Steam Has An Updated Subscriber Agreement

(ii) host or provide matchmaking services for the Content and Services or emulate or redirect the communication protocols used by Valve in any network feature of the Content and Services, through protocol emulation, tunneling, modifying or adding components to the Content and Services, use of a utility program or any other techniques now known or hereafter developed, for any purpose including, but not limited to network play over the Internet, network play utilizing commercial or non-commercial gaming networks or as part of content aggregation networks, websites or services, without the prior written consent of Valve

this is old but nonetheless interesting

IF YOU ARE AN EU SUBSCRIBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO WITHDRAW FROM A PURCHASE TRANSACTION FOR DIGITAL CONTENT WITHOUT CHARGE AND WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASON FOR A DURATION OF FOURTEEN DAYS OR UNTIL VALVE’S PERFORMANCE OF ITS OBLIGATIONS HAS BEGUN WITH YOUR PRIOR EXPRESS CONSENT AND YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT YOU THEREBY LOSE YOUR RIGHT OF WITHDRAWAL, WHICHEVER HAPPENS SOONER. THEREFORE, YOU WILL BE INFORMED DURING THE CHECKOUT PROCESS WHEN OUR PERFORMANCE STARTS AND ASKED TO PROVIDE YOUR PRIOR EXPRESS CONSENT TO THE PURCHASE BEING FINAL.

Now this is too legalise for me. It reads like we have that right but actually we don't because all purchases will include a mandatory checkmark to waive that right, or did I misunderstand it?

Is that even legal? o.0

Now this is too legalise for me. It reads like we have that right but actually we don't because all purchases will include a mandatory checkmark to waive that right, or did I misunderstand it?

Is that even legal? o.0

If i understand it correctly, you have a right to a refund until you consume the product. That might include playing the game after a certain point.

Imagine going to McDonalds and buying a big mac. If McD ran by that agreement, then you have a right to a refund until you stick that big mac in your mouth and chow down on it.

That's my understanding anyway.

Is that even legal? o.0

No it's not, but lawyers always think they can game the system. These subscriber or license agreements always have tons of stuff that would never hold in court. American (and increasingly European) big business is so used to the fact that the one with the deepest pockets wins anyway, and consumer complaints can basically be shrugged off.

Imagine going to McDonalds and buying a big mac. If McD ran by that agreement, then you have a right to a refund until you stick that big mac in your mouth and chow down on it.

Laws like this obviously do not apply to food, so this is basic apples to oranges.

It is legal. In EU there is a period of retractation. During this period, you can't legally use the service you suscribed to. In order to use this service, you must give up on your retractation right. That is the case for any subscription to a service, which is basically what buying a game on Steam is.

So, by downloading and installing the game immediately after buying it, you give up on your retractation rights.

On a legal basis, a damaged game that can't work can get you a refund. But on Steam, there can't be physical damage, and if you exclude the case where you simply can't download the game, it will always be provided as it is meant to work, even if its completely broken to begin with.

So, agreed, this is not fair, and the law should really improve on these points. That's what you get, applying centuries old laws to new technologies.

Imagine going to McDonalds and buying a big mac. If McD ran by that agreement, then you have a right to a refund until you stick that big mac in your mouth and chow down on it.

Laws like this obviously do not apply to food, so this is basic apples to oranges.

It's an analogy...

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=define:analogy

a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

It's an analogy...

It's a bad analogy.

It is legal. In EU there is a period of retractation. During this period, you can't legally use the service you suscribed to. In order to use this service, you must give up on your retractation right. That is the case for any subscription to a service, which is basically what buying a game on Steam is.

Of course you're right. They do have a loophole. Another good reason to prefer services that actually sell games, not just the right to play them. Then again, for many people the convenience, and probably the multiplayer and community features of Steam are worth the tradeoff.

It's not really a loophole, and it's perfectly legal. If you could play the game for 14 days in the cooling-off period (as it's known elsewhere), and then get a refund any digital distribution would come crashing down as people got 2-week rentals for zero charge.

There are cases where games should be refunded, absolutely, but taking that to the opposite end of the spectrum is just as open to abuse. Don't buy a garbage game in the first place!

I wonder tho, why one has to resign one's right for a refund upon payment and not upon downloading the game.

What if I buy a game for somebody (or even myself for that matter) and then decide "Ah, ditch it, not gonna play it anyway." It was never downloaded (=delivered) and never opened (=installed).

Another thing would be sales. If a game is going on sale during that two weeks and if you have not downloaded it yet, you could get a refund and...

well, welcome to coorporate dystopia, where the only thing that matters is your money, never your satisfaction :(

It's not really a loophole, and it's perfectly legal.

It's not a loophole in the legal sense, but it's hard to think of it as anything else. The entertainment industry has managed to persuade most of their clientele that a subscription to games/movies/music/whatever is worth the same as actual ownership of said media.

I can't say I'm convinced, partly because I don't care about their "value added" services. I just want the games, and maybe an easy way to get updates. Couldn't care less about multiplayer lobbies, workshops or any of the social stuff. Don't get me wrong, I do have and use Steam. It is convenient despite their business model, not because of it.

Yeah, that "loophole" of requiring people to waive their 14-days cooling off period was actually put in place for exactly this situation: marketplaces for digital good, like Steam. This is not Steam gaming the law; this is the exact intention of that law.

You always buy a licence to play the game, no matter where you buy it…

And this EU law is actually recent, not centuries old.

Well, obviously it's quite recent. This whole conversation would hardly have been even relevant until a few years back, when advances in Internet bandwidth and availability finally made digital distribution viable.

Still it has not been that long since you actually bought a copy of a game or let's say a musical recording (physical or digital, shouldn't matter) instead of the right to play or listen to them. A right the seller can legally revoke whenever they wish without so much as an explanation, mind you. But you can still buy games you can legally backup and play on any system of your choosing for as long as you see fit from GOG et al.

This is not Steam gaming the law; this is the exact intention of that law.

And that law was brilliantly written and lobbied by these same businesses that now reap the benefits. I do not see why our rights as consumers should be dependent on distribution mediums.

Well, obviously it's quite recent.

omer666 didn't know, though:

That's what you get, applying centuries old laws to new technologies.

I do not see why our rights as consumers should be dependent on distribution mediums.

It isn't. Here's the full text of the EU directive: [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32011L0083&qid=1403274218893](http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32011L0083&qid=1403274218893)

Specifically, it says this in Article 16:

Member States shall not provide for the right of withdrawal set out in Articles 9 to 15 in respect of distance and off-premises contracts as regards the following:
[...]
(i) the supply of sealed audio or sealed video recordings or sealed computer software which were unsealed after delivery
[...]
(m) the supply of digital content which is not supplied on a tangible medium if the performance has begun with the consumer’s prior express consent and his acknowledgment that he thereby loses his right of withdrawal

I.e.: physical copies of games you already opened are likewise exempt. The intend of the law is to give you the ability to observe and inspect the item as if in a brick and mortar store; not to give you 14 days of free use.

the consumer should be allowed to test and inspect the goods he has bought to the extent necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and the functioning of the goods
[...]
In order to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods, the consumer should only handle and inspect them in the same manner as he would be allowed to do in a shop

Although, for most items, if you do use them beyond what is necessary to establish this, the result is not the complete loss of your right of withdrawal, but you "should be liable for any diminished value of the goods". Videos, movies and software are different in that respect, since they're not exactly a physical thing, but the contents of the medium is what counts.

Yes, I was wrong!
I thought it always was there, but it was not.

Sorry for making such mistake.

Sorry for making such mistake.

No worries. :)

You weren't exactly wrong that such a right of withdrawal existed prior: there's [the directive 97/7/EC](http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX:31997L0007), which 2011/83/EU repeals/replaces. It originally covered the ordering of goods and services by mail, phone, fax, etc., through the use of a catalogue, the TV and the like.

You can see that it also included withdrawal exemptions for "the supply of audio or video recordings or computer software which were unsealed by the consumer" (but was of course missing the bits about digital content). As such, the actual intend of the law never changed.

IF YOU ARE AN EU SUBSCRIBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO WITHDRAW FROM A PURCHASE TRANSACTION FOR DIGITAL CONTENT WITHOUT CHARGE AND WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASON FOR A DURATION OF FOURTEEN DAYS OR UNTIL VALVE’S PERFORMANCE OF ITS OBLIGATIONS HAS BEGUN WITH YOUR PRIOR EXPRESS CONSENT AND YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT YOU THEREBY LOSE YOUR RIGHT OF WITHDRAWAL, WHICHEVER HAPPENS SOONER. THEREFORE, YOU WILL BE INFORMED DURING THE CHECKOUT PROCESS WHEN OUR PERFORMANCE STARTS AND ASKED TO PROVIDE YOUR PRIOR EXPRESS CONSENT TO THE PURCHASE BEING FINAL.

Now this is too legalise for me. It reads like we have that right but actually we don't because all purchases will include a mandatory checkmark to waive that right, or did I misunderstand it?

Is that even legal? o.0

Taken from here : http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/shopping/buy-sell-online/rights-e-commerce/index_en.htm

You also enjoy the right of withdrawal within 14 days from concluding the contract for online digital content. However, once you start downloading or streaming the content you may no longer withdraw from the purchase, provided that the trader has complied with his obligations. Specifically, the trader must first obtain your explicit agreement to the immediate download or streaming, and you must explicitly acknowledge that you lose your right to withdraw once the performance has started.

This is perfectly legal, Valve follow the law to the letter.

Sorry, double post.

The intend of the law is to give you the ability to observe and inspect the item as if in a brick and mortar store; not to give you 14 days of free use.

This might be the intent of the law, but this clearly differs from the way returns are handled for other types of goods. And as you said, this law is very recent.

The erosion of consumer rights and inflation of corporate influence in the EU over the last few years has been obvious. There are too many glaring examples to even list. The current push for TTIP and it's so called investment protection rules are the icing on the cake. European lawmakers are keeping true to their "let's copy every mistake the US ever did" credo and treating the average consumer like a criminally minded idiot while pandering to big business in hopes of grabbing the marginal amount of tax money they don't manage to evade (perfectly legally, of course).

I'm going to bow out of the discussion now, as it seems this is turning into a one-sided debate on the letter of law, when all I expressed was my disagreement on the general idea of modern subscription services vs. the classic "buy a game, own a copy" model.

[quote=tuubi]

I can't say I'm convinced, partly because I don't care about their "value added" services. I just want the games, and maybe an easy way to get updates. Couldn't care less about multiplayer lobbies, workshops or any of the social stuff. Don't get me wrong, I do have and use Steam. It is convenient despite their business model, not because of it.

The idea of games as an explicit license rather than a physical thing has existed longer than internet distribution has existed. It's been that way since at least the early 90s, but physical ownership never gave you implicit rights over the thing you owned.

The idea of games as an explicit license rather than a physical thing has existed longer than internet distribution has existed. It's been that way since at least the early 90s, but physical ownership never gave you implicit rights over the thing you owned.

That idea didn't creep into law in the early nineties though, at least not where I live. And of course physical ownership didn't give me the copyright, nor should it have, but at least the seller didn't retain the right to tell me which or how many computers I was allowed to play the game on or come and confiscate my copy whenever they felt like it. Nor could they insist that I log in every time I want to play. The whole concept that the seller should be able to dictate the way I privately use the product after the sale is quite new and frankly absurd.

You were limited in your use of the product though. You were limited to a single physical copy, physical media typically had to be in the drive for the game to work. If that copy was lost, destroyed you lost your access to the game. Backup copies of the physical media weren't allowed, and were typically very difficult to make regardless. Physical media wasn't exactly what I'd call freedom.

(Also, offline mode works great with Steam.)