It's funny to see us Americans in this thread support corporate interest over our own. I have never used Steam and never will. Show companies what we really want, to own the products we purchase. Vote with your wallet, buy games at gog.com.
The French consumer association is taking Valve to court. They argue that according to EU law (not just French), you own the game when you buy it, including any assets, accounts or other things you create.
And, since you own the games and account, regardless if it is digital or not, you have a right to resell it.
100% agree. If you buy something, it should be your property. This is how it used to work, until these corporate bloodsuckers changed it.
If that foreign company sells me something here in Europe then law does apply!
Then the law is unenforceable and meaningless
because how can any online company stop a single dude in France from buying online game from them?
How can you even know they are French?
Utter horseshit
If you buy an online game from a foreign website of a company that has no presence in your country, local laws cannot apply
Maybe you should read more into this matter before answering!
"Your consumer rights under EU rules normally also apply to purchases
from non-EU online traders targeting consumers in the EU. However,
please be aware that you may have more difficulties in claiming your
rights against traders based outside the EU."
By your logic, any podunk municipality ought to be able to censor the entire Internet, since everything posted on the Internet is accessible from that town. You are implicitly arguing that everyone who ever makes a web site must always comply with all regulations made by any government body anywhere in the world, no matter where the web site is located or what it deals with. Any freelance person who wants to put up a simple site would first have to sift through regulations made by tens of thousands of entities and written in hundreds of different languages. Any real effort at enforcing that would be the end of the "world wide" web.
It's not by "my logic", the cookie law, is not my logic, it's EU regulations. And it's a good law, studies show far more Europeans know what cookies are and do, than in other continents.
And no, that does not give the EU the right to dictate what happens on "the entire internet", but within their digital borders it does, which is normal when you think about it.
As far as "freelance person", most of those rules don't apply to those people. The cookie law deals with storing private data of people. When you start storing private data of people in cookies, you are no longer a "freelance person", you know what you're doing at that point, and it's perfectly normal you are forced to comply with laws at that point.
Frankly, anyone not knowing what the cookie law is, shouldn't be allowed to make a website in 2015, because that person is clueless. They should make a wordpress site and not be allowed near a 10 mile radius of Dreamweaver.
I'll try to distill my argument for you a little better. When someone is sued for something that is allegedly illegal, US courts will sometimes ask, "What is the limiting principle?" In other words, how do you assert that the person being sued did something illegal without also asserting that everything is illegal?
In this case, how do you assert that Valve has done something illegal without casting such a broad net that if what you deem illegal were to be stopped, the entire Internet would have to be shut down? After all, everything that ever happens on the Internet is against the law of some government somewhere in the world. If all such laws were universally enforced, there would be no more Internet.
Are you asserting that everything that ever happens on the Internet is illegal and ought to be shut down?
Is it only illegal if someone creates a web site, in which case, people who visit web sites are okay, except that all web sites ought to be shut down?
Is it only illegal if someone buys something off of a web site, which would only shut down most but not all of the Internet?
Is what Valve did only illegal because they're a big company, and it would be perfectly legal for a smaller company to do the same thing?
Is it only illegal because some French group decided it is, in which case, they're arbitrarily chosen dictators who get to tell the entire world what to do?
Is a site only illegal if someone from a place where it is illegal accesses it, in which case, it's impossible to know when creating a site if it will be illegal?
Do only big governments like France get to declare things illegal on the entire Internet, and towns of a few thousand people don't?
Do governments only get to declare a few particular things illegal and not have the opportunity to make many thousands of pages of regulations like they do everywhere else?
Is what Valve did only illegal because you don't like Valve, and want every case tried in isolation without considering how they might be related?
Are all web sites expected to IP block the entire world, and then only selectively allow in places from the regions that they've verified their site complies with the laws? That would make the Internet a whole lot less useful. And even then, what about proxy servers?
My questions might sound facetious, but they're not. The problem is that you're asserting that what Valve did is illegal but there's no obvious line that makes anything on the Internet legal. What I want to know is, where is that line?
None of this means anything. Steam has user agreements that you must accept. You are also accepting the way they operate and sell their games when you buy one of their games. You know full well before you do, that you will not get a physical copy, and that you can not resell it. They make that very clear for you, it's not like they try to hide it. For this reason, they aren't breaking any laws anywhere. They are offering products at very clear prices and they make it very clear what kind of ownership you will have. This is common sense, does there really need to be a 5-6 page thread on this? I can't even believe a lawsuit like this made it as far as it did. You've got another thing coming if you think Steam is going to lose this fight.
If that foreign company sells me something here in Europe then law does apply!
Then the law is unenforceable and meaningless
because how can any online company stop a single dude in France from buying online game from them?
How can you even know they are French?
Utter horseshit
If you buy an online game from a foreign website of a company that has no presence in your country, local laws cannot apply
Your not understanding how law works.
EU and French Law will apply to Valve because they Market to EU and France. It is not a question of presence its a matter of who you are targeting to sell to.
Valve only has to worry about the nations they market to, and France is one of those nations (for now).
However i think this is a horrible idea. If valve loses, they will either be forced to raise prices or limit service. This will also open up a new questions that would only hurt online gaming, for example, if you own the game why can you not sell Gold (china would rejoice) or if you can always resell are BoP and BoE legal?
Currently steam also sells to poorer countries at a much lower price (ie Russia) if everyone can always resell, Steam will have to start charging the same across the board.
I can only see this hurting the consumers, the corporations will just make back the lost profit from your pockets.
Thats not up to European law thats up to the rights holder for the IP of the game. Its in their terms of service of use that you do not own the game nor any of the Intellectual properties or assets of the game you are simply given the right to use them. The IP holder holds full rights to deny your usage as well.
What do you think defines the extend and limits of IP rights within Europe a) Magical fairies, or b) European laws?
When you go elsewhere in the world to access a web site, what makes you think that European laws magically apply to what you're doing thousands of miles away from Europe?
In practice it might apply due to international treaties, but excluding those, nothing.
There's nothing that would magically force foreign web site to follow EU laws, just like there's nothing that would magically give the IP rights holder the right to deny your usage of secondhand software within EU.
In extreme case it might lead to a situation where foreign IP holder can legally do anything they wish to prevent the software being used as long as they do it from their country, while EU license holder can legally do whatever is needed to use the software as long as they stay in EU.
If that foreign company sells me something here in Europe then law does apply!
Then the law is unenforceable and meaningless
because how can any online company stop a single dude in France from buying online game from them?
How can you even know they are French?
Utter horseshit
If you buy an online game from a foreign website of a company that has no presence in your country, local laws cannot apply
Maybe you should read more into this matter before answering!
"Your consumer rights under EU rules normally also apply to purchases
from non-EU online traders targeting consumers in the EU. However,
please be aware that you may have more difficulties in claiming your
rights against traders based outside the EU."
"You may have more difficultis in claiming your rights against traders based outside of EU" - basically it's a nice way of saying - you are shit out of luck.
It's unenforceable against foreign websites that have no footprint in EU for online games.
I gave you the facts how it is and still you are not listening. Done discussing with you.
We are always in a race what our intelligence can do for us and what our intelligence does to us.
How is this even a good thing? This just hurts game development, particularly smaller devs who make quality single player games. If this actually gets passed I imagine we'll see a lot more ads and p2w cash shop mechanics.
What a BS argument that it'll hurt developers. In the past we had PHYSICAL discs & cartridges (we still have for consoles) and sold them when we played through those games. Back then both developer and players were better off because of the option to trade/reselll PHYSICAL games.
Now with the digital age you can't resell your games when you're done, the games are insanely expensive AND most games come with only about 20 hours of gameplay before you're done.
Only because of this I'm no longer buying DIGITAL games because I think €60+ for a new game that I play through in 20 hours (or less) is just way over the top, only to never look at it ever again. If that same DIGITAL game can be resold I would consider buying it.
So you don't think it will hurt game developers at all if n people buying your game means that only n/2 buy the game from you and pay you for it, as opposed to all n people pay you for it? I'd say that cuts your revenue in half.
Less revenue expected from making games means money spent making games--both lower quality games and fewer games. And that's supposed to be a good thing?
It never was a problem in the past when people bought boxed games and sold them after they were done playing. And in those days there was more innovation than there is now. Just look how awesome and innovative games like Baldur's Gate & Morrowind were back in the days and compare them to what we get now, where innovation is nothing but DX11/12 and gameplay suffers for eyecandy.
I seriously think that when people can resale digital game, the developers will go back to awesomeness & innovation instead of dull gameplay and eyecandy. Only then more people will buy the digital games and keep them in their library, instead of not buying it or toss it away after 20 hours and leave negative feedback on how dull the game was..
It's funny to see us Americans in this thread support corporate interest over our own. I have never used Steam and never will. Show companies what we really want, to own the products we purchase. Vote with your wallet, buy games at gog.com.
Where I can I buy GoG over Steam. Though I have a lot of games on Steam (and a lot if utter garbage and I have advised my friends NOT to buy those - see the reply on Quizzical), I'm not overly found of Steam and it's service (or lack of it) as a whole. PLUS, I can hand copies of the GoG games to my brother when it wants to try them before buy (much like lending the discs in the old days and I know he will remove the games after a couple of days)
Completely invalidated this lawsuit very easily and completely ignored. People just keep going on with their clueless nonsense. What a joke, lol.
You were ignored because your post was so stupid.
Law always wins over contract. If you agree with Valve to not resell your software license, but there's a law saying you can do it, then the law wins and makes your agreement invalid.
How is this even a good thing? This just hurts game development, particularly smaller devs who make quality single player games. If this actually gets passed I imagine we'll see a lot more ads and p2w cash shop mechanics.
What a BS argument that it'll hurt developers. In the past we had PHYSICAL discs & cartridges (we still have for consoles) and sold them when we played through those games. Back then both developer and players were better off because of the option to trade/reselll PHYSICAL games.
Now with the digital age you can't resell your games when you're done, the games are insanely expensive AND most games come with only about 20 hours of gameplay before you're done.
Only because of this I'm no longer buying DIGITAL games because I think €60+ for a new game that I play through in 20 hours (or less) is just way over the top, only to never look at it ever again. If that same DIGITAL game can be resold I would consider buying it.
So you don't think it will hurt game developers at all if n people buying your game means that only n/2 buy the game from you and pay you for it, as opposed to all n people pay you for it? I'd say that cuts your revenue in half.
Less revenue expected from making games means money spent making games--both lower quality games and fewer games. And that's supposed to be a good thing?
It never was a problem in the past when people bought boxed games and sold them after they were done playing. And in those days there was more innovation than there is now. Just look how awesome and innovative games like Baldur's Gate & Morrowind were back in the days and compare them to what we get now, where innovation is nothing but DX11/12 and gameplay suffers for eyecandy.
I seriously think that when people can resale digital game, the developers will go back to awesomeness & innovation instead of dull gameplay and eyecandy. Only then more people will buy the digital games and keep them in their library, instead of not buying it or toss it away after 20 hours and leave negative feedback on how dull the game was..
It's funny to see us Americans in this thread support corporate interest over our own. I have never used Steam and never will. Show companies what we really want, to own the products we purchase. Vote with your wallet, buy games at gog.com.
Where I can I buy GoG over Steam. Though I have a lot of games on Steam (and a lot if utter garbage and I have advised my friends NOT to buy those - see the reply on Quizzical), I'm not overly found of Steam and it's service (or lack of it) as a whole. PLUS, I can hand copies of the GoG games to my brother when it wants to try them before buy (much like lending the discs in the old days and I know he will remove the games after a couple of days)
The cost of finding someone local to buy your physical disk greatly exceeds the cost of finding someone online to buy it. In the days when a used game shop would give you $2 for your game and then resell it for $20, there was a huge cost to reselling used games. When it's just a digital license, it's pretty easy to make a worldwide market where the seller gets only slightly less than the buyer pays. Buy a game license for $20, play it for two months, resell it for $19, and you on net paid only $1 to play the game for two months.
Yes, piracy has done a lot of that, too. Fighting that is one reason why so many games are console-only. But when people think you can play most games essentially for free even legally, that's going to take another big bite out of developers and make it that much harder to get revenue.
There's also contract issues. If a game developer put a game on Steam with the promise that each person who wants to play it there will have to buy their own copy, and then later gets ambushed with used game sales that make it so that doesn't happen, they're not getting what they were promised. Theft is still morally wrong even when governments do it or proclaim it legal.
The threat of constantly changing laws is a horrible environment in which to do business. If you spend $1 million to develop a game expecting to get $1.5 million revenue from it, and then the game is as good as you hoped but changes in foreign laws mean you only get $0.5 million in revenue, you're in trouble. If you suspect that that's going to happen, then you might not make what would otherwise have been a profitable game in the first place. Even a bad but known and fixed set of laws is often preferable to constantly changing laws.
-----
I've never used Steam. When I pay for a game, I want as much of that money to go to the game developers as possible. In particular, I want as little of it to go to middlemen as possible. Buying as directly from the developer or at least the publisher as possible means that the developer gets more out of my spending some fixed amount of money. I say that's a good thing.
Interesting...how is this any different from back in the day and you bought nintendo/playstation games and then sold em back 1 month later when done playing them to be able to afford a new one?
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
So say Valve knows its gonna lose the case. Whats to stop them from banning all french accounts before the case is settled and changing all its regulations stating they no longer deal with accounts in france?
So say Valve knows its gonna lose the case. Whats to stop them from banning all french accounts before the case is settled and changing all its regulations stating they no longer deal with accounts in france?
Valve is not likely to lose this case. They have recently beat a similar case in Germany, and then adjusted their policies to be even MORE compliant.
However, Valve has a presence in the EU (Luxembourg). If they want to do business in the EU, they must be compliant with all laws and regulations. If they wish to withdraw and not do business in the EU, they can choose to do this.... but it would be a big loss in revenue.
So any country can change the law to whatever they want and then online companies have to comply to 100 different laws in 100 different countries.
Yeah I don't think so.
Seriously, I am not sure why you are making these comments when you clearly no clue how law works.
What you described is EXACTLY how the real world works. Why should valve be able not to comply with those laws but other companies have to? Is valve are somehow special? Trust me if valve got banned from a large market like France, there will be others who will happily fill in their shoes.
/facepalm
Ok so Valve removes all assets it has in France - closes all offices, removes all servers, - end result - ZERO presence in France.
Again - lets say that Valve has absolutely no presence in France.
What happen when anybody in France goes and buys anything from Valve going to a US site? Hmm?
What France is going to ban access to Valve?
Ok so lets say they do that.
So French players decide to use proxies and they still buy stuff from Valve's US site?
Then what?
Frence is going to enforce the law because a French citizen bought something from a company that has zero presence in France?
Really?
Lets say Austria, Germany, Netherlands, Spain.... all of them come up with a different law for Valve, and every country in the world comes up with a different law for Valve - so Valve is going to change it's policy for every country in the world eventhough Valve *HAS NO PRESENCE IN THOSE COUNTRIES* - just because the citizens of those countries decide to go to a US site and buy games from a US company that has no presence outside US?
This is exactly how law works? Really?
DMKano as much as I respect your opinion on MMO related things, I think you may have this one wrong. Consumer law in France protects French consumers. Consumer law in Australia protects Australian consumers. So on. If you are selling directly to those consumers, you can expect those countries to try and hold you accountable under their laws. If you refuse to sell directly to those consumers, and they trick you into believing they are in some other country, that is their problem - but it does not apply here. Valve has their IPs and credit cards, they sell region locked games, they are aware they are directly selling to people in France
As I referenced before, right now Facebook is getting sued around the world because of their data retention policies. They are losing those fights as well. This is the same thing. A user clicking "I Agree" does not trump their countries laws, and if a country catches you trying to violate their laws, they may attempt to get some kind of financial retribution. Whether or not they are successful depends on several other things, but they can attempt to.
The Facebook case is interesting here. They were successfully sued in Belgium for tracking non-users. Their response was to make all Belgians log in with an account to view Facebook.
Valve will either need to abandon their attempt at a blanket terms and conditions for every country, or give us all the rights that French citizens have.
I thought it was an *American* thing to sue people over stupid stuff? Apparently the French are more American than we thought.
It's American thing that individuals are able to sue over stupid stuff, like not having a warning that coffee is hot, and demand ridiculous compensations.
It's very much European thing that a government agency sues a business over its practises. We do it probably even more than USA.
It's American way to think that every individual can, and should, take his issues to court to protect his rights and interests. It's more European way to think that government should be an active protector that makes new regulations and handles the court battles for all of us so that individuals are able to get justice without spending their time and money in court.
So say Valve knows its gonna lose the case. Whats to stop them from banning all french accounts before the case is settled and changing all its regulations stating they no longer deal with accounts in france?
You can't just withdraw from France they would need to withdraw from the
entire EU to avoid these laws which means about a half billion less
potential customers and on top of that they route a large amount of the
money they make through Luxembourg for tax reasons so they'll owe a
fortune in taxes should they attempt to move.
Oops, Valve put a
big footprint in the EU to avoid paying US taxes and now it's stuck
having to abide by EU consumer protection laws. I feel sooooo very bad
for Valve...
Steam sales are hurting the devs too. Rarely people buy games full price, and if they do those games are the big blockbusters.
Smaller devs get the short of it, they have to get to discount race > they sell for loss > they go out of business because they have no money.
You guys defending Steam are just clueless. It is a monster at it needs to be killed or at least chained. FREEDOM TO GAMES!
I support GOG and buy games only from there nowadays, or buy straight from devs. I hate Steam and everything it represents.
Steam doesn't just decide "I feel like putting this game on sale for 80% off" that's the devs telling steam to do it. You may think its horrible that they sell for less but the devs make more money this way.
A platform that has enabled many small dev studios to grow and prosper and here you are yelling that it needs to be chained in order to allow game freedom.
This is why its better to get them from torrents, its yours and so on rather than steam where even after you pay for it its not yours.
After all, laws should be changed to benefit the people not the rich companies. If you pay for it, its yours... games used to be like that.
So if a game releases through a platform and only through that just get it from a torrent and that is it... eventually they will learn and do what the consumers want as long as the consumer stands his ground.
The problem these days is that even if you buy the game on disc most of the data isn't there. Fallout 4 had a small amount of data on the disc, just enough to verify the purchase and the code needed to download the rest of the game through Steam. I hope the French win the lawsuit to help put an end to these shady practices.
So say Valve knows its gonna lose the case. Whats to stop them from banning all french accounts before the case is settled and changing all its regulations stating they no longer deal with accounts in france?
You can't just withdraw from France they would need to withdraw from the
entire EU to avoid these laws which means about a half billion less
potential customers and on top of that they route a large amount of the
money they make through Luxembourg for tax reasons so they'll owe a
fortune in taxes should they attempt to move.
Oops, Valve put a
big footprint in the EU to avoid paying US taxes and now it's stuck
having to abide by EU consumer protection laws. I feel sooooo very bad
for Valve...
If their only presence in the EU is via Luxembourg, then you can be sure that the powers that be in Luxembourg will ensure that it is not detrimental to the various companies that 'reside' there, if all the various multinationals etc withdrew their presence from there, then the country would probably bankrupt overnight. So accomodations will be made that favour them as much as possible, the thing to bear in mind is that Valve isn't actually selling things directly to anyone in france, instead they act as the middle men in a transaction between the developer, and the consumer, and take a cut of the proceeds in the process, all Valve/Steam are effectively doing, are providing a download and archive service for people who have bought a game from a developer through their service. It may well be possible that Valve/Steam could claim that they are only abiding by the games developers by not providing a service that allows consumers to carry out a further transaction with other undisclosed parties, What the french group may find themselves having to do, is to sue the developers either individually, or en mass, for the right to resell the games that consumers have purchased from them, via the Steam service. The possibility that the french consumer group will have to sue CIG for the right to resell their digital purchases of ships etc. is absolutely hillarious. The whole thing is an utter farce imo.
Comments
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
"Your consumer rights under EU rules normally also apply to purchases from non-EU online traders targeting consumers in the EU. However, please be aware that you may have more difficulties in claiming your rights against traders based outside the EU."
Source:
http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/internet-services/rights-e-commerce/index_en.htm
In this case, how do you assert that Valve has done something illegal without casting such a broad net that if what you deem illegal were to be stopped, the entire Internet would have to be shut down? After all, everything that ever happens on the Internet is against the law of some government somewhere in the world. If all such laws were universally enforced, there would be no more Internet.
Are you asserting that everything that ever happens on the Internet is illegal and ought to be shut down?
Is it only illegal if someone creates a web site, in which case, people who visit web sites are okay, except that all web sites ought to be shut down?
Is it only illegal if someone buys something off of a web site, which would only shut down most but not all of the Internet?
Is what Valve did only illegal because they're a big company, and it would be perfectly legal for a smaller company to do the same thing?
Is it only illegal because some French group decided it is, in which case, they're arbitrarily chosen dictators who get to tell the entire world what to do?
Is a site only illegal if someone from a place where it is illegal accesses it, in which case, it's impossible to know when creating a site if it will be illegal?
Do only big governments like France get to declare things illegal on the entire Internet, and towns of a few thousand people don't?
Do governments only get to declare a few particular things illegal and not have the opportunity to make many thousands of pages of regulations like they do everywhere else?
Is what Valve did only illegal because you don't like Valve, and want every case tried in isolation without considering how they might be related?
Are all web sites expected to IP block the entire world, and then only selectively allow in places from the regions that they've verified their site complies with the laws? That would make the Internet a whole lot less useful. And even then, what about proxy servers?
My questions might sound facetious, but they're not. The problem is that you're asserting that what Valve did is illegal but there's no obvious line that makes anything on the Internet legal. What I want to know is, where is that line?
EU and French Law will apply to Valve because they Market to EU and France. It is not a question of presence its a matter of who you are targeting to sell to.
Valve only has to worry about the nations they market to, and France is one of those nations (for now).
However i think this is a horrible idea. If valve loses, they will either be forced to raise prices or limit service. This will also open up a new questions that would only hurt online gaming, for example, if you own the game why can you not sell Gold (china would rejoice) or if you can always resell are BoP and BoE legal?
Currently steam also sells to poorer countries at a much lower price (ie Russia) if everyone can always resell, Steam will have to start charging the same across the board.
I can only see this hurting the consumers, the corporations will just make back the lost profit from your pockets.
There's nothing that would magically force foreign web site to follow EU laws, just like there's nothing that would magically give the IP rights holder the right to deny your usage of secondhand software within EU.
In extreme case it might lead to a situation where foreign IP holder can legally do anything they wish to prevent the software being used as long as they do it from their country, while EU license holder can legally do whatever is needed to use the software as long as they stay in EU.
I seriously think that when people can resale digital game, the developers will go back to awesomeness & innovation instead of dull gameplay and eyecandy. Only then more people will buy the digital games and keep them in their library, instead of not buying it or toss it away after 20 hours and leave negative feedback on how dull the game was..
Where I can I buy GoG over Steam. Though I have a lot of games on Steam (and a lot if utter garbage and I have advised my friends NOT to buy those - see the reply on Quizzical), I'm not overly found of Steam and it's service (or lack of it) as a whole. PLUS, I can hand copies of the GoG games to my brother when it wants to try them before buy (much like lending the discs in the old days and I know he will remove the games after a couple of days)
Smaller devs get the short of it, they have to get to discount race > they sell for loss > they go out of business because they have no money.
You guys defending Steam are just clueless. It is a monster at it needs to be killed or at least chained. FREEDOM TO GAMES!
I support GOG and buy games only from there nowadays, or buy straight from devs. I hate Steam and everything it represents.
Law always wins over contract. If you agree with Valve to not resell your software license, but there's a law saying you can do it, then the law wins and makes your agreement invalid.
Yes, piracy has done a lot of that, too. Fighting that is one reason why so many games are console-only. But when people think you can play most games essentially for free even legally, that's going to take another big bite out of developers and make it that much harder to get revenue.
There's also contract issues. If a game developer put a game on Steam with the promise that each person who wants to play it there will have to buy their own copy, and then later gets ambushed with used game sales that make it so that doesn't happen, they're not getting what they were promised. Theft is still morally wrong even when governments do it or proclaim it legal.
The threat of constantly changing laws is a horrible environment in which to do business. If you spend $1 million to develop a game expecting to get $1.5 million revenue from it, and then the game is as good as you hoped but changes in foreign laws mean you only get $0.5 million in revenue, you're in trouble. If you suspect that that's going to happen, then you might not make what would otherwise have been a profitable game in the first place. Even a bad but known and fixed set of laws is often preferable to constantly changing laws.
-----
I've never used Steam. When I pay for a game, I want as much of that money to go to the game developers as possible. In particular, I want as little of it to go to middlemen as possible. Buying as directly from the developer or at least the publisher as possible means that the developer gets more out of my spending some fixed amount of money. I say that's a good thing.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
However, Valve has a presence in the EU (Luxembourg). If they want to do business in the EU, they must be compliant with all laws and regulations. If they wish to withdraw and not do business in the EU, they can choose to do this.... but it would be a big loss in revenue.
I remember that because some Rpgs back then were only translated to german (That has the same law i think) French and of course English.
No knowledge of EU law.
Mistakenly applying partial knowledge of US law to the EU through lack of knowledge.
Assuming that because you have partial knowledge of US law and no knowledge of EU law that what happens in the US must over ride EU laws.
Good read!
As I referenced before, right now Facebook is getting sued around the world because of their data retention policies. They are losing those fights as well. This is the same thing. A user clicking "I Agree" does not trump their countries laws, and if a country catches you trying to violate their laws, they may attempt to get some kind of financial retribution. Whether or not they are successful depends on several other things, but they can attempt to.
The Facebook case is interesting here. They were successfully sued in Belgium for tracking non-users. Their response was to make all Belgians log in with an account to view Facebook.
http://http//www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-successfully-sued-for-tracking-people-around-the-web-in-belgium-lawyer-claims-cases-could-a6730646.html
http://http//www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2496065,00.asp
Valve will either need to abandon their attempt at a blanket terms and conditions for every country, or give us all the rights that French citizens have.
It's very much European thing that a government agency sues a business over its practises. We do it probably even more than USA.
It's American way to think that every individual can, and should, take his issues to court to protect his rights and interests. It's more European way to think that government should be an active protector that makes new regulations and handles the court battles for all of us so that individuals are able to get justice without spending their time and money in court.
Oops, Valve put a big footprint in the EU to avoid paying US taxes and now it's stuck having to abide by EU consumer protection laws. I feel sooooo very bad for Valve...
Steam doesn't just decide "I feel like putting this game on sale for 80% off" that's the devs telling steam to do it. You may think its horrible that they sell for less but the devs make more money this way.
A platform that has enabled many small dev studios to grow and prosper and here you are yelling that it needs to be chained in order to allow game freedom.
The problem these days is that even if you buy the game on disc most of the data isn't there. Fallout 4 had a small amount of data on the disc, just enough to verify the purchase and the code needed to download the rest of the game through Steam. I hope the French win the lawsuit to help put an end to these shady practices.
The possibility that the french consumer group will have to sue CIG for the right to resell their digital purchases of ships etc. is absolutely hillarious. The whole thing is an utter farce imo.