Steam storefront sales practices go against UK legislation, here is a simple fix.

[Jelly Creeper]

Re-edit because RiO made a better answer summing up all points below. watch his answer as he could make a much better job of summing up than me.

My argument stays the same "Steam should make it clear what they are selling to their consumers on the storefront, on risk of going against established law" in the UK. Right now this includes Eu law.

[Zekiran]

You aren't buying a game, you are buying the license to USE the game.

Valve and Steam comply with all countries laws already, and is not in any way 'anti consumer'. Their lawyers already know how this all works, considerably more than any one of us on their forum.

While I don't disagree that the wording could be clearer for ALL companies selling software licenses, it would more than likely just bring a LOT more confusion to people who Just Don't Get It.

[cSg|mc-Hotsauce]

Everything is outlined in the Steam Subscriber Agreement users we shown upon account creation.

[Jelly Creeper]

The wording should be clearer is my point. It shouldn't say you are buying a game, which it does, while not offering a good reason to it since its the same price as purchasing a physical copy, most prople would assume the same rights. As it is now it tricks people into thinking they own the games. Whether it complies or not isn't to their Legal team to decide. The decision is up to the Law, and the law isn't always clear. The information is up there though. A company cannot override a goverment laws. It is only legal because they sell a license to access instead of a product. My concern is with the wording on the storefront. They don't make this clear enough. And they should really.

[Jelly Creeper]

@cSg|mc-Hotsauce it is a suggestion to alter the wording. It doesn't matter what it says in the Steam Subscriber Agreement. It's something they should make clear on a per item basis. You are not buying a product. However steam claims you are buying a product and you pay tax for it. It is however regarded as a service. There need to be a clear distinction as property laws apply. Think of buying a product as buying a house, and buying a service as renting a house. The wording should be clearer, as you don't pay the same price for buying a house as renting. Yet most games release on steam at the same price as a physical copy.

[Jaunitta 🌸]

You could maybe read your Steam Subscriber Agreement when you joined Steam
https://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/

In the beginning of the internet everything was expected to be free.
DRM ( digital Rights Manager ) have been inplace since the internet evolved in trying to protect and prevent copyrights stealing software stealing money that should go to the developers of games movies music. Itunes was introduced also many apps that would allow you use of a digital item after you paid for it and no you couldn't share it either.
This clearing up the content / licensing and classification is now even more important to protect the newer and very young generation from harm when accessing everything on the internet .

[cSg|mc-Hotsauce]

Originally posted by Jelly Creeper:

@cSg|mc-Hotsauce it is a suggestion to alter the wording. It doesn't matter what it says in the Steam Subscriber Agreement. It's something they should make clear on a per item basis. You are not buying a product. However steam claims you are buying a product and you pay tax for it. It is however regarded as a service. There need to be a clear distinction as property laws apply. Think of buying a product as buying a house, and buying a service as renting a house. The wording should be clearer, as you don't pay the same price for buying a house as renting. Yet most games release on steam at the same price as a physical copy.

Prices are set by the devs/pubs. Tell then to change their prices.

And not all games use any sort of DRM and you can use them as you please

[Jelly Creeper]

@Jaunitta 🌸
@cSg|mc-Hotsauce
So far all the responses have been so robotic I can't even comprehend if you would pass the turing test. My suggestion is to alter the wording, your responses added nothing new to that. I'm not arguing about corporate contracts. Even though the wording in those too needs to be careful it has nothing to do with what I said.

Let me put it simple:
-Storefront says "buy [game name]" , which is not what you are doing.
- I suggest instead "unlock [game name]" or "purchase access to [game name]"

By legal definition you own something you bought. Unless it is a service.

Corporate contracts can't hold their terms in place of the law. Even if the contract said explicity "even though games on the storefront are claimed to be purchaseable, what you actually buy is access to the product" which it doesn't. It is something that doesn't hold up in court. The UK isn't a corporate dystopia yet, I would think.

To me it sounds like you're pissed off for the wrong reasons. I don't live in a corporate run country where contracts are above the law. I'm interpreting the law and comparing it to how steam does things. Maybe instead of asking me to read through steam license agreements you should yourselves read the Consumers Rights Act of 2015 and the Consumers White Paper of 2009?

[Zukabazuka]

I'm quite sure Valve have hired a bunch of lawyers and gone through the agreement they have and ask if it contain any flaw. Because the last thing they want is a lawsuit for millions in cost.

[Mailer]

Originally posted by Jelly Creeper:

Let me put it simple:
-Storefront says "buy [game name]" , which is not what you are doing.
- I suggest instead "unlock [game name]" or "purchase access to [game name]"

The problem is that you can't really compare the choice of words used on the client itself with the words that are used in an agreement.
The former of the two is the interface through which you communicate with your customers, and the other is merely skimmed by most people at best because of how in-depth it is. You don't confuse customers with the illogical connection between money and unlocking something because you don't throw money at a lock to make it open. It's just unnecessary confusion. The agreements are made vague and unintelligible to the common person, I would assume, because those who initially composed it probably do not care in the slightest whether the common customer is able to understand the agreement or not, which I would hope that you do at the end of the day, don't get me wrong. But it's likely going to be used against you as part of some term that you went against, therefore it's beneficial to them if you couldn't fathom it to begin with.

[Brujeira]

Originally posted by Jelly Creeper:

@Jaunitta 🌸
@cSg|mc-Hotsauce
So far all the responses have been so robotic I can't even comprehend if you would pass the turing test. My suggestion is to alter the wording, your responses added nothing new to that. I'm not arguing about corporate contracts. Even though the wording in those too needs to be careful it has nothing to do with what I said.

Let me put it simple:
-Storefront says "buy [game name]" , which is not what you are doing.
- I suggest instead "unlock [game name]" or "purchase access to [game name]"

By legal definition you own something you bought. Unless it is a service.

Corporate contracts can't hold their terms in place of the law. Even if the contract said explicity "even though games on the storefront are claimed to be purchaseable, what you actually buy is access to the product" which it doesn't. It is something that doesn't hold up in court. The UK isn't a corporate dystopia yet, I would think.

To me it sounds like you're pissed off for the wrong reasons. I don't live in a corporate run country where contracts are above the law. I'm interpreting the law and comparing it to how steam does things. Maybe instead of asking me to read through steam license agreements you should yourselves read the Consumers Rights Act of 2015 and the Consumers White Paper of 2009?

Maybe you should realise something - nobody cares. Your demand for the language used in the Steam store to be as precise (and pedantic) as possible in order to conform to each region’s localised rules is counterproductive. If you saw things from other people’s viewpoints then you would understand why - try doing that sometimes, it can be most enlightening.

[AmsterdamHeavy]

I love when the "lawyers" start overly autisticing legal language like they are the very first person to read it and understand what those words, in that order, mean in this context.

[Avaross]

Originally posted by Zekiran:

You aren't buying a game, you are buying the license to USE the game.

Valve and Steam comply with all countries laws already, and is not in any way 'anti consumer'. Their lawyers already know how this all works, considerably more than any one of us on their forum.

While I don't disagree that the wording could be clearer for ALL companies selling software licenses, it would more than likely just bring a LOT more confusion to people who Just Don't Get It.

https://kotaku.com/french-court-says-valve-must-allow-steam-users-to-resel-1838259529

[Brujeira]

Originally posted by Avaross:

Originally posted by Zekiran:

You aren't buying a game, you are buying the license to USE the game.

Valve and Steam comply with all countries laws already, and is not in any way 'anti consumer'. Their lawyers already know how this all works, considerably more than any one of us on their forum.

While I don't disagree that the wording could be clearer for ALL companies selling software licenses, it would more than likely just bring a LOT more confusion to people who Just Don't Get It.

https://kotaku.com/french-court-says-valve-must-allow-steam-users-to-resel-1838259529

A ruling that is irrelevant as it contradicts EU rules. Any questions?

[Crazy Tiger]

OP, doesn't the CRA of 2015 specifically state on page 5 that digital content often has a license that is even quite limited?

Digital content is commonly supplied to a consumer under a license which gives the
consumer rights to use the digital content under specific circumstances (which may
be quite limited). Ownership of digital content is rarely the same as for goods. The
Digital Content rights apply to digital content supplied under such license
agreements as well as “sold” in a traditional sense.

As Valve has specified in the SSA that you get a license to use the "content and services" (ergo the games), they completely comply.

It's irrelevant how it's worded in the storefront. The agreement you made with Valve when you opened the Steam account, which is necessary to buy a game in the Steam store, has it all covered.

[Start_Running]

Originally posted by Jelly Creeper:

@Jaunitta 🌸
@cSg|mc-Hotsauce
So far all the responses have been so robotic I can't even comprehend if you would pass the turing test. My suggestion is to alter the wording, your responses added nothing new to that. I'm not arguing about corporate contracts. Even though the wording in those too needs to be careful it has nothing to do with what I said.

Yeah they aren't going to alter the wording of a legal contract for that. Legal wording is very specific and purpose driven. And its really not worded in sonme confusing manner.

2. LICENSES ⏶

A. General Content and Services License

Steam and your Subscription(s) require the download and installation of Content and Services onto your computer. Valve hereby grants, and you accept, a non-exclusive license and right, to use the Content and Services for your personal, non-commercial use (except where commercial use is expressly allowed herein or in the applicable Subscription Terms). This license ends upon termination of (a) this Agreement or (b) a Subscription that includes the license. The Content and Services are licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Content and Services. To make use of the Content and Services, you must have a Steam Account and you may be required to be running the Steam client and maintaining a connection to the Internet.

Let me put it simple:
-Storefront says "buy [game name]" , which is not what you are doing.
- I suggest instead "unlock [game name]" or "purchase access to [game name]"[./quote]
The problem is "Purchase Subscription to Game License" doesn't fit on a button.
Also If you have read the SSA you agreed to, you would already know what this action refers to.

By legal definition you own something you bought. Unless it is a service.

ANd what you are purchasing is a subscription to a license to use a game.

Corporate contracts can't hold their terms in place of the law. Even if the contract said explicity "even though games on the storefront are claimed to be purchaseable, what you actually buy is access to the product" which it doesn't. It is something that doesn't hold up in court. The UK isn't a corporate dystopia yet, I would think.

The UK laws are actually fine with this. Sooooo...

Maybe take more time to read the actual contracts and not hjust cherry pick parts. Legal documents are meant to be read in their entiretyy as the context.

Never mind that on purchasing any game they remind you and show a link to the agreement so you are clear one what you are actually doing. That you have likely been ignoring it for years doesn't mean the system is at fault. It just means you done-didn't-read.