Valve will see you in court.
(media.scored.co)
Comments (21)
sorted by:
This is a good thing, arbitration is shit.
We make such a big deal about conflict of interest for judges and juries, but we allow companies to sell their services as functionally a combined judge and jury in civil matters.
If you or I have a dispute with a company that goes to arbitration, in the vast majority of cases we will never work with that arbitrator, or their company, again. But whoever we're in dispute with hires arbitrators all the time. Do you think they are going to keep hiring a company that rules against them?
Yeah, Valve's statement is almost satirical given that settling in courts is already the default.
Forced arbitration is bullshit and all the big players have been trying to introduce it via updated user agreements in the last few years. It make class action lawsuits a logistical nightmare and drags out the process to be even more uneconomical for individual consumers to sue. It's basically telling the consumer they have every intention of dodging responsibility if their product causes you physical or financial harm.
This inversion is both good and kinda funny
Yeah, I was gonna say the same thing. A biased judge is bad, but most arbitration is worse, and is designed explicitly to screw you over.
can someone give me a TL;DR version of the new agreement? what manner of kikery is valve planning to do now?
I read it. Disputes are required to go to court-- in a court in Washington, which I would bet is in Valve's backyard. By agreeing, you waive all rights to hold trial in different jurisdictions. It's similar to the boilerplate that forces RV buyers to sue the RV manufacturer in a the jurisdiction where they're based. Whether that jurisdiction is compromised/biased is an open question.
Considering I am part of a class action against valve at the moment, I am not amused.
Are you allowed to share the details of this class action? Or at least give us a vague reasoning behind it if you can't share details?
The argument is that Valve's exceedingly large market share in the digital marketplace has increased prices of third party publishers, notably via the clause that obliges third parties to not undercut steam if they want to be listed there. Valve's 30% cut then becomes a markup which injures its end users.
Is it anti-trust, then? I don’t know the exact proper legal terminology, but your suit alleges that they have too much market influence, essentially?
The argument uses anti-trust language, so I believe so.
My primary issue at this point is that it's in arbitration, per the old Subscriber agreement, so while I'm in general against arbitration, agreeing to court proceedings all the way across the country from the jurisdiction I live in is not in my best interest.
I really hope this backfires on Valves, this reeks of corporate monopoly
I am angry-- but am I angry enough to not log into Steam after Oct 31 until my case grinds its way through my state's courts?
I bet most gamers are not that angry.
let me get this straight, STEAM won't let you play any of your purchased games until you hit that accept button?
No, you can play them, but it sounds like as long as your account exists (and is I guess used) you automatically agree to the new terms on November 1st. Not sure how the fuck that is legal at all, but that's what they seem to be claiming.
Not sure what constitutes "discontinuance" of use. This reeks, though. Personally, I'm not in any sort of legal dispute with Steam/Valve, so it doesn't matter to me as much as it does to Erithal...but I'm certainly not going to accept this pushy-ass update until it is forced on me. Maybe something will develop before then but...yeah, not agreeing to that voluntarily, on general principle.
Steam/Valve have their problems, but I generally like the platform. I still hope they get legally bitchslapped over what sounds like some sketchy bullshit.
just checked steam, i don't even see the new pop-up message
is it like only limited to certain regions or will i see it if i restart my machine/steam?
I didn't restart or anything, and it popped up for me in a new window like other news/deals does. Not sure if it's regional or what.
Steam functions normally, but the way I'm reading it, if I keep using steam on Nov 1st, that constitutes agreement. And if I want to make another purchase prior to then, I will be obliged to agree.
My lawyer has advised to not agree, and not make purchases.
Arbitration is expensive when too many people have an issue. Forcing them to take the expense of a lawsuit probably reduces the number of cases they have to deal with.
Lawyers and losing in court is also expensive for Valve.
I suspect a company giving-up trying to force arbitration, was not entertained by the courts when sued ( meaning, lawsuit would proceed ).
I'm guessing it reached the expense tipping point.
There's a reason why I've basically been only pirating my PC games for the last 6-7 years if I can't buy a DRM-free version of it (and if it's worth supporting).