http://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/ Clause 12
Why this is evil:
Arbitration is often a kangaroo court, where companies win 99% of the time because the arbitrator's employment is determined by the company they are arbitrating. This is something I would actually think hard about boycotting Stardock over. Valve, I trust them less, and I'm uninstalling Steam over this.
I'll probably re-install at some point, but there are enough alternatives to Steam out there still that I can get by for some time.
This is why Stardock needs to stay away from mandatory Steamworks.
I have no problem with Steam as a service, I have a problem with this policy.
The best solution would be for companies to provide alternative means of payment (does valve get the same money if you buy a Steamworks game through say, Stardock directly as they would through Valve?), or preferably for companies to provide a non-Steam means of purchase.
I know that this policy won't stop me from using Steam, but it will make me purchase very sparingly from the Steam store.
That's great, but in case you were replying to me and not just generally...
I'm not telling anyone to use or not use Steam, I don't really care if people love it or hate it, I made my own decision about it as did you and I'm more than happy with my decision as you appear to be with yours.
The larger point of this thread (I think anyway...) is that if you are unhappy with Steams actions then refuse to pay for products through them. You could also simply refuse to use their service period, but that may be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I'm not sure that anyone even thinks that is so contentious, yet some people expressed the opinion that if not for Steam PC gaming would be dead.
That's a fairly large leap of intuition, and frankly reeks of utter bullshit. There is plenty of PC gaming available without Steam. Fair enough, 'plenty' is a wiggly word, but I'm not going to quantify it, I think people probably understand it in this context.
Yes, Steam may be the 1,000,000lb gorilla in the room, but they aren't the only monkey.
My other quandary related to just how many games people actually buy off of Steam and if it's really worth having a library of 100s of bargin games. That's clearly up to each individual to answer for themselves, and not all games carry the same content load. None the less, I do find it somewhat disconcerting that Steam has seemingly created so many addicts, even at pennies a pop.
What's your problem with the Steam store? It's the No. 1 place to go for discounts of digital copies. Did you miss the Steam Summer Sale they just had? Plus Steam offers screenshots, system requirements, third-party DRM notices, Metacritic scores, recommendations by friends, and trailers in one convenient page.
I don't have a problem with the Steam store, hell I've never even put Steam on any system I own. I don't want it and I don' t need it.
If you think it's great, great, use it. If others don't want to use it, why do you even begin to care?
But I don't think this is really about pros/cons of Steam, at least it isn't to me, because I don't care what they are they are irrelevant to me. This is about what Steams actual value to the PC gaming community is, and some peoples desire to express that Steam *is* the PC gaming community.
Bullshit to that.
Should Steam be the PC gaming community? Ahh... that's a more interesting and likely charged question, but since it's hypothetical (at least for now) it's also not really worth getting undies knotted up over.
I was actually talking to Alstein. You must have posted while I was typing. He doesn't like the Steam store for some reason.
You can get deals just as good on Steam's competitors. Also, not using the Steam Store- if there's a billing dispute, it's a lot less likely to end up with Valve bricking your account. I'll use it if I have no other choice, and it's something I really want, but that's very unlikely. Most times it's someone I know who made a game that is Steam-only, those are the only times I've really used the store in the past year or so.
While such a thing is very unlikely, if I can reduce slim odds to none at a minimal cost, no reason not to do it.
Since I made this exact point, I'll defend it. Without Steam Legends of Grimrock and Warlock:MotA don't exist (as two popular examples). Nor does any other game at that level. Steam provides those companies with access to a slice of the market that big-box retailers stores don't, thereby making their products viable when they otherwise wouldn't be.
PC gaming is special because of the vibrant and diverse array of games you can choose from. Without Steam, and services like it, that's gone.
No, without Steam those 2 games may (or may not, I mean come one, no Steam doesn't mean there are no alternatives, KickStarters are not Steam exclusives are they?) exist.
My contention was with your rather absolute statement on the plight of PC Games without Steam. I have no strong opinion about Steam itself, it is what it is, and either you want to use it or you don't. I'm fine with a majority of people liking it and using it, and I'm fine with my choice not to use it meaning that I skip some games I may have otherwise tried.
There's still plenty of content out there for me at least, but then again I don't have the urge to try every new title that comes out either. Well, I may have an urge, but I don't have the time, there's plenty on my plate as it is. The only downside I see for me is when/if Steam truly acquires monopoly status and 99% of games do not provide an alternative to purchase other than Steam (or even there, requiring Steam to run the game no matter where the purchase occurs).
That hasn't happened yet, and I don't really care to enter a debate about the likelihood of it happening either.
What makes me angry is that they lock you out of your games UNTIL you accept the new EULA.
That is a load of Grade A BS.
True. They basically hold the money you paid for those games hostage. Is that legal?
Seems like a new EULA should only apply to games bought after the new EULA was implemented, anything else should be grandfathered back to particular version of the EULA that you agreed to during purchase. So, yeah totally Grade A.
It is interesting... if they are essentially getting people to "sign" under duress the new EULA before they get back to their games, doesn't the presence of duress mean that any contract agreement is unenforceable?
I'm sure the original agreement contained a clause allowing Valve to amend its terms and defined the available remedies. I don't know enough about contract law to say how a court would rule.
Isn't there some law against making people agree to a contract that is overly difficult or long to read?
I don't think I've ever seen an EULA on closed-source software aside from ours that doesn't have a 'Vader' clause.
I have yet to meet someone who has had their account suspended. The rules are basically common sense rules. If you don't access steam with a hacked client or try to steal other's accounts, you have nothing to worry about.
I'll say this:
I really hope Stardock doesn't go to mandatory Steamworks again after Rebellion. You should be selling the game on Steam, but you need to keep SDC as an option for all future games.
Valve just has too much capability to go evil very quickly for me to ever trust them fully. I'll use Steam, but I don't purchase AAA games on Steam ever.
This would be my vote, as well.
Monopolies almost inevitably work against the consumers' best interests ... in the long run, if not in the short ...
Having had more than my fair share of experience with arbitration and federal/state and county courts, I would say that if you want to talk about Kangaroo courts, it's definitely not arbitration.
Lawyers looking to prey on businesses love county courts because they can run up the legal costs massively and help force a settlement. They tend to be very plaintiff friendly, regardless of how frivolous the case.
Is your arbitration experience versus other corporations or versus individuals?
Statistics such as these: http://centerjd.org/content/fact-sheet-mandatory-binding-arbitration-corporate-end-run-around-civil-justice-system
I know, may be a biased opinion piece, but it does cite sources- states that at best, consumers win 5% of the time, and employees under 1%. This is why I'm skeptical of the process (I'd be less skeptical with a small business, but Valve is a billion-dollar megacorp)
I also think your experiences may be different because you are not a large corporation, and arbitrators aren't financially reliant on you like they are larger companies.
Again, I do hope that in future (I understand why you did what you did for Rebellion, but I wasn't that interested in Rebellion)- that you offer both Steam and non-Steamworks versions of your games, especially your single-player games such as FE. It's not that I hate Steam, it's that I want choice and I don't trust Valve entirely.
The problem for us is that all our developers that make the kinds of things that steamworks does now work at Gamestop.
We don't have the capability anymore to do the kind of statistical tracking and leader boards and achievements and other stuff like that (i.e. like in Demigod). So if anything, I would expect more use of Steamworks going forward.
Great reference. I'm stealing that!
Indeed. A choice, or at least the option to offer a choice of retailers, is always good. Steam maybe the best store now, but someday there will be a serious attempt to challenge their market. Steamworks is an absolutely brilliant way of ensuring any start up will have a huge problem breaking their monopoly, for every game using steamworks now is one game a competitor can not sell. And in the long run that will hurt everyone.
So when will we be getting all that for Rebellion, exactly, if that's such an important reason for using it.
I'd rather just not have the statistics, leader boards, and cheevos than be forced to use Steam. Am I the exception or the rule?
I'd also rather pay a little extra just to not have a game on Steam, or the option to download from Steam and SDC. This is an option I really think you guys should do for all your future games- at the very minimum as an experiment for your next game.
I know it sounds like you've already made up your mind, but I'd like for you guys to at least give us folks who don't trust Valve an alternative.
How much more would you charge for the ideas I'm suggesting?
I would pay extra not to use Steam - I'd much rather have the option to have a good offline SDC game, then have to scrub another game off my list. And I would be very disappointed if any primarily Single Player Elemental game was made Steam only.
I agree.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
