The Judge Dismissed Valve's Defence, Now Steam Is Different.

Nothing like a legal drama. Today, we investigate the story behind Valve's recent change to the Steam Subscriber Agreement. The story goes far deeper than I thought.

Sources:

00:00 A Judge Says No
01:38 What Valve Did
04:23 The Reason Why
07:25 ”Our Arrows Will Blot Out The Sun”
09:30 Valve’s Riposte

(00:03) Correction: I misspoke, saying October instead of August.

[CanaldoVoid]

If games are not property, piracy is not theft.

[DjVortex-w]

I don't think "agree to these new terms, or you'll lose everything you have purchased in the past" is legal in many countries.

[sheilaolfieway]

especially after the disney debacle of "We can kill you with food allergies becuase you signed up for streaming" I absolutely hate forced arbitration.

[ArcaneTurbulence]

The problem is that you always have to agree to the terms under duress. It basically says "Sign this, or lose everything you've previously purchased".. Which is, of course, legalized theft and blackmail (extortion) in every sense, and would probably nullify the agreement in any sane court.

[zaofactor]

The beauty of PC gaming is that any toxic policies provided by publishers can easily be checked by piracy.

[porgy]

The fact that they can take away access to previously purchased items bought under a different agreement unless you sign on to a new agreement that applies retroactively is really sketchy (edit: I more meant scummy). We got to get on the same page as the EU and declare that digital goods are still things you actually own and that you have at least some overarching protections over them.

[noanyobiseniss]

It can be argued that agreeing to retroactive waiving is under duress and therefore non enforceable.

[Lethos_Storms]

I think if Valve is saying "You must agree or close your account" then you should be able to say "I close my account because of this but you must REFUND ME THE VALUE OF EVERY GAME." Because they are changing the deal of the agreement retroactively, it means they are forcing us to lose money. The best thing is I think this COULD be argued in court.

[jorkan_]

Valve sure makes a lot of money, but that's because every other launcher/shop (except GOG) sucks.

[BlueBD]

Arbitration should be illegal for big companies vs individuals

[kibble-net]

Forced arbitration is BS. It won't be long until every business requires you to agree to forced arbitration upon entering their doors, unless people collectively take a stand and STOP GIVING THEM MONEY.

[Ghostly]

"Piracy is a service problem."
-Gabe Newell, 2011

[matthewbarrios]

I swear that Gabe vowed at the beginning of the steam store that if Steam ever shut down they would provide the full downloads of our games. Has that philosophy change? I mean if games are delisted we can still download them if we bought them. If a completely online games is shut down, obviously we aren't expecting to keep those. But for any game with an offline mode, they said they would provide those as downloads if they shut down. Is that changed now?

[GinaRanChaosdiver]

"the entire staff-" the entire staff what. THE ENTIRE STAFF WHAT!?

[altoid]

of course LAWYERS are taking advantage of good will

[niaford]

"I've spent 2000 dollars on my steam account, I'm not going to delete it."

This line alone shows that they are holding your account for ransom, and thus your 'agreement' of their terms and services related to that are 100% unenforceable as you were, technically speaking, under duress (at least in the U S A). when will these companies learn to not be idiots, and to just be an actual trustworthy group rather than attempting to violate their customers trust every step of the way.

Additionally, their updating of the agreements during a court case regarding them, more than likely targeted at their opponents in said case, could be considered in duress*, and undermining of the court case and judges authority.

*duress changed from Bmail as I have made the grave sin of accidentally considering similar as same. Though in this case the function would be the same if they both applied, Bmail wouldn't apply here.

[pixels_per_minute]

Australian consumer law says I own my games, and last I checked, a ToS or EULA isn't legally enforceable when it violates law.

Any item sold through a 1 time purchase is considered a "good" and not a "service" and can not legally be removed, revoked, or have access to it restricted in any way.

Steam has to abide by our local consumer laws to legally operate in Australia, which is probably why I never saw this pop up and why the arbitration clause never applied to us in the first place.

[SolFireYT]

“Your dispute with us isn’t valid unless you delete your account which you’ve spent an unknown amount of time and money on.” This sounds like extortion, it doesn’t sound legally valid.

Imagine suing your bank and they say “you can’t sue us you still have an account” except instead of getting your money out when you close the bank just keeps or wipes everything. It’s obviously not right.

[HemiHalfCentury]

the "failure to delete your account prior...." bit should be illegal to add or have be legaly binding

[techmouse.]

0:02 "For Valve, the 20th of October, 2024 was not just any old day in court"

That's 17 days from now.