form one, nor the leverage to convince publishers to allow them to become one. On top of that, customers in the US are some of the most litigious people in the damn world and are always shouting "monopoly", yet no one here seems to be pointing their barrel towards Valve. You say they're a monopoly but of what exactly? I can't even begin to see things your way when thus far the only argument I've seen for them being a monopoly is "I know what a monopoly is" and "they are a monopoly" with no reasons suggested. How, economically, are they a monopoly? Does the UK have a different definition of monopoly than the US?

Joined: Nov 2010
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Nov 2010
Originally Posted by Stargazer
Originally Posted by eisberg
...Do you seriously believe that Valve would do such a boneheaded thing like that?
Why would it be boneheaded?

Do the figures - Valve claim to have over 30 million active accounts. Imposing a $5/month "maintenance fee" would bring in an extra $1.4 billion per year, assuming an 80% acceptance rate, with virtually no extra work needed on their part.

The only downside would be the loss of new customers but that could be countered by buying in more "Steam exclusives" - half of the $1.4 billion should cover a fair few, leaving the rest for other things (Bugatti Veyrons, lap dancers, champagne, etc).
Originally Posted by eisberg
Seriously, who in their right mind would pay a monthly subscription to play their fully bought games...
Any subscriber with more than, say, $100, linked to their Steam account who would face considerable expense trying to obtain (legitimate) non-Steam versions.

With Steam, Valve have a life-or-death power over all your purchases which they have been perfectly willing to exercise.

Given this and the increasing incentive for Valve to force a subscription fee onto purchases, I would consider Steam the most dangerous form of DRM available. No other system has the same ability to hold you to ransom (other digital distribution systems like GamersGate or Impulse could pull a similar stunt, but you would only lose the ability to reinstall if you refused). GOG is the only safe digital distributor being totally DRM-free.

And for those extolling Steam's offline mode, there are plenty of reports of it not working. If Valve do intend to bring in a subscription fee, then it would clearly be in their interest to keep it from working properly - anyone care to suggest another reason for it not being fixed after so long?


At least in the US, Bait and Switch litigation would happen, and the plaintiffs would win. EULAs/Service agreements like those are legal gray area, and have been thrown out of court as being invalid agreements.

Joined: Nov 2010
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Nov 2010
Originally Posted by Stargazer
Originally Posted by DeTard
...A monopoly prevents competition. Valve hasn't. What exactly do you think that they have monopolized?
Try finding a copy of Napoleon: Total War, Civilization V or Half Life 2 that doesn't require you to use (or create) a Steam account. That should refresh the memory of what a monopoly is.


After you saying this, not sure why I am responding to you, cause you don't know what you are talking about obviously.

So Securom, Starforce, Tages, Games for Windows Live, all must be monopolies.

You don't know what a monopoly is.

Joined: Nov 2003
member
Offline
member
Joined: Nov 2003
Originally Posted by Setch Dreskar
...I am stating from my point of view that it is not a monopoly, and can never be one...Now, the reason I say it is not a monopoly is that no one forces anyone to buy from Steam, it is a choice.
Originally Posted by DeTard
...they are not a monopoly, do not have the control needed to form one, nor the leverage to convince publishers to allow them to become one.
Originally Posted by eisberg
You don't know what a monopoly is.
For an informal, but detailed, description of a monopoly, please review Wikipedia: Monopoly and take particular note of the following sentence:

...a monopoly...exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.

Valve/Steam has exclusive control of access to any Steamworks game (you cannot use it without creating a Steam account and agreeing to the Steam Subscriber Agreement) so this should be a no-brainer.

In legal terms, definitions may vary - under UK law a monopoly is defined under section 6 of the Fair Trade Act 1973, to quote:

(1) For the purposes of this Act a monopoly situation shall be taken to exist in relation to the supply of goods of any description in the following cases, that is to say, if—

(a) at least one-quarter of all the goods of that description which are supplied in the United Kingdom are supplied by one and the same person, or are supplied to one and the same person, or

(b) at least one-quarter of all the goods of that description which are supplied in the United Kingdom are supplied by members of one and the same group of interconnected bodies corporate, or are supplied to members of one and the same group of interconnected bodies corporate, or

(c) at least one-quarter of all the goods of that description which are supplied in the United Kingdom are supplied by members of one and the same group consisting of two or more such persons as are mentioned in subsection (2) of this section, or are supplied to members of one and the same group consisting of two or more such persons, or

(d) one or more agreements are in operation, the result or collective result of which is that goods of that description are not supplied in the United Kingdom at all.


Since Steam was estimated to have 70% of the digital distribution market share in November 2009, this should constitute a clear monopoly of the digital distribution market under UK law. If you include retail (which was estimated as only slightly ahead of digital in July 2010) then that still gives Steam a 30-35% market share, again qualifying for monopoly status.
Originally Posted by eisberg
So Securom, Starforce, Tages, Games for Windows Live, all must be monopolies.
None of these are distribution channels (with the possible exception of GFWL) so your argument has no merit.
Originally Posted by eisberg
At least in the US, Bait and Switch litigation would happen, and the plaintiffs would win.
"Bait-and-switch" involves false advertising - in contrast Valve have been upfront on a subscription fee since the EULA you agreed to (the Steam Subscriber Agreement) includes the following in section 4B:

Valve reserves the right to change our fees or billing methods at any time and Valve will provide notice of any such change at least thirty (30) days advance...Your non-cancellation of your Account or an affected Subscription thirty (30) days after posting of the changes on Steam means that you accept such changes.

So if Valve bring in a regular fee, you can opt-out by closing your account. Bit of a pity that it entails losing access to your entire Steam collection though.
Originally Posted by eisberg
EULAs/Service agreements like those are legal gray area, and have been thrown out of court as being invalid agreements.
EULA provisions have been ruled enforceable by the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc. in September 2010 (specifically overruling the First Sale Doctrine). With this, any breach of an EULA could result in the customer being sued for copyright infringement (see the EFF's analysis).
Originally Posted by Knight Flyer
Its nice to see that someone else can also take a clinical view of Valves actions and see the possible future outcomes of millions of gamers blindly agreeing to an SSA that they can't be bothered to read or simply don't understand.
I'm in full agreement with you there Knight Flyer.

The vast majority of users do ignore EULAs due to their length and complexity which is understandable - especially since with "normal" software there is little real possibility of the software publisher being able to enforce every aspect of them.

However DRM systems like Steam change the rules - enforcement (by blocking access) is trivial and can (and has, in Valve's case) been done arbitrarily and in ways that damage consumer rights.

It seems highly likely that Valve's past and possible future actions could be judged illegal under UK or European law, but since Valve has no UK/EU presence, legal sanctions cannot be enforced (the EU Competition Commission acknowledge this in their response (PDF) to a complaint about Valve's European pricing). Redress would have to be sought via the US legal system which, as noted above, now has a strong precedent supporting EULA terms and conditions.

Joined: Nov 2010
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Nov 2010
It is still not a monopoly they don't control enough of the market in order to be considered as such, they need 100% control as I stated before, of their goods, which in this cause is video games, which means they need Impulse, D2D, Fileplanet (In some cases), and almost every storefront selling non-steam games to close up shop or be bought out to do so, they then need to make sure that every game studio that makes a game is set to a contract of forced use of Steam. Should they gain even one of those, the US government will step in with the old 'trust buster' law and take the company apart to prevent a monopoly from ever happening again. Should this be a service outside the US (Which Steam is controlled by Valve and thus a US interest) the law would not apply. Steam is not nor will it ever be a monopoly because there are too many competitors out there, what Steam is, is a brilliant distribution platform, that while having flaws, ensures a high level of feedback and profit for developers whoever they may be.

Last edited by Setch Dreskar; 11/12/10 09:11 AM.
Joined: Nov 2003
member
Offline
member
Joined: Nov 2003
Originally Posted by Setch Dreskar
It is still not a monopoly they don't control enough of the market in order to be considered as such, they need 100% control as I stated before...
The legislation which I linked and quoted above shows they only need 25% of the market as far as the UK is concerned.

If you are going to post a response, at least show the courtesy of reading and checking links that others supply.

Originally Posted by Setch Dreskar
...the US government will step in with the old 'trust buster' law and take the company apart to prevent a monopoly from ever happening again.
Wrong. Monopolies are not illegal - it is abuse of monopoly power that is. The US government does not break up every monopoly and there are several examples of legal monopolies still running today. Odds are that your computer is running an OS produced by one of them...
Originally Posted by Setch Dreskar
...what Steam is, is a brilliant distribution platform, that while having flaws, ensures a high level of feedback and profit for developers whoever they may be.
Any digital distribution system can offer better profits for developers. The issue here is about the conditions imposed on users. If you choose to ignore the risks posed by DRM such as Steam's, you'll only have yourself to blame should the worst come to pass.

Joined: Nov 2010
Location: UK
K
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
K
Joined: Nov 2010
Location: UK
Originally Posted by Stargazer
Originally Posted by Setch Dreskar
It is still not a monopoly they don't control enough of the market in order to be considered as such, they need 100% control as I stated before...
The legislation which I linked and quoted above shows they only need 25% of the market as far as the UK is concerned.

If you are going to post a response, at least show the courtesy of reading and checking links that others supply.

Originally Posted by Setch Dreskar
...the US government will step in with the old 'trust buster' law and take the company apart to prevent a monopoly from ever happening again.
Wrong. Monopolies are not illegal - it is abuse of monopoly power that is. The US government does not break up every monopoly and there are several examples of legal monopolies still running today. Odds are that your computer is running an OS produced by one of them...
Originally Posted by Setch Dreskar
...what Steam is, is a brilliant distribution platform, that while having flaws, ensures a high level of feedback and profit for developers whoever they may be.
Any digital distribution system can offer better profits for developers. The issue here is about the conditions imposed on users. If you choose to ignore the risks posed by DRM such as Steam's, you'll only have yourself to blame should the worst come to pass.





Very well worded and very informative posting on your last few posts Stargazer.

The facts have been displayed in this very thread (thanks mainly to your posts) and people still refuse to take them onboard, as it seems they don't want them to be true, or is it that they don't want to be wrong ?

The human psyche never ceases to amaze me.

I've been told that I don't know what I'm talking about, that my definition of "monopoly" is flawed and that I must have slept through economics, strange when you take into account the fact that my business sense made me succesfull enough to retire very comfortably two years ago at the age of 41


To others:

The lesson to be learned here is that whilst you may not agree with what someone is telling you, and that you may doubt the authenticity of the statements that you are being presented with, you owe it to yourself and others to have a full understanding of the situation that you are about to argue about.

To argue the case for something purely because "thats the way you want things to be" or "thats what should happen anyway" will not make it so.

The information required to make learned decisions about nearly every topic under the sun has never been more readily at your fingertips and only takes seconds to aquire, its a mouseclick away.

Last edited by Knight Flyer; 11/12/10 01:20 PM.
Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Duchess of Gorgombert
Online Sleepy
Duchess of Gorgombert
Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Originally Posted by Knight Flyer

Very well worded and very informative posting on your last few posts Stargazer.

Agreed. While I have seen some inaccurate complaints written about Valve and Steam, on the other hand I think that some people are a bit too quick to trust them. Having been on the wrong end of unhelpful attitudes to customers more times than I can count, I'm not really prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt if there's a risk that something could go awry; and as such, I use Steam because I have to, not because I want to. Which is rather the point, really.


J'aime le fromage.
Joined: Nov 2010
Location: UK
K
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
K
Joined: Nov 2010
Location: UK
Originally Posted by Vometia
and as such, I use Steam because I have to, not because I want to. Which is rather the point, really.



Bingo, and very astutely put.

This is unfortunately the case for many "Steam" users and in this day and age should not be so.

As I think I stated earlier somewhere in this thread, if people were being forced to do or use something in other areas of their lives, they'd scream blue murder.

Why should Valve get away with it ?

Last edited by Knight Flyer; 11/12/10 01:41 PM.
Joined: Nov 2010
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Nov 2010
I never said it had anything to do with the UK though, legal definition being 25% in the UK, well it is different in the US, it requires alot more control of the markets. The Reason I did not look at the links you provided is I am arguing against considering Steam as a monopoly as it doesn't fall under such a category in the US, not against the service fees should they decide to begin charging them. More towards the point of service fees, though Valve has stated they could impose fees the likely fallout of doing so would do more damage to the company then it would do good. Who knows things may change but it seems like alot of 'woes me' drama put onto Steam that doesn't make sense to me, though I would also wonder what the legal terms would apply to each individual game and if a client could request hard copies shipped to them at no cost as the steam version is legally their's (the person buying) and ths their property not Valves.

You are speaking UK to US, I am telling you there is too much in the US going on with the games industry for Steam to be a monopoly here, maybe they are considered elsewhere but not by US legal standards.

Though I am suprised you did not bring to light that Electric companies are allowed and encouraged by the government to maintain monopolies within their respective counties, such as CELP here in my town.

Last edited by Setch Dreskar; 11/12/10 06:47 PM.
Joined: Nov 2010
Location: UK
K
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
K
Joined: Nov 2010
Location: UK
Originally Posted by Setch Dreskar
I never said it had anything to do with the UK though, legal definition being 25% in the UK, well it is different in the US, it requires alot more control of the markets. The Reason I did not look at the links you provided is I am arguing against considering Steam as a monopoly as it doesn't fall under such a category in the US, not against the service fees should they decide to begin charging them. More towards the point of service fees, though Valve has stated they could impose fees the likely fallout of doing so would do more damage to the company then it would do good. Who knows things may change but it seems like alot of 'woes me' drama put onto Steam that doesn't make sense to me, though I would also wonder what the legal terms would apply to each individual game and if a client could request hard copies shipped to them at no cost as the steam version is legally their's (the person buying) and ths their property not Valves.

You are speaking UK to US, I am telling you there is too much in the US going on with the games industry for Steam to be a monopoly here, maybe they are considered elsewhere but not by US legal standards.

Though I am suprised you did not bring to light that Electric companies are allowed and encouraged by the government to maintain monopolies within their respective counties, such as CELP here in my town.



We're not talking country to country, we're talking globaly.

As already posted by Stargazer:


For an informal, but detailed, description of a monopoly, please review Wikipedia: Monopoly and take particular note of the following sentence:

...a monopoly...exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.

Valve/Steam has exclusive control of access to any Steamworks game (you cannot use it without creating a Steam account and agreeing to the Steam Subscriber Agreement) so this should be a no-brainer.

Joined: Nov 2010
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Nov 2010
Stargazer made mention of the UK being his basis, as for the games we shall have to see if Valve were to charge a fee, I doubt they would but you never know as has been stated stranger things have happened before, like Blizzard selling to Activision.

Also don't ever use wikipedia, it can be edited by anyone and is not a credible source, its a great place to get you started looking but should not be the end of it.

Joined: Nov 2010
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Nov 2010
Originally Posted by Knight Flyer


Valve/Steam has exclusive control of access to any Steamworks game (you cannot use it without creating a Steam account and agreeing to the Steam Subscriber Agreement) so this should be a no-brainer.[/i]


You can't use any game that has Securom without activating it online. The game is then activated to your hardware, instead of being activated to an account, but really just 2 sides of the same coin. You cannot reinstall a game after 3-5 times without first making a phone call and begging for a reactivation, if you did not first uninstall the game if the game happens to have a revoke with it.

Steamworks, Securom, Tages, Impulse Goo, ect are all DRM who do the DRM protection differently, and according to what you guys are saying are all monopolies.

Joined: Nov 2010
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Nov 2010
Originally Posted by Stargazer
None of these are distribution channels (with the possible exception of GFWL) so your argument has no merit.


Then why are you bringing up games that use Steam as a DRM and claiming it to be a monopoly for that reason, then disregard all the other games that use a different DRM system that really is on the same coin as Steam just the other side. There are more games that use Securom then there are that use Steamworks. Securom games are tied to your hardware and to activation servers, change your hardware you lose access to you game, servers go away never be able to install your game ever again. Steamwork games are tied to your account, also tied to a server, lose either one lose your games as well. So Securom must be a monopoly, right?

So, what do you want to talk about, Steam as a monopoly as a distribution or steam as a monopoly as a DRM? If you want to talk about Steam as a DRM, then you need to realize that there are far more games that use Securom as a DRM then that use Steam as a DRM. Steamworks isn't used nearly as the only DRM for a game then Securom and Tages are.

As for Steam as a monopoly for Distribution. No one is forced to buy games through Steam, consumers have many many other options to buy their games both physically and through digital distribution. Just how many games are on Steam that you can only buy through Steam? Would it be 25% of the games in the market? no where near that. Now you can't say, well look at this (game), you have to create an account on steam to play the game, cause then you are going back to Steam being used as a DRM, and at that point you have to take into consideration the other forms of DRM and realize they are much bigger then Steam is and are monopoly as well according to your definition.

Just so you know, Steam has 70% of the digital distribution market not because Consumers have no choice, it is because they choose to use Steam as their preference to buy their games. There is nothing that Valve does that forces people to buy their games from Steam. So what is Valve supposed to do? Turn away customers stating they have to many customers?

Last edited by eisberg; 12/12/10 04:39 AM.
Joined: Nov 2010
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Nov 2010
Originally Posted by Vometia
Originally Posted by Knight Flyer

Very well worded and very informative posting on your last few posts Stargazer.

Agreed. While I have seen some inaccurate complaints written about Valve and Steam, on the other hand I think that some people are a bit too quick to trust them. Having been on the wrong end of unhelpful attitudes to customers more times than I can count, I'm not really prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt if there's a risk that something could go awry; and as such, I use Steam because I have to, not because I want to. Which is rather the point, really.


How are you being forced to use Steam to buy your games?

Or are you talking about Steam being used as the DRM for a game? If you are, therefore you should also be complaining about Securom, Tages, and other forms of DRM as well.

Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Duchess of Gorgombert
Online Sleepy
Duchess of Gorgombert
Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Originally Posted by eisberg
How are you being forced to use Steam to buy your games?

Because I don't "do" piracy. Unless you mean the choice of game I want to play isn't important, but personally I wouldn't want to replace Half Life 2 with Halo or New Vegas with Big Rigs. Call me picky if you like.

Originally Posted by eisberg
Or are you talking about Steam being used as the DRM for a game? If you are, therefore you should also be complaining about Securom, Tages, and other forms of DRM as well.

As I do frequently. But that's not what was being discussed here.


J'aime le fromage.
Joined: Nov 2003
member
Offline
member
Joined: Nov 2003
Originally Posted by Knight Flyer
I've been told that I don't know what I'm talking about, that my definition of "monopoly" is flawed and that I must have slept through economics, strange when you take into account the fact that my business sense made me succesfull enough to retire very comfortably two years ago at the age of 41
'Tis a sad fact of online forum debates - no-one can see or prejudge other posters (in the flesh, I guess you'd have enough grey hairs to give you clear seniority! laugh ) and the (false) presumption of anonymity removes the need for some (including myself at times) to moderate themselves. It's easy to misread the intentions behind a post (such as mistaking an intent to educate and inform for arrogance or bossiness) and hard to 'fess up to a goof in public.
Originally Posted by Setch Dreskar
I never said it had anything to do with the UK though, legal definition being 25% in the UK, well it is different in the US, it requires alot more control of the markets.
A company with 25% share can exert considerable influence over the rest of the market, if the circumstances are right. I've not quoted US law since (a) I'm less familiar with it and (b) you have multiple state legislatures as well as the Federal law to consider. Doubtless someone else more informed in this area can provide better info.
Originally Posted by Setch Dreskar
...though Valve has stated they could impose fees the likely fallout of doing so would do more damage to the company then it would do good.
Really? There'd be PR fallout to be sure but that would hardly amount to much compared to a possible $1.4 billion/year extra income. And should Steam continue to grow, the amount they could rake in via a maintenance fee would increase geometrically since they could charge more per account (due to those accounts having more purchases locked in).
Originally Posted by Setch Dreskar
...if a client could request hard copies shipped to them at no cost as the steam version is legally their's (the person buying) and ths their property not Valves.
YOU DO NOT LEGALLY OWN THE GAMES YOU PURCHASE ON STEAM.

Sorry to have to stress this point but the Steam Agreement makes this clear near the beginning at section 2A:

The Software is licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Software.

At the very least, take time to read the agreement you're bound by - the licensing clause is far from the most problematic in consumer rights terms. And it is this specific clause that was upheld by the Ninth Court in Vernor vs Autodesk that I linked to above.
Originally Posted by Setch Dreskar
You are speaking UK to US, I am telling you there is too much in the US going on with the games industry for Steam to be a monopoly here, maybe they are considered elsewhere but not by US legal standards.
The federal law covering monopolies, USC Title 15 Chapter 1 Section 2 (aka the Sherman Antitrust Act), does not include a definition of monopoly, which would leave it to a court to decide on a case-by-case basis. A 70% market share however would seem to qualify given that a previous successful anti-trust action (the DRAM price fixing scandal of 2001-2) involved companies with a combined marketshare of 81.2% in 2002 (according to EE Times: DRAM bulletin).
Originally Posted by Setch Dreskar
Though I am suprised you did not bring to light that Electric companies are allowed and encouraged by the government to maintain monopolies within their respective counties, such as CELP here in my town.
Public utilities tend to be natural monopolies - as long as they are effectively regulated to prevent them abusing their power, this position can benefit consumers by providing economy of scale in supplying services (i.e. one big water company can supply customers at a lower cost than several could with multiple pipeline networks to maintain).
Originally Posted by eisberg
You can't use any game that has Securom without activating it online. The game is then activated to your hardware, instead of being activated to an account, but really just 2 sides of the same coin.
If SecuROM Online (to distinguish it from their disc checks) were a distribution channel then I would agree with you. However end users cannot buy anything from them so the situation is different. Also since different game activations are not, as far as I know, tied to a single personal account they do not have the leverage to impose extra fees that Steam, Gamersgate or Impulse do ("Hey look, SecuROM wants to charge me five bucks for this twenty buck game - well I'll tell them to shove off" as opposed to "Hey look, Steam want to charge me five bucks for this account with, uh, $300 worth of games on it - oh sh*t.").
Originally Posted by eisberg
You cannot reinstall a game after 3-5 times without first making a phone call and begging for a reactivation, if you did not first uninstall the game if the game happens to have a revoke with it.
This activation requirement, while obnoxious, is not on Steam's level (activation every time you start a game) and doesn't pose the same risks to privacy or have the same leverage to extort future fees.

However I find it unacceptable, and if anyone from Larian is reading this thread, I will point out that I am boycotting FOV for this reason alone. I've purchased all your previous games (including Divine Divinity twice by picking up a DRM-free copy from GOG). You clearly have had feedback from customers showing extreme dissatisfaction with this DRM so why not show the courage that CD-Project has and release DKS/FOV on GOG?

Joined: Nov 2010
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Nov 2010
Well I posted earlier, Larian has stated several times they are removing SecuROM though it was back on... page 3 I think, there are a few topics on the steam forums themselves about SecuROM in DKS, lets see if I can grab the links quickly.

http://www.larian.com/forums/ubbthr...79&Main=25668&topic=0#Post424679

http://www.larian.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=424332#Post424332

Edit - Bloody links >.<

Last edited by Setch Dreskar; 12/12/10 01:19 PM.
Page 5 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Moderated by  Bvs, ForkTong, Larian_QA, Lar_q, Lynn, Macbeth, Raze 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5