Instale o Steam
iniciar sessão
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chinês simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chinês tradicional)
日本語 (Japonês)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandês)
Български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Tcheco)
Dansk (Dinamarquês)
Deutsch (Alemão)
English (Inglês)
Español-España (Espanhol — Espanha)
Español-Latinoamérica (Espanhol — América Latina)
Ελληνικά (Grego)
Français (Francês)
Italiano (Italiano)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonésio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandês)
Norsk (Norueguês)
Polski (Polonês)
Português (Portugal)
Română (Romeno)
Русский (Russo)
Suomi (Finlandês)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Relatar um problema com a tradução
It's as useful as the complaints are.
I have no problem with different opinions, nor do I see them as wrong. I'm not the one calling others "defending" just because I don't like their opinion.
Sounds like it simply uses Epic's online services for its coop.
Indeed, much like a concerted effort that almost always starts by people discussing the problem in public forums.
So redundancy all round then, thanks for your time.
For online crap, yes.
Including Epic Online Services as a required component creates an Epic account under the hood that is tied to the Steam account. That makes it a third-party online account, and makes it susceptible to - among others - the EU's legislation that all technical protection measures must be disclosed before purchase and are binding pre-contractual information that may not be altered before conclusion of the contract. For changes after conclusion of the contract, the EU refers to the Unfair Contract Terms Directive (UCTD) which may label terms of contract that allow such changes as potentially unfair and forces member states to uphold laws that ensure such terms cannot bind consumers.
As Epic Online Services includes analytics; profiling and telemetry as part of its package, that also makes it the domain of the GDPR. Which means any attempt to use terms of contract to force it in would run afoul of the guiding principle of said Directive: any term that is not individually negotiated (where any stock contract such as a EULA shall in its entirety be considered to be not individually negotiated) and that counter to good faith creates an unreasonable imbalance in the rights and obligations of the consumer and the other party to the contract, to the detriment of the consumer, shall be deemed an unfair term and shall not bind the consumer.
You can't simply force people to start handing you PII (incl. online identifiers such as the linked Steam account; all the behavioral analysis and profiling data; etc.) to continue to use a product. That would definitely be labeled as an unreasonable imbalance to the detriment of the consumer.
At some point, someone's going to sue over this -- and it won't be pretty for the publishers.
Case in point: under the UCTD Vattenfall in the Netherlands recently had a term in their agreements with consumers which enabled them to unilaterally raise prices, judged as unfair and had it annulled by the courts. An annulled term means you have to restore the status quo as if the term had never existed, which means they're now stuck repaying consumers a lot of dosh in former illegally collected payments.
It only takes one to set the precedent.
Sadly, video-games are a luxury-good and don't get a lot of attention outside of the helicopter-mom crowd pining for censorship and banning of gambling mechanics.
I'm not sure how much I care about any of it, but one of the things EOS does is enable cross-play between not only PC and the consoles (which, I'll admit, I'm not sure what the point is given the massive control imbalance between them...), but between the various PC store fronts as well. Valve is almost certainly capable of doing something similar itself, but is chossing not to, likely because it not only doesn't want to give people reason to leave the Steam ecosystem, but also doesn't have the leverage to get the console makers to play ball (Epic supposedly had to threaten Sony's UE licence to bring them to the table).
It's not up to Valve what services are used. Just like Activision uses their own stuff.
(but all the same it does suck, I remember the day they wrecked Rocketleague)
Of course, but companies are using EOS because Valve doesn't offer a better alternative and this is what's making the r/♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ kids mad.
No. I am neutral. I even like Epic games. I just consider it adware when extra programs are suddenly installed on your computer.
If people were okay with this, they wouldn't be complaining.
Its similar to Gator software that was sometimes included with patches. Nobody liked that, and everybody thought it was adware. Its when having a checkbox that reads: "Do you want to install Gator software when applying this patch?" No, of course not. If I wanted Gator software, I would have downloaded Gator software. I don't need to have it in my game patches. Its the same when a program suddenly installs a toolbar for Internet Explorer. Its just adware.
Stop using terms incorrectly and people will stop calling you out on them.
No, it's clear you don't understand the terms you're throwing out. Just because you don't like how something was allegedly patched in, it doesn't make it something it isn't. EOS is not bombarding you with adverts. It is NOT adware.
And deleting your post won't stop you being wrong.