They allow refunds but won't refund a broken game? Utterly useless.
Wait so as soon as you click install you waive your right? Seems absolutely stupid and limited.
I may download a game then INSTALL IT LATER, valve knows this (steam does runtime setups) so it seems silly to force it with regards to just clicking install now (which is steams download…). Also this should really effect installed games, give 14 days for non downloaded/installed games but maybe an hour or two for installed ones that seems fair.
Only thing I hate about steam is the pricing of everything and the inability to sell/trade games, I miss those days! I only buy my keys from the likes of greenman gaming where its much much cheaper than steam for the same code :P
Maybe I read this incorrectly, but it seems to be a useless clause, put into satisfy European law but that, in effect, is just a piece of legal waffle.
I am entitled to a no questions asked refund for a period of 14 days, provided I do not download and install the product. Downloading and installing digital content with immediate effect is one of, if not the only, benefit or advance of digital e-commerce. The only protection this effectively adds is for customers who accidentally buy something and then decide, before using it, they don't want it.
The very fact that this new clause has been implemented is insulting. I'm not surprised they've done it on the quiet as it highlights Valve's attitude toward their customers. They will stick to the very edge of the letter of the law and will offer no guarantees or assurances regards the quality of the products they offer and make profit on.
“You agree that you will not use IP proxying or other methods to disguise the place of your residence, whether to circumvent geographical restrictions on game content, to purchase at pricing not applicable to your geography, or for any other purpose. If you do this, we may terminate your access to your Account.”
Steam operate at least three pricing areas in the EU (GBP, Euro Tier 1 and Euro Tier 2) and these are not always the same price. Could this fall foul of regulations on the free movement of goods?
If you can install it then you can finish it in 2 weeks and then ask for a refund.
zombie02
If you can install it then you can finish it in 2 weeks and then ask for a refund.
True, though they could probably track progress too I'd have through (they do for achievements) so they could add a trial clause in there somewhere.
Seems a bit useless, but not completely. Could be of use for people who buy a game, don't install it immediately, and soon thereafter it's discounted or appears in a bundle. That's not an uncommon problem.
kalniel
True, though they could probably track progress too I'd have through (they do for achievements) so they could add a trial clause in there somewhere.
You can play offline and your game will not be tracked.
ET3D
You can play offline and your game will not be tracked.
Then make ‘trials’ dependant on tracking.
Brian224
Steam operate at least three pricing areas in the EU (GBP, Euro Tier 1 and Euro Tier 2) and these are not always the same price. Could this fall foul of regulations on the free movement of goods?
Point. The EU is a trade union setup to enable free trade within the union, as such anything you purchase in one member country can legally be transferred to any other member country. Valve may not highlight the fact but they do allow you to buy elsewhere in the union.
I just bought Cities Skylines from GamesPlanet (France) for £17… £6 less than UK priceing.
“Maybe I read this incorrectly, but it seems to be a useless clause, put into satisfy European law ”
Yes, that is exactly why it is included - EU Directive on distance selling
Or do how EA do it. I believe they give you 48 hours once you've started the game.
Once again it seems Origin offers the better service here compared to Steam, and that's frightening! Origins refund policy is 1 week after purchase, or 24 hours after the game has been run.
Sure 2 weeks might be better than one, but atleast you can run the game.
Agreed this seems completely stupid. I've bought more than a few games on Steam only to find out they're horrible, barely-functional ports and there's not a whole lot you can do about it unless there's some community mod to fix it.
Origin's way is much better - at least you get to try the game out before knowing if you want to refund it.
I'm really not a fan of Steam and as I've said before, it seems to get a lot of biased defence on points where alternatives are criticised. Its DRM is especially terrible; I've lost count of the amount of times we've been kicked off games without warning because Valve messed something up on their end, there's no reliance on their servers for the game itself but because the DRM treats everyone as a thief by default it panics when it loses a solid connection.
And then there's Steam cloud which has corrupted and/or overwritten a fair number of saves (luckily I keep my own local backups too) - it seems completely laughable to have a backup/sync system where it fails in its ability to restore saves properly and will happily overwrite the single ‘cloud’ copy with a corrupted one.
Yeah, I'm no Steam fanboy if you couldn't tell…
It may satisfy the EU Directive but I doubt that it would hold up if it was scrutinised. By stipulating that the right to a refund is waived the very moment the customer elects to download and install the product, the spirit and intention of the EU Directive is broken. What this is is legal smoke being blown up backsides to conform to a bare minimum standard and which satisfies a rule on paper only, while spitting in the face of the consumers that the Directive is meant to be oriented toward.
Whilst not exactly generous, is this not a sensible implementation of the (former) Distance Selling Regulation / (now) Consumer Contracts Regulations?
If you walk into a shop and buy a game you can read the packaging, you can't open it and try it first. If you buy a game digitally or physically from an e-tailer then why would you expect more rights?
In fact from
http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/consumer-contracts-regulations:
If you want to download digital content within the 14 day cancellation period you must agree to waive your cancellation rights
(non-summary:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/regulation/37/made)
For goods not fit for purpose, etc then we're onto the Sale of Goods. Anyone here made the effort of trying to take Steam to court?
Seems to me this is rather the digital equivalent of Distance Selling protection for physical media, provided you don't break seals/shrinkwrap. I.e. it's not about trialling/testing the game, any more than you can if you bought a DVD in a store, unless the store chooses to allow it.
Where, I guess, it does offer some protection is for buyer's remorse over impulse purchases …. as long as it's not installed, etc.
Ultimately, though, the choice, dear reader, is yours. Steam offer a service, and either you accept it on their terms, or you don't. Nobody is compelled to use them, so here's a radical thought …. if you don't like the way they do business, if you don't like the terms under which you hold an account, don't buy from them. It ain't exactly rocket science.
Personally, as I've said many times, I don't accept the basic premise of their operating model, which is that many games require an ‘account’ and that access to games you've bought and paid for can be rescinded at any time and at their discretion by locking or closing that account. It's not my only objection to Steam, but it's enough in it's own right that I'm not paying them money on that basis.
So you lot have a choice. You can moan and wail over these changes, including them adding in the onerous bit on proxies, AFTER many of you have handed over large sums for games previously bought, but ultimately suck it up and hand over money anyway. Or you can refuse to buy any more. I know which way I'm betting most people will go, which is despite the moaning, you'll pay up anyway.
In which case, I don't have much sympathy.
Should be hourly based on whether you can return it. If someone's played it for about 5 minutes, purely because of a game-breaking bug, then they should be able to return it.
People are entitled to complain about something even if they use it you know. People complain about bills but still pay them.
Steam is an unfortunate necessity for a lot of games now as it's a fairly common DRM/distribution platform. To refuse to use it would be to miss out on an awful lot of games. If you decide you're happy to miss out on them due to disliking the platform then fair enough, but don't get all sanctimonious and criticise other people for making the trade-off. You almost certainly accept some optional things despite not being overjoyed with every last word of the contract.
watercooled
People are entitled to complain about something even if they use it you know. People complain about bills but still pay them.
Steam is an unfortunate necessity for a lot of games now as it's a fairly common DRM/distribution platform. To refuse to use it would be to miss out on an awful lot of games. If you decide you're happy to miss out on them due to disliking the platform then fair enough, but don't get all sanctimonious and criticise other people for making the trade-off. You almost certainly accept some optional things despite not being overjoyed with every last word of the contract.
People are entitled to complain. I'm entitled to my view.
I'm also not in the mood to be called sanctimonious for doing so, and you've been here long enough to know that. Insults are against our rules. Unless you want a suspension, apologise.
So it's OK for you to undermine our views and talk down to people but threaten to ban people when your are undermined?
Reported.
Oh and just to be clear, I was talking about your post, not you personally.
watercooled
So it's OK for you to undermine our views but threaten to ban people when your are undermined?
Reported.
And suspended for 7 days.
I did not insult you.
And a warning. This is not up for public discussion.
No need to suspend him, that was uncalled for and again a step too far.
Jonj1611
No need to suspend him, that was uncalled for and again a step too far.
What part of “not up for public discussion” isn't clear?
That is the ONE free remark. Any further comments like that and those doing so WILL join watercooled's suspension without further warning.
Saracen
so here's a radical thought …. if you don't like the way they do business, if you don't like the terms under which you hold an account, don't buy from them. It ain't exactly rocket science
Not exactly easy to do, 90% of games are on Steam.
M O N S 7 A R;3440236
Not exactly easy to do, 90% of games are on Steam.
It's very easy to do. Unless PC games are suddenly essential these days.
Also many good games have alternatives to Steam - most of the games I've bought recently I've been able to buy direct from the developer in fact.
I just wait for sales or buy keys from other places.
I'm not to worried about my recent purchase of Company of Heroes. It cost 3.19 and is easier than trying to patch the original DVD as the update servers have long since dissapeared. Without steam, the game would be dead.
Steam support is terrible for games that dont work. I dont actually buy anything on steam anymore.
v3teran
Steam support is terrible for games that dont work. I dont actually buy anything on steam anymore.
Steam has never provided support for games that don't work, just like Game, EB, HMV etc never have. They do have pretty good support (at least IME) for issues with Steam however.
v3teran
Steam support is terrible for games that dont work. I dont actually buy anything on steam anymore.
While I agree, I also think Steam has come a long way in the last few years. I never buy games pre-release, I have made the mistake of buying into Early Access. After being burned by developers abandoning a game in an un-finished state, and also another game whih changed from being potentially epic to a bland “Tablet” style game, I have stopped buying into them. As for other games, I love the review system and forums and will always read through them before buying a game. Its the best way to see if a game is broken or not…
As much as I think this update is lip-service to the EU, I will take advantage of it…. Buy in the sale, then spend a few days deciding if it was worth it. If not I will get it refunded :)
(p.s. not all Early Access games I bought are regrets, Prison Architect is still a fav and Feudal Life is awaiting a sale)
M O N S 7 A R;3440236
Not exactly easy to do, 90% of games are on Steam.
Well, as kalniel said, they're not essential.
So you, and I, and everybody else, has a decision to make - put up with Steam's terms, and attitude, or don't.
Personally, I don't. I commented years ago, and numerous times, that I regard their operating model as unacceptable, and as a result, would not (and never have) had a Steam account, which has meant going without playing many games I otherwise would have. I'm not happy about that, but for me, not working under the conditions Steam impose is preferable to putting up with them to get access to the games.
There is no inherent right or wrong in that. I chose not to use them, but my bet is that despite (perfectly justified and justifiable) upset over this latest move, most existing Steam users won't stop using them (not least due to money already committed), and most new ones won't let it stop them because they value playing those games more highly than they regard their upset at the way Steam operate.
And fair enough. People have a choice. But the ONLY way Steam are going to change is if sufficient numbers of people stop spending with them. I just don't see that happening, despite all the annoyance and anger. Most people, IMHO, will moan about it (and they're entitled and welcome to) and then go right on buying Steam games. It's how the world is.
I find that recent games are fine, but for older games, I always read the reviews and/or community posts to see if people have issues with the game.
And if the game is reaaaaaally old, I just GOG it.
So basically Valve have been forced to add a refund rule that hardly anyone will make use of. Kind of surprised this was classed as news tbh.
Still, I must say I have overall been happy with Steam. My son can “borrow” my games without me having to dig out the install media, games are kept up to date without me having to track down patches, most of my games are bought at sale prices and now some of them I can play under Linux (in fact the recently on sale tower defense game I haven''t yet played under Windows).
I am more concerned by the way modern games are increasingly using online servers. What use is my Elite Dangerous game if something happens to Frontier Developments and they shut down? What if their business model turns out to not work, and they run out of money to run the servers?
If you think Steam is invasive, what must you think of the new Barbie?
http://www.fudzilla.com/news/37285-smart-barbie-creeps-out-privacy-experts
The reason for steam having multitudes of shoddy software products is that people purchase a license for software from steam despite there being no legal recourse for faulty goods with digital downloads on a buggy DRM launcher despite it being possible to get refunds for a hardcopy.
This meant every publisher jumped onto the Valve bandwagon to get their unfinished and faulty product sold to the masses so removing the hardcopy business model because it is more profitable to be a pirate than a honest publisher.
If god had not wanted Sheepie Shorn he would not have made them Valve Converts.
Baaa, Nuff said.
DanceswithUnix
….
If you think Steam is invasive, what must you think of the new Barbie? http://www.fudzilla.com/news/37285-smart-barbie-creeps-out-privacy-experts
Well, personally, as you're about as likely to find me playing with a Barbie, I-version or otherwise, as you are to find me playing catch with a live hand grenade. I can't say I feel my privacy is much threatened by it, but nonetheless, no way. I am, however, about as likely to let any kid of mine play with a smart Barbie as I am to let them chew on that grenade.
I do, however, take the broader point, and am VERY sceptical about many aspects of the IoT. For instance, an iFridge, or iFreezer, reading the contents from RFID tags and talking to the internet? Oh, hell, no. No way. The only way I'd EVER buy such a fridge is if they're all I-fridges, and even then, I'd give it an intensive reprogramming with a soldering iron and wirecutters. ;)
kalniel
M O N S 7 A R;3440236
Not exactly easy to do, 90% of games are on Steam.
It's very easy to do. Unless PC games are suddenly essential these days.
Also many good games have alternatives to Steam - most of the games I've bought recently I've been able to buy direct from the developer in fact.
So you're recommending people give up gaming entirely because of things unrelated to the games? Hardly the sort of ‘choice’ that should exist.
Very few top quality games have alternatives to steam. Excluding steam-like alternatives such as uPlay then about the only one I've come across recently is The Witcher 3.
What needs to happen is the separation of DRM and store. It's amazing that steam is allowed to install their storefront in games bought from their direct rivals.
EndlessWaves
So you're recommending people give up gaming entirely because of things unrelated to the games? …
I don't think Saracen is “recommending” anything; simply pointing out that the choice is there: you can either use Steam, or not play steam-exclusive games (as many people have pointed out, there
are other options for buying and playing many games).
tbh, the choice will *always* be the same, because games will *always* come with some kind of license agreement: and you'll always have to choose to either abide by the license agreement or not play the game. If a game chooses to use Steam for DRM that's a condition you have to live with. If you choose to buy a game through Steam that's a condition you have to live with. If you don't use Steam then yes, it will limit the games you can play, either because the developer chooses to use Steam for DRM, or because the publisher chooses to only release the game through Steam. So you need to decide whether those games are worth putting up with Steams T&Cs. That'll be a harder choice for some people than others.
Frankly the fact that Steam have been forced to offer some kind of option on refunding unplayed games is significant progress, particularly given their usual reticence over changing their T&Cs. I'm not entirely sure why so many people seem to be so annoyed at getting
]more control over their Steam library. Sure, it's not the freedom that you want, but it's a concession from a company not known for its willingness to make concessions. Grab it with both hands and rejoice, I say :D
scaryjim
I don't think Saracen is “recommending” anything; simply pointing out that the choice is there: you can either use Steam, or not play steam-exclusive games (as many people have pointed out, there are other options for buying and playing many games. ….
Quite so.
I'm not recommending that people either do, or don't, buy Steam games. It's entirely irrelevant to me. The only decision relevant to me was mine, and to be honest, it was pretty easy. Because the implications of Steam are completely unacceptable to me, the decision was made for me as more and more games went the steam route. The decision was easy, but the cost of it is regrettable …. the loss of playing those games. But …. so be it.
I thought I was pretty clear, though. Everybody faces their own choice, and I don't expect many people to be prepared to forego playing those games over Steam.
The worst part is the fact Steam only sell you “access” to a game without transferring ownership, and that said access is not time specified.
They can legally remove a game from your library if they choose. However, will they ever do this? I doubt it.
This new EU directive is a pretty big thing for them, as a company that out right refuse most refunds normally. Although I think more is needed for games that are mis-sold or are broken and lack developer support.
Chadders87
The worst part is the fact Steam only sell you “access” to a game without transferring ownership, and that said access is not time specified.
They can legally remove a game from your library if they choose. However, will they ever do this? I doubt it.
This new EU directive is a pretty big thing for them, as a company that out right refuse most refunds normally. Although I think more is needed for games that are mis-sold or are broken and lack developer support.
The reason for this might have to do with third parties that are involved in the chain. If I buy a game by Activision on Steam and the game runs on Activision's servers and then servers are shut down, then all the best intentions in the world from Steam would not make that game playable again. So the clause is their get of jail card.
So, you can have your money back only if you don't install it? WTF?
That's like the right to return a TV if you don't open the box, it's the exact inverse of what the law is supposed to do.
The right way is to give you a time limited key and a final key when the 14 days are over or you waive your right.
But hey it's Steam - a monopoly like any other.
Say what you like about Origin, at least they actually give you a genuine return policy that includes playing the game and deciding whether you actually like it. Saved me some money a couple of times.
EndlessWaves
So you're recommending people give up gaming entirely because of things unrelated to the games?
Nope. But it's very easy to give up if you don't agree with it.
Very few top quality games have alternatives to steam. Excluding steam-like alternatives such as uPlay then about the only one I've come across recently is The Witcher 3.
Then you just need to look around some more.
If you like RPGs like TW3 then you can also get:
Divinity: Original Sin
Pillars of Eternity (from tomorrow)
Legend of Grimrock 2
Dreamfall Chapters
Wasteland 2
to name but a few excellent DRM-free games.
eugenius
The right way is to give you a time limited key and a final key when the 14 days are over or you waive your right.
I like this idea, I'd even be willing to only get 90% of my payment back and even adding a condition that I have not played more than a certain number of hours, or completed more than a given percentage of the game/story/progress bar etc…
eugenius
So, you can have your money back only if you don't install it? WTF?
That's like the right to return a TV if you don't open the box
Pretty much, yeah.
Kinda like opening a can of beans, at which point the product is then considered used.
If the port is crappy or the game is bug-ridden, that's down to the Dev and the retailer can issue a refund before shouting at the Devs over it.
If the download is actually defective (and not just badly made) then it's something the retailer can sort out or refund.
If the game is just boring or naff then that's for you to shout at the Devs over (although I'd also suggest reading more reviews next time), but IMO simply not liking something is not a reason to go back to the retailer for a refund.
Ttaskmaster
IMO simply not liking something is not a reason to go back to the retailer for a refund.
It should be. At least if there is no demo available.
Legally talking, retailers are only obliged to replace or refund goods that are not fit for purpose. Online sellers of physical goods have a 14 day window to “inspect” goods before you accept them.
Luckily for us, most retailers are customer focused enough to offer more comprehensive returns policies.
Steam have yet to catch up. They really do need a way for the consumer to be protected from broken and mis-sold games (eg War Z…).
I can understand not refunding games after being played as long as the game remains the same as when you bought it, but if a game gets broken after a day 1 patch and the core developer quits soon after…then we deserve more from Steam.
shaithis
It should be. At least if there is no demo available.
There are usually trailers, if not YouTubes of reviewers with early access.
Beyond that, it's down to you to decide before purchasing whether you like it or not and complain to the Devs if you then bought it and didn't enjoy.
The retailer's job is to facilitate your purchase and deliver the game. They are not really responsible for content (beyond any agre-restrictions on purchase).
Chadders87
but if a game gets broken after a day 1 patch and the core developer quits soon after…then we deserve more from Steam.
Is it Steam's fault that the game broke? Is it their fault that the Dev went bust?
If George RR Martin dies before completing the last book of Game Of Thrones, does that mean I can sue Sky TV for being unable to show the final season that could not even be filmed by …?
I agree refunds are not needed for blind purchases, there is enough media out there to allow you to make a fully informed decision, and ignoring these is the buyers error and not Steam. They can't be liable if you find a game not up to your expectations.
Ttaskmaster
Is it Steam's fault that the game broke? Is it their fault that the Dev went bust?
No it is not there fault, however they are the retailer. Just like how Tesco can sell Hellmans Mayo, and Amazon can sell practical everything else. They have a contract with the Dev, and our contract is with steam.
Ttaskmaster
If George RR Martin dies before completing the last book of Game Of Thrones, does that mean I can sue Sky TV for being unable to show the final season that could not even be filmed by …?
Different scenario, we buy games believing they are complete (bar Early Access). A book that is part of a series is that, you pay for the content you receive and not for the future books. And ignoring that, many publishers / authors will have a nominated author to finish a series (Wheel of Time - Jordan / Sanderson).
As for TV shows, I was devastated when I realised Heroes had been cancelled (until I finished season 3… by then I knew why). But again, I paid to get access to the channel and not the specific show.
My point is if content is being specifically paid for and then you are unable to utilise / enjoy said content… Steam should have the facility to “compensate”.
Chadders87
Legally talking, retailers are only obliged to replace or refund goods that are not fit for purpose. Online sellers of physical goods have a 14 day window to “inspect” goods before you accept them.
Luckily for us, most retailers are customer focused enough to offer more comprehensive returns policies.
Steam have yet to catch up. They really do need a way for the consumer to be protected from broken and mis-sold games (eg War Z…).
I can understand not refunding games after being played as long as the game remains the same as when you bought it, but if a game gets broken after a day 1 patch and the core developer quits soon after…then we deserve more from Steam.
But if that happened, you would have the same sort of “satisfactory quality” and “fitness for purpose” rights that you do with any consumer purchase under the SoGA.
This change, from what I can make of it, is ONLY about Steam responding to a change in EU distance selling rules. Those rules have changed over the 2000 DSR in that they handle “digital content” rather more explicitly than in the old DSR, and they provide for close to a 14-day unrestricted right of cancellation UNLESS the seller makes the buyer aware of the loss of the right to cancel, in advance of contract formation AND gets explicit agreement to that.
So what Steam are doing is covering their …. rear end. Unless they include provision like this, some people will exploit that legislative change. So Steam include it.
Their position, it seems to me, is that consumers face a binary choice ….. waive the
distance selling right to refund after downloading, installing, whatever, or don't buy. They are saying that they are ONLY prepared to sell to people who waive that right. And the 2013 changes to the distance selling Regs makes it very clear they can do that, by stipulating that they can, but ONLY if they get explicit agreement from the buyer.
In other words, the Regs force Steam (and others) to be SURE you were aware of that restriction, before you bought. Then, the decision whether to not buy, or whether to go ahead anyway, is therefore yours, but the Regs ensure it is an
informed decision. Because of the change, you have to know you're losing that refund right, and if you do it anyway …. caveat emptor.
Which is a very US way of doing things. Over here, I'm not sure you can waive your statutory rights can you?
Steam is a convenience monopoly. It's not going to last - an open content delivery platform with the option of multiple repositories like apt in Linux will win eventually.
Also,torrent-like acceleration of delivery will be used - Microsoft already uses it for some updates.
When the convenience advantage isn't there anymore, there's no need for Steam and the developers get more money and have independence in marketing their game.
Single vendor app stores are like the DOS era of operating systems. Somebody will add multitasking eventually and make it have no downside.
I look forward to the bundles, lock-ins, scare tactics and exclusives Steam and others will use to keep their free money. :)
