Steam telepítése
belépés
|
nyelv
简体中文 (egyszerűsített kínai)
繁體中文 (hagyományos kínai)
日本語 (japán)
한국어 (koreai)
ไทย (thai)
Български (bolgár)
Čeština (cseh)
Dansk (dán)
Deutsch (német)
English (angol)
Español - España (spanyolországi spanyol)
Español - Latinoamérica (latin-amerikai spanyol)
Ελληνικά (görög)
Français (francia)
Italiano (olasz)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonéz)
Nederlands (holland)
Norsk (norvég)
Polski (lengyel)
Português (portugáliai portugál)
Português - Brasil (brazíliai portugál)
Română (román)
Русский (orosz)
Suomi (finn)
Svenska (svéd)
Türkçe (török)
Tiếng Việt (vietnámi)
Українська (ukrán)
Fordítási probléma jelentése
Hozzászólási szabályok és irányelvek
Hozzászólás jelentése
2K.
I'm no longer buying their games on Steam.
If you read the article I linked to you, which you asked for, you'd have seen literally the second paragraph had the quote verbatim about the maximum fine being applied.
You obviously didn't bother reading it, and now you are calling me out for not providing my source, which I did.
What? Are you just reading what you want to read? Where is the false narrative that you are pushing about "Actually they won most of that case."
Nothing in your source states anything about Valve winning most of it's case. Your source states that they'd already been found guilty, and this hearing was about damages. ACCC successfully argued for $3 million, which is the maximum fine they could impose (confirmed in my source), and Valve asked for $250,000 only. The Court found in ACCC's favour and fined Valve $3 million. How is this winning most of the case?
Your key point hinges on the fact that the ACCC abandoned a demand that would see Valve require a phone hot line. This was not a court finding, but the ACCC obviously agreed with Valve that it's ticketing system would be suitable to deal with the refunds. It didn't mean that Valve were let off anything that the ACCC successfully argued for, they still had to process all those refunds. This isn't a big win - it's just a reasonable outcome.
Your source frames the core issue perfectly:
"Steam users, of course, are now entitled to refunds. But when the ACCC originally filed their lawsuit in 2014, that wasn’t officially the case. There were always reports of users getting one-time or goodwill refunds – such as when games were unfinished, or released in a unplayable state or when or when Valve pulled a game from sale – but there were also instances of users being flat-out denied."
This all changed due to the court action.
Let's hope that Valve is getting better legal advice this time around. The example with the ACCC was embarrassing for them. They totally lost.
Yes, any valid refunds were upheld. Any found that weren't valid of course weren't to be upheld. This is why they originally wanted a hotline in place to process all the claims, but agreed that the ticketing system was the best way to do it.
Steam previously denied refunds on broken games that never worked, on games that were gifted that never worked, and other things.
Anybody claiming refunds on games they'd obviously played extensively were of course rejected.
The outcome of the ACCC ruling was to put in fair and reasonable grounds for refunds which Steam were not doing prior to 2014 consistently. This helped formed the current refund policy today which we all benefit from, including Steam.
It means consumers are more likely to trust spending money on their store knowing they are entitled to a refund if the game doesn't work properly and they don't play the game.
I doubt anybody is arguing for the policy to get rolled back to prior to 2014. The outcome of the ACCC case was overall a good thing for Steam users and for Steam itself.
I think there's a misunderstanding here. The claim was that Valve should have given those people refunds. The court found that Valve was right to not give them refunds and also that Valve needed better documentation on their website.
The fine was for the lack of documentation, not for anything Valve did.
Steam's refund policy was always basically the same as it is now. They just improved the documentation and added some automation.
The only misunderstanding here, is from those that are coming up with alternate conclusions on what actually happened.
"The court imposed the maximum fine requested by Australia's competition regulator because of Valve's disregard for Australian law and lack of contrition."
Source: https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/video-games-website-steam-fined-3-million-for-refusing-refunds-20161223-gthdux.html
How does that mean it was imposing the fine because of a lack of documentation? It is crystal clear, that the fine was imposed because of Valve's disregard for Australian law and lack of contrition.
That is totally different than what you are saying. The fine was punitive, and at the maximum level that the ACCC was allowed to ask for.
If what you are saying is true, the fine would have been more like the 250k that Valve argued for. That it was just a document oversight...etc, that impacted consumers. This was absolutely not the case though. What you are suggesting is the reverse of what actually happened, and it's all documented and fact check-able.
False.
https://www.pcgamesn.com/steam-refunds-what-developers-think-two-months-later
The change was brought in 2015 as a result of the court action lodged in 2014 and resolved in 2016.
"PC players have long been used to an “all sales are final” policy on their games. "
"But two months ago, practically out-of-the-blue, Valve turned that on its head. You could get refunds on Steam games."
“I can say daily sales are up by more than 30%, which is big enough that I don’t imagine refunds are completely negating it,”
"Of course, angry customers have always had a chance of getting a refund on Steam. It was just rare and often wildly inconsistent in how it worked."
A fair refund policy was a win for both consumers, Steam and developers - Too bad Steam had to be brought in kicking and screaming to get it in place.
I did miss that, read it right before bed so my apologies.
I also never once claimed they won't most of the case, so not sure why you continue to make up false claims. I had simply stated it was not a total loss and they dropped major parts of the complaint.
I'm the end it remains a tiny fine of $3 million, or the equivalent of an average person getting a fine for $20 because it wasn't a very big deal.
There were also the parts in my article where the judge agreed with valve that they did not deny any refunds they weren't entitled to
Pretty clear from your own article
From my article if you had read it you'd note that their originally was a complaint from consumers claiming they didnt get a refund they were entitled to, but upon review the judge sided with Steam in that those consumers were not allowed a refund.
The only fault they found was that the website lacked the proper documentation as listed and they had to update it and place a notice on their website
This is enough going on about off topic stuff and and has nothing to do with the thread and since this current lawsuit has been argued to death already going in circles with people who have no clue what they are talking about is pointless so im unsubbing. You can keep arguing if you want
Incorrect. You don't take a case to the high court (equivalent to the US Supreme Court) over a couple of complaints. Nor do you get a 3 million dollar fine for it or get ordered to pay out the refunds that you are required to pay out.
The case was about years of declined refunds. That's why they wanted a hotline to deal with the cases setup and settled for the ticketing system. This was to deal with the expected large backlog.
You've been on here pushing your false narrative and got called out and fact checked.
Exactly...bye.
You literally responded to PocketYoda on this thread and said that Valve won most the case against ACCC. Posted 21 hours ago.
"Originally posted by PocketYoda:
I hope steam loses again like they did with the ACCC
Reply: brian9824
Actually they won most of that case."
It's not a false claim, I didn't make anything up. I read what you posted.
I know you unsubbed, probably out of embarrassment, I just fact checked the stuff you were saying on here that was clearly wrong.
Nope, I just unsubbed because you are embarassing yourself making claims and ignoring the evidence and I have better things to do then to constantly educate you on basic stuff since you won't read.
Unlike some i'm trying to not to derail this thread which has nothing to do with Australia, so i'll just report all the people who keep bringing it up and let moderation deal with them.
This thread is about a frivolous lawsuit that has no chance of winning and since the OP of the thread is attacking me and another one of my threads i'm not going to participate in it and will let moderation deal with it.
Seems to me, to be a way for Valve's competitors to attack Steam...
But in my experience, even in the UK, Valve is pro-consumer - I don't want to give any other platforms my money.
They are doing some shady business out there, this is probably one of them too