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
Edit: Just because you can't get it to work doesn't mean the product is defective or broken. It just means you messed up, or your system can't handle it.
What games are you talking about specifically? There aren't many titles I play so I don't quite understand nor do I see how Ubisoft is abusing steam as a platform. If you don't like how Ubisoft is behaving as a company whether its in regard to their games or anything else, just don't buy their games regardless of the platform and problem solved.
Nothing else will work, the wallet always speaks louder.
Are you referring to this
https://steamcommunity.com/app/208480/discussions/0/3413181407716900859/
I encourage you to look into Ubisoft's delisting on your own time, but here's somewhere to start
https://www.ubisoft.com/en-gb/help/gameplay/article/decommissioning-of-online-services-september-2022/000102396
It's impossible to go back in time and not buy games that Ubisoft has now rendered inoperable due to their laziness and greed.
Bingo. They sold single player content, they're responsible for unlocking the DRM for people who have paid them for it. They may have zero legal obligation to do so, but any reasonable person must agree they are morally obligated to unlock access to people who have already paid them for it.
Beyond that, Valve absolutely has the power to forbid this sort of abuse. They may have been unable to foresee a circumstance like this 10+ years ago, but scummy situations like this underscore the need for Valve to revise the steamworks/publisher ToS to forbid this nonsense. Multiplayer servers sunsetting is an inevitability. Single player content removal is the result of negligence, apathy, and greed.
Something tells me they worded it poorly.
I'm pretty sure they mean you won't be able to purchase/install and thus access it that way.
I seriously doubt they intend on removing access to those that have already purchased it.
Time will tell though.
That isn't the point. If the company, is doing business practices that you do not agree with, then you don't buy anymore products from them. That is how you, as a customer, can best voice your displeasure. The only way a company will ever make a change, is if enough people stop buying their products until consumers are happier with either the product or the company itself.
Instead focus on buying games from companies you do like, support them instead.
Incorrect. Already confirmed. Directly in the link provided.
You responded to my post. You don't get to ignore my point, pivot to a new one, and pretend you're meaningfully contributing to the conversation. That's derailing, by definition.
False. Valve has the power to remedy this and prevent future abuses to an infinitely greater extent than one person not buying products. I have posted about it in the exact place intended for suggestions to be sent to Valve. You not liking my thoughts on Ubisoft being a dumpster fire doesn't negate them in any way. Read this next part very carefully, please:
Your posts are dangerously close to directly condoning Ubisoft's garbage behavior.
I got my quote from the link provided, hence why I'm going with that they most likely worded it poorly. When the time comes, I'll either be proven right by people who already purchased the DLC still having access or I'll be proven wrong by the access of those who purchased it is revoked as well. Either way, there is no way to know until it actually happens.
I indeed responded to your post, and your post in reply to mine was this.
So I was telling you the point of my reply. You don't have to agree with my actual point, thats all fine. Also the entire conversation here is about Ubisoft and your distaste for their current actions which is quite fair. As I too, dislike the thought of a company removing access to something I paid for. Regardless, I've been on topic, though if you feel I'm derailing you can report me.
Again I'll have to disagree with you there. Ubisoft has their own store, and all of their games/products are listed there. Valve not allowing them to put their games on steam isn't going to change anything, it just means anyone who wants to buy their games can and will go to the Ubisoft store instead which just means they get the full amount as Valve simply won't get their 30% cut for being on their store.
So to repeat my advice, the only real way to get change here is for consumers to speak with their wallets, as that is what truly hits them where it hurts.
Telling you how a company will actually listen to its consumers, is not condoning Ubisofts behavior. How you got to that conclusion is beyond me.
Again, you came into a thread about malfeasance on the part of a publisher on this storefront and suggested that people not buy games. That's so flagrantly unhelpful any reasonable person would come to that conclusion. More bizarrely, you did so in the exact place Valve has set up to field my feedback and concerns. You should consider that this thread isn't suited to the conversation you would prefer to be having.
If Ubisoft want to double down on garbage behavior like this, that's their prerogative. But Valve has no obligation to give them a platform to abuse Steam's customers.
All game developers have a right to end service, it happens for whatever reason they want to end it. If you don't like that then don't buy games, you can still play single player just not online. Which is common or if it a online only game they can shut it down because they don't want to continue it it up to the developers.
You can still play the game, no developer can be forced to refund you for it as it their right to do this.
Valve can't do anything unless they pay the developers for refunding you as it takes money away from them I think.
Create a support ticket and ask them what they can do but they might just tell you to contact the developers, it up to the developers to refund you or not for a dlc.
There is not harm in asking the developers but as for the op suggestion though they shouldn't remove games just because your upset. As others still play the games and a dlc doesn't render the game in effective as you can still launch and play the game.
Or ask the developers on Twitter but Ubisoft been doing this for a long time so it nothing new. As far as I'm aware they the only company who does this but there nothing you can do if the dlc was for online only but you would have to ask the developers and then get their answer then ask valve or ask valve then they tell you to ask developers first before they do anything.
That depends on the applicable legal framework.
I can tell you; in for instance the EU they have no such legal right by law.
A consumer contract for the purchase of goods; services; or digital content, that was at closing of the contract described as for indeterminate time can under law only be terminated if there are serious grounds for doing so or in cases of duress, like the company bankrupting; service no longer being possible due to circumstances they have no control over; etc.
What game developers and publishers actually try to do, is use end user license agreements; terms of service; and other forms of ancillary contract to contractually permit themselves to (partially) terminate service and retain sums paid for services left unrendered.
I can also tell you that terms in contract which has the object or effect thereof, are black-listed by the EU. They are deemed unfair terms which member states must treat as non-binding on consumers
Directive 93/13/EEC[eur-lex.europa.eu] lists this type of term explicitly in its annex as:
I.e. even if Ubisoft wanted to dissolve the contract to get out from under it, they couldn't - not without paying consumers back; or without following the legal standard of mutual approval from both parties.
And if they do not or cannot dissolve the contract, they would have to rely on the service remaining in conformance with the contract to avoid problems.
This is where, for the case of the EU at least, another thing comes up:
It is a common and expected aspect or characteristic of games as a product, that multiplayer components will eventually be sunset. Therefore, multiplayer actually being shut down does not constitute non-conformance. You were reasonably expected to have known that this would be the case when closing the contract, i.e. when making your purchase.
But what is not a common and expected aspect is that bought add-on DLC content is sunset and taken away from consumers. That actually does constitute non-conformance.
How could it not have constituted non-conformance?
If the fact that the DLC was subject to being sunset at a future date, would have been clearly communicated to consumers prior to purchase. Which is not something Ubisoft did. They only added a notice to the storefront pages two months in advance of the shut down.
Apparently the console versions will retain access to the DLC in existing saves, but PC players are being scammed/robbed.