安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
此主題已被鎖定 
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
I very literally coughed up my water reading this attempt to make fun of someone who puts gaming first.
really? well at least I know you do not put gaming first.
The thing is much of the radical new approaches to distribution that many here are complaining about is the REASON these good games exist. Its hysterical
I believe that gaming and the other issues are equally important, not that any one issue is important than the others.
And yes, I stand by my original assertion regarding your earlier points. You do not seek to add to the conversation or shed new light; you're merely attacking the rest of us for attempting to deeply analyze and think critically about the issue. But, of course, you'll probably continue trying to equivocate, and whatnot. Seems that's your only talking point.
I absolutely do not agree with that.
To say something is more important is not to say everything else is not important, just less important.
and yes..I am a gamer who thinks the most important thing is the gaming experience.
Now..regarding things like early access the problem is early access is the REASON I personally have better gaming experiences. so like i say, many of the complaints people have the side effect of those complaints are concretely and specifically BETTER gaming experiences, not worse ones.
so its double funny
Sadly, I've come to see the truth of it in the last few years.
which links to:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32011L0083&rid=1
Which basically contradicts the premise:
No. Consumers were not entitled to a refund on all purchases, and if he had actually read the actual contents he linked he would have known. I can understand not knowing about foreign regulations, but making an statement yet linking to a source that actually contradicts the statement tells me a lot.
Fun fact. That snippet is basically on every content delivery EULA doing business in Europe. You can see it if you buy Origin DLC too, for example.That clause was not 'Good Guy Valve quickly coming up with a solution' but 'Good Guy Valve being legal'
Another fun fact. Steam is actually going beyond what's legally required to them on the EU with the actual refund system.
Valve did violate regional laws by refusing refunds, for years.
Then they denied doing business in australia.
Then they lost in court and got fined.
Somewhere in the middle they finally introduced an official refund policy after 11 years in business.
www.gamespot.com/amp-articles/valve-restricts-14-day-eu-refund-law/1100-6425990/
Also, Valve initially asked eu residents to waive their right to a refund prior to a purchase, this later changed.
Valve breached Australian consumer law.
amp.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/video-games-website-steam-fined-3-million-for-refusing-refunds-20161223-gthdux.html
During that time, Valve did provide some refunds on a case by case basis, but their actions did not meet consumer rights ie. They breached Australian consumer law.
Your point is not the only one and many more relevant points exemplify the allegations of the article.
Including the documented breaching of Australian consumer law by Valve.
Only the consumer can withdrawal from that right. What Valve did is they set it up so that you automatically lose that right, like it never existed in the first place. Thats not how it works and not what that text means. At least thats my interpretation of that bold text.
The other thing is the EU has alot of stuff that we already have in our respective nations; it's done twice. The reason for that is they eventually want to create one superstate and thats why they took over the laws that already existed.
If Valve sells in Germany they are first and foremost subject to german law and regulations. The judiciary is built around the idea that it start froms the lowest form and goes up to the highest. That means even if they got around German law somehow they eventually would be subject to the next higher instance, the EU.
In plain english this means Valve needs to provide a 14 day withdrawal right for their digital goods and a refund if the used software is broken or falsely adverstised. Those two rights are exclusive to each other and not mutual. That means you don't lose the right for a refund after 14 days if you just now find out the product is broken because you haven't touched it prior etc.
The problem in all of this is that this applies to everyday products you can buy online. There is no telling how exactly this applies to video games unless court cases happen.
I'm not a lawyer though, so don't quote me on those things.
I guess the reason Valve choose this general refund window with the two hour thing is because they still haven't seeked lawer advice and don't wanna deal with all that bureaucracy lol. I don't know their true intention but look, how this evil evil corporation has made the game industry worse, or have they?
http://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2017/04/13/microsoft-begins-testing-self-service-refunds-digital-xbox-one-games/
www.gamespot.com/amp-articles/valve-restricts-14-day-eu-refund-law/1100-6425990/
Valve is still with in EU laws as well as German law. That has been proven several times in the past and in court in the EU and Germany.
You agree to waive is the same as withdrawing from it. You don't automaticaly lose the right, you have to agree to it before you can purchase the product. That is legaly binding.
As Valve has been in several lawsuits in the EU, so they do know the laws over there very well. They most likely have EU laweres on retainer too, who also know about EU law and have helped draft the SSA.
As you said, you are not a lawer. Lawers have already discussed it as well as the court system. If it was as you stated, then Valve would have lost those cases.
Honestly though, things like this are better discussed by lawers and in a court room, not in the forums where our discussions don't realy matter or change anything on the issue.
Besides, this is turning into less of a discussion about the article and more about bringing up old argument and discussions that have very little to do with the article except in passing.
IMO. Polygon is a joke.
Edit.
As I said, a joke.
I seen this before where companies (shops) tried this and got fined. If you think about it from the logical aspect it doesn't make sense to give consumers rights that can be undermined by a company real easy. The sale contract then becomes automatically legally void.
My story makes more sense since Valve hasn't sticked to their old version and instead provided proper refunds.
You have to click on the little box and press accept. There is no choice here to be made because otherwise you don't get access to the product. That ignores the consumer rights laws of both the EU and Germany.
They have lost in court exactly over that in australia, caved in and provided refunds for everyone.