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
討論區規矩與守則
2 
檢舉此篇文章
It also wasn't just about the kid being able to say something in voice/text chatting, it was also about them able to hear/see what other people were saying.
Then you should have never ever argued about COPPA in the first place, especially since I already stated it had nothing to do with COPPA, and yet you continued to argue about COPPA. If you do not want people to think you are arguing it was about COPPA, then don't keep on arguing about COPPA when the other person is also saying it had nothing to do with COPPA.
You decided to say I was spreading misinformation by me saying that the voice/text chat had nothing to do with COPPA, and you are trying to argue here that you didn't say the voice/text chat stuff wasn't a violation of COPPA? Then why accuse me of spreading misinformation with me saying that the voice/text chat had nothing to do with COPPA?
So yes, you did argue it was about COPPA, if you didn't then you would have no reason to say that I was spreading misinformation about me saying that the voice/text chat had nothing to do with COPPA.
That violation was attached to the other because of the data that Epic collected. Because they collected the age of their users(as stated in the lawsuit) and didn't properly handle that information, it led to both lawsuits.
If they properly handled that information, neither lawsuit would've happened.
Since Valve doesn't collect that information(all you need is a valid email and password for an account) that lawsuit doesn't apply here.
The voice/text chat had nothing to do with information collecting, and everything to do with under 17 year olds able to use it without parental consent. It was a completely different violation under a completely different law.
The point is the FTC has decided that voice/text chatting is a violation of FTC Act section 5 if the kids 17 and younger have access to it without parental consent. Which means that Valve is currently violating this to for kids between 13-17 year olds (this age range since Valve doesn't allow under 13 year olds)
So we have a real world example of government regulating games "for the children" with this instance of voice/chat being available without parental consent for 17 year olds and under.
by the way, Epic used to do the same exact thing as what Valve does now, their rules were that only 13 and above can have an account, and all it took was an email address and conformation you were 13 and above to have an account just like how Valve does it now.
They may have used to do that, but since they don't anymore, that's why they got in trouble.
Interesting, being Xbox does have "family settings", for which i set mine, and no messages, chat, nothing. They may need to implement that here.
Well, speaking of who has been told multiple times, in fact, you were told multiple times, even here on this thread, these measures coming up the pike, and "one leading to another'.
And now we went from "nothing is happening', to many things are happening, evidently, and i thank Purple for citing this, yet another case.
It's interesting how these things go.
At any rate, there is nothing in my Steam settings that do what Xbox can have me do. It either has to be done indivdually, or dependent on the game what not. If there is one prompt i can press, to shut it all off like Xbox, show me where. Sincere question.
Level-headed take from Louis Rossmann.
Funnily, he's actually making the same point around 11:00 in that I made before:
if licensing agreements that developers have with their middleware suppliers are preventing them from publishing their server implementations, then should that be considered as even a desirable situation to be? And would legislation on this subject forcing the issue of publishing the server code, not be a big bargaining chip for developers in their future contract negotiations with those middleware vendors.
Watch it through to the end.
Among other things, he also mentions the issue of having to retool existing software being unfair. And he touches upon one very essential point:
yes, the way game servers are built currently may not work well for this concept. And having the way game servers are built currently redesigned into a way that does work well for this concept, may be a whole lot of work.
But -- if there will be new legislation, then moving forward from that point in time, said legislation will also inform new server design.
Really, he's putting a lot of really good well-thought out takes on the topic out there.
Steam doesn't collect the ages of it's users. The games that Valve owns(like how Epic owns Fortnite) do not market themselves to children or target children(like Fortnite) and have a barrier outside of an age gate to access chat. DOTA 2 doesn't even have a voice chat feature to begin with. But I understand wanting to ignore that because it puts a hole in the misinformation being spread.
Actually, the family view applies the to account as a whole. You were shown the FAQ page a while ago with the last 'sincere question'. If you want it now, you can look for yourself.
One minute in: "This game was not advertised as a service"
IT'S AN MMO. IT SAYS MMO RIGHT THERE ON THE STORE PAGE. If this is the level of disingenuousness I'm going to get from the other 26 minutes of this video, I shouldn't bother watching it.
Edit: Against my better judgement I watched the next six minutes of the video. He spends five of them repeatedly using the words "people are ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ on Thor" while giving no evidence of that happening and then spends the next minute talking about how if you're not being charged a monthly fee for a game it's impossible for that game to require servers. I'm giving up. This is pointless.
Louis was one of the biggest leaders for the right-to-repair movement in the US.
Ironically, it appears it is you who doesn't understand what software licenses are.
Software is classified as a good under the European Legislation. So it is not acceptable to write "Purchase" on the store page and have it actually mean "purchase access to the software for as long as our own licensing terms allow you to have access". It simply doesn't match the legal definition of purchase at that point and is misleading to the consumers, most of which had no idea that The Crew, for example, could be taken away from them.
It might sound confusing, but a software license in and of itself has nothing to do with licensing. This license is a stand-in for the lack of a physical product, since software is really flipping some 1's and 0's on your storage device and having your computer read from those and execute the code. Really, you're purchasing a copy of the software without the intellectual rights, similar to how most products work in fact, just that there's no physical object for software.
Heck, the EU and also USA go so far as to say that it's legal to crack DRM protection that came with your software in order to continue using it, should said DRM prevent you from using the software you legally purchased. The main problem here is that game publishers have found a loophole in the forced online connections to their servers to make it physically impossible for us to continue using the software we purchased
Hence, games who only give you limited usage should be HONEST on the store page and give you the minimum expiration date; it needs to be made clear you're not purchasing the game itself but rather paying for a subscription of some kind.
If I were to ask you, you'd probably agree that it wouldn't be acceptable for a car manufacturer to sell you a car but with a remote controlled acid container somewhere inside its motor, so that they can make it unusable at any time they please when they release their next car.
What, then, makes this same practice acceptable for the software we purchase? Both from an ethical standpoint – as well as given the fact that under law software is classified as a good just as a car is?
The difference between a car manufacturer selling a device designed to kill drivers and a games company discontinuing a service that barely anyone still uses is one that is so enormous that you cannot possibly be making this argument in good faith.