New Steam Agreement Now Says You Can't Sue Valve

[hoofhearted]

So if I disagree to this new EULA, does that mean that Valve has to refund me the purchase price (price I paid) for my entire library? More curious than anything. Did anyone hit "no"? If I had agreed to an old EULA, but disagree with a new EULA, where does that put me?

 

[gm0n3y]

I can see why they want to get rid of class actions. Say they have a bug with their micro transactions where every user loses a dollar on every transaction. For a single person this would only be say $50 at most and they could just get Valve to reimburse them for that if they even think its worth the time. However in a class action Valve would have to compensate potentially EVERY user which could cost them millions + legal fees. Whether or not that is a good thing is up for debate, however it isn't even possible to sign away your rights so its really a moot point.

 

[teh_chem]

[citation][nom]hoofhearted[/nom]So if I disagree to this new EULA, does that mean that Valve has to refund me the purchase price (price I paid) for my entire library? More curious than anything. Did anyone hit "no"? If I had agreed to an old EULA, but disagree with a new EULA, where does that put me?[/citation]
That means you forfeit rights to use Steam services (and by extension your steam-associated games). That also means that you'd have to sue them for the value of your library--good luck with that.

 

[schiwing]

[citation][nom]Azathoth[/nom]The chances that any of us will be directly effected by this, such as valves credit data being stolen + cracked (cough Sony) is slim to none. [/citation]

I guess you haven't been around much?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielnyegriffiths/2011/11/10/steam-hacked-newell-watch-your-credit-card/
Steam was breached in November of 2011.
In January 2012, my bank sent me a new card because of this breach.

 

[slabbo]

they can say whatever they want in the EULA, but that doesn't mean it will hold up in court. But never the less they really shouldn't put in a "cannot sue me clause" because without it, it would keep the company more honest and force them to work harder to make sure "you get what you pay for."

 

[Guest]

@TheRabidDeer
"I havent played a lot of them yet, actually. But that doesnt matter because of the games that I DID play, the terms werent the same as the new terms. Why do I need to agree to new terms to use something that I already purchased? I could understand it applying to new purchases, but not ones that already happened."

Your still talking shit. Doesn't matter if you have played them yet or not. That's your decision to not have played them yet, the reasonable time has elapsed as you have had ample opportunity to disagree with the games EULA. Also what is this talk about you don't agree anymore to the existing games EULA's all of a sudden. Steam changing there EULA for the steam service doesn't change any of the games EULA's you have already agreed to. None of the EULA's you have agreed to have changed so what are you on about you all of a sudden want your money back coz you change your mind lol. Go buy something, weeks/months/years later and tell them you changed your mind. You never really wanted to buy it and want you money back because you haven't used it yet. Some delusional people here. You guys just act dumb and want to take advantage of trivial changes.

 

[guardianangel42]

[citation][nom]s3anister[/nom]Are we ever going to see the U.S. government step in on this? It's ridiculous that a corporation is able to do this. Take an auto manufacturer for example, if the car you drive is defective (Firestone and Ford, anyone?) you can sue them to hopefully fix the problem if there is one. What good is it to have a legal system if you can't use it to the fullest extent?[/citation]

Valve has a point though. Class action lawsuits only benefit the lawyers. Your typical class action lawsuit gets up there in damages but the average member of the suit gets next to nothing. So yeah Valve gets hurt because they have to pay this huge sum but the people actually suing get nearly zero monetary compensation.

Sure if your objective is to hurt the company because you're angry then class action suits are great. You're selflessly giving your time to ensure the company pays for what it did wrong and asking for next to nothing in return.

Good on you. The rest of us view class action suits differently.

 

[Guest]

I am not a lawyer and frankly, have little use for them. I say this not in any way to damage Steam, but to give some bottom line power and peace of mind to those who fear Steams power over their accounts.

If Steam decides to ban you from their service, that is their call. But if they cancel their contract with you, that also cancels the bit that includes their right to "update" or modify data on your drive. In other words, they cant deprive you access to what you've already downloaded, only access to their authentication servers.

Likewise if Steam ever goes out of business (everything that has a beginning has an end, Neo) the auth servers will go down. You wont lose access to whats on your drive, but the game will refuse to play without authenticating with Steam. In theory, you have lost the ability to use the product you have purchased. In the real world, your solution is to make regular backup copies of the steamapps folder onto a separate drive, and after buying any game through Steam, google " fixed exe" and save a copy for future use should it become necessary. Obviously use of said file would be a breach of contract on your part, while your agreement with Steam remains active. Once it is cancelled, however, go nuts.