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
Ez a téma zárolásra került 
Hozzászólási szabályok és irányelvek
Hozzászólás jelentése
What's funny is how they are offering a refund for the game purchase.
The reason is that if you get a refund you reverse the sale and that gets rid of any binding effect of consumer rights you have.
I was helping someone with a court case regarding a license issue in California.
The State had a duty of notice to him and that duty of notice hadn't been given so the charge was subject to dismissal, essentially it was mischarged by the officer.
The DA decided to make an offer to lower the charge by changing it to another crime. My friend asked me if it's a good idea and when I looked at both laws, it was clear the change was to get rid of the notice requirement of the State that would result in the charge being dismissed.
He decided not to take their offer, the DA said, "We'll see about this" and marched right into the court and asked the charge be dropped on the grounds the State had a duty to provide notice to my friend.
What I am illustrating is the effort made to change the nexus, to change what binds rights. Sure it was a criminal case but the rights that he has were being negotiated by changing the charge and that's the same kind of thing they're doing here with "we'll give you a refund" knowing full well that gets rid of the antecedent nexus preceding all other purchases and is the purchaser giving up any rights they have as a customer. The EULA works as evidence of the rights you have as a customer when it does something that could be construed as a bait and switch or similarly illegal, fraudulent, and/or false marketing act that is not in favor of the company so now they want to get rid of the binding effect of the EULA hahaha
You make a habit of bringing up flawed analogies to "prove" your point, when they don't apply for a variety of reasons.
I do. That's why I know what's in them.
The most you can say is that the legally authorized way to play a game is and is only in the form the publisher/developer has released. But that does not mean it is the "proper" way (there is no "proper" way anyway, except as narrowly defined for a specific purpose), nor does it mean that games are merely works where players have no creative role...a supposition that real life has clearly contradicted through the development of countless edits, hacks, and mods, not all of which (as you should already know) are born of means legally authorized by a publisher or developer.
That does not "remove the publisher from the equation"; the publisher is still the entity to legally represent the the creator to Steam. It has nothing to do with which version of the game people download.
You want to allow developers/publishers to compel players to accept updates that may break their game or remove gameplay elements that they consider enjoyable, which can have a negative impact on the gaming environment by say making people dissatisfied with the game and not want to play it.
At what? The notion that Start_Running is fallible?
Dumping your own ROMs for personal limited usage is way different than hosting and distributing them. I can copy game files to a game I already own from a disk or hdd to a different one for my own limited purposes... what I can't do is give those files to someone else. [/quote]
[/quote]
Making the ROms themselves isn't legal either since it's duplication of patented material.
And no you legally cannot./ The only thing close to that is perhaps archival purposes and your usage of that is very limited underlaw.
Now if its your COmmerical rom or a PD rom, then have at it.
Seems fair. This is why one should be very careful about online-focused multiplayer games.
They are altering the client to prevent unsupported, users from using it. THough a little extreme I suppose. I mean they could have at least left in the local multiplayer. Of course that dpeends on how local multiplayer works...
And they are offering a refund. Even if tyou refuse the update you wouldn't eable to connect to anything anyway so the game would be as good as bricked. Just the fact that you'd have a different version would block you from anything online.
Admittedly a ♥♥♥♥ move, but you kinda saw it coming given who their new overlords are. This is a risk one takes with buying any competitive multi-player game. There is a point where the servers will shut down.
And you make a habit of deliberately misunderstanding and msirepresenting examples given to hide the fact that they refute your argumentss. SInce I'm quite sure even a 5-year old would have understood that example.
But do you understand what's in them?
Yes and the choice of whether or not to allow these or issue C&D is up to the publisher. As some modders have learned over the years.
COnsideringb that's the way its been for literal decades now... and considering that i agreed that they had the right to do so when I agreed to their EULA. I'd say it doesn't affect me. I mean if it did..i'd have never agreed to the EULA. (there's that personal responsibility again).
Starting with the chief thing that patents have nothing to do with the discussion. And you can actually copy a number of things to your hearts content legally as long as you're not profiting or distributing them.
I could theoretically rip off stuff from a patent listing, but if I try to do anything with it outside of my own personal whatever I better be ready to pay up or face legal problems.
Even Nintendo begrudgingly acknowledges backup copies and such, which is why they desperately try to frame every other topic about the distribution and downloading of copyright material... because that's the only thing they actually have.
This one is too. Your choice of analogy here involves a life-or-death situation. Steam does not. Just because you can make the analogy does not mean it is valid, or useful.
Indeed I do, and I also know how they work in practice.
And not even C&Ds are the final word on such projects, in some cases. Just because a contract or a lawsuit says something does not mean that it happens that way in real life.
Actually, that hasn't been the way for all that long. It only become prevalent when the technology to provide updates to users became commonplace plus the technology to control the users' provided version of the game also became commonplace.
Meanwhile, your trying to make hay of "personal responsibility" is merely your insistence on "the developer/publisher is always right" with your attempt to coat it in moralizing at people. (Again.)
This tells you two things:
1. He's not going to fix his spelling/formatting.
2. He's here to argue and ego trip, not to to actually be constructive.
I mean, #2 is also obvious from his claiming that my very generalized summary of the contents of an EULA was wrong because I didn't explicitly mention the phrase "to the fullest extent permitted by law".
> modify
Yet people still modify games, even if they're not allowed to.
And they produce great art in doing so.
Personal dislike of EULA's does NOT supercede the law, NOR changes the wording.
STOP clicking accept, which is you agreeing to the EULA, NOT parts of it, ALL of it.
ACCEPT : approval, consent to, agree to, affirm.
IF a EULA stipulates you CANNOT copy or modify data, you argue personal use and disregard that those files have copyright protection.
When a developer makes a personal choice NOT to offer rollbacks, different branches you argue they have to. They DON'T.
Software is supplied "as is" and remains so throughout its life.
# Other platforms support it.
This is already a thing that a lot of games (especially physical games), game publishing platforms and software support. Although it seems to be a trend in recent years to micro-manage player machines and not give players ownership to the games they purchased.
Not the option to rollback, as that would require the platform or developer to store and provide the previous versions, but the option to refuse updates. Especially when it does not risk security or fairness towards other players.
Practically all of my games outside of Steam function this way. I have the right to the property I own and the right to refuse servicing to it. It's not a special feature or developer decision, I just refuse to download what they offer.
# Developer perspective
I create games as a hobby and previously worked as a professional game designer (now I create software). I feel like there is a reason to both force and not force updates, but I also believe it should be the player's choice.
Digital or physical they experience it the same, so I see no reason to differentiate ownership over them. Than again, if they request support or have a negative experience over something I fixed a long time ago, I would want them to update! But, than I could do what Minecraft does and simply manage and ask for version numbers, something Steam should be doing for developers anyway.
# Workaround
One option, although this is less accessible for non-technical users and won't work for games with Steam DRM, you could detach the game from Steam. Copy the games files, place it outside the Steam folder and don't launch it through the Steam launcher. It's not great if you want social features or Steam integration, but at least they can't take the game away (without breaking laws).
Want to play Starcraft 1 or 2, World of Warcraft, The Division 1 and 2, Mass Effect 3, etc, you must update, there is no choice.
1) Players own a license to play a game, not the game itself.
2) A license activates a game, it does not transfer ownership.
3) You own a game if you develop it, not because you bought it.
4) Software is protected by copyright and players do not own the copyright, the developers do.
5) Steam has the tools to offer different versions, the developers CHOOSE not to.
6) DEVELOPERS update games, Steam is the TOOL they use NOT the master.
7) Using Steam and all it offers is a choice YOU make.
8) Wanting players to update to fix an issue contradicts players having the choice to choose not to and there are those who will scream they are been forced. The fix is then is irrelevant.
9) Fix the game is very often seen on these forums and how do you fix a game, you update it for everyone yet Jimmy will continue to post "fix the game" whilst not wanting to update to fix the issue.
Finally "what I want" more commonly know as "player entitlement syndrome" is not enshrined in law but only in self deception of perceived rights. "I want" is not a law.
The most that can be said about these demands is that they serve as a backup enforcement tool for intellectual property rights, one that is actually not even that effective, particularly given the speed of the internet and data transfer these days.
Enforcement of this arrangement, on a practical level, depends merely on the convenience of doing such. The balance of convenience shifted toward favoring developers/publishers simply because Steam gives a convenient way to auto-update games and does not give a convenient way to deny those updates.
Some people are trying to make a moral argument about this, but there is no moral argument -- no lives are at stake. This is about art. And for art to be appreciated it needs to be created then made available in some form that is accessible and meaningful to the audience. What this means is giving both sides the freedom to express and implement their ideas for the art, as long as doing so does not prevent the other side from doing so. This means giving developers/publishers and players the freedom to modify the game as they see fit.
1) In fact there is no "well everyone else does A" legally binding requirement, irrespective of your belief there is.
2) There is no player entitlement syndrome but to those with a self-deprecation syndrome who are sure others must agree with their current condition just because they said so. There is, however, Consumer Rights, and they are rights we get to define based on the exchange of money made that are commonplace and inherent in every purchase, and these rights tend to be greater for even those from a foreign nation if the company is American based because of American laws, and the difference in government. This is also why we can have different attorneys with entirely different legal theories and it is judgments from the Supreme Court of the United States, or State Supreme Courts when specific to a State's Constitution, that define and prevail. Our Right to Redress of Grievance uses our court system to challenge these things and compels those who we challenge to have to reply because the Judicial System is a branch of American Government from American Government's foundation.
Within the regime of law is the "common law" the plethora of case law that explains the express legal provisions by implied consent made by those who offer a product or service to the public and the product or service is accepted and the completion of sale is by exchange of money (A reason many things use the phrases, "there is no obligation," "this is not an offer," or "order your free book on numismatics today" to place the terms of something before you but without the binding force and effect of an offer that is consummated by the exchange of money and forces your rights inherent in property exchange to attach to the delivery required by the one making the offer.) to which binding rights inure to the parties to the transaction pursuant to the contract in fact (i.e. when all 4 components of what constitutes a contract are determined to exist and then reviewed in contrast to the laws established in regard to the commitments the contract has made as then defined by the court's review.). Where no express relation to the rights of the customer are made on behalf of the customer by specific statements of their rights that go beyond explaining how to challenge the "agreement," the common law decides because it is our right to interpret our rights since our use of our money was our decision (there's more but I'm keeping it simple as I can). It may have been a bad decision, then we lose. It may have been a good decision but what was promised in delivery over the course of the transaction and exchange of property wasn't delivered, met, or may have been misrepresented, and can be deemed tantamount to fraud, and/or gross negligence. The exchange of property as a voluntary act of seller and buyer grants legal authority and rights to both parties and any effort to force, assume, or otherwise impose waiver of those rights on the forced, assumed, or otherwise imposed notion of implied consent by pressing the "Enter" key asserted by one party to the contracts demands challenge by the law if the person who exchanged money in acceptance of the offer does not believe the product delivered, now or in the future, meets the specifications that it met at the time of purchase. Exception is recurring payments where you can cease from receiving the unwanted product simply by no longer paying for it in the future.
Current methods of product delivery and agreement aspect of statements (i.e. EULA) are trying to work around every aspect of legal rights for the customer today because these rights are not legal fictions as a corporation is, and instead the Rights of a natural person which is of a higher weight than the privileges of a legal fiction and/or any other specie of corporation in the common law and more specifically in American Law in its inherent purpose to uphold the rights of the customer and their property including their inherent natural rights.
Lastly in this regard, the fluidity of people and their differences results in a lack of hard and fast rules in absolute certainty. Change is usually at a glacial pace but it can be rather sudden and immediate, and yet it often opens up doors in unintended consequences and larger scale ramifications that are not wanted by the body of people who cause the laws of their nation to exist as they do. You may be well intended so I make this point to you on that basis.
If I had to gamble on it I'd say it would be true that it appears you're not happy with the outcome of your effort to force agreement with you and hopefully silence of those who disagree with you, but in the interest of all of us as Steam Users and those of us in our effort to speak up about this issue, to say what we have to say about it, I urge you to cease from the insults of others (essentially moving in the direction of or encouraging a flamewar) in what appears an effort to get a mod to close the thread and end our discussion of a matter that is important to we who are discussing it, meaning that you appear to be break the rules hoping someone reports you so you can use a mod to get your way. I've seen it before and the effect it has on discouraging people from reporting genuinely wrongful posts is one of those "unintended consequences" of pursuing this method of getting what they want out of this discussion. So consider this a pointing out of what you may not have realized you were doing, that wittingly or unwittingly if you were doing this, please don't it's really inconsiderate to the other Steam Users on this thread, thank you.