Установить Steam
войти
|
язык
简体中文 (упрощенный китайский)
繁體中文 (традиционный китайский)
日本語 (японский)
한국어 (корейский)
ไทย (тайский)
Български (болгарский)
Čeština (чешский)
Dansk (датский)
Deutsch (немецкий)
English (английский)
Español - España (испанский)
Español - Latinoamérica (латиноам. испанский)
Ελληνικά (греческий)
Français (французский)
Italiano (итальянский)
Bahasa Indonesia (индонезийский)
Magyar (венгерский)
Nederlands (нидерландский)
Norsk (норвежский)
Polski (польский)
Português (португальский)
Português-Brasil (бразильский португальский)
Română (румынский)
Suomi (финский)
Svenska (шведский)
Türkçe (турецкий)
Tiếng Việt (вьетнамский)
Українська (украинский)
Сообщить о проблеме с переводом
Правила обсуждений
Пожаловаться
At the bottom of every store page is the following. They are listing it on the page you are saying they don't provide it on. You not reviewing the link to the subscriber agreement when choosing to make a purchase is on you.
It is labeled below reviews about the game which can endlessly load up when scrolling.
Not legally bindable here.
If you want to make someone agree to something, they have to be made completely aware during every contract and every transaction what it means in plane text and it may not delay the transaction process. (It cannot be shoved in front of you after you hit buy, because that would result in pressure.)
It has to be there before you hit the buy button, before it is in your basket
it has to be on the store page in plain text.
Yes, a more information button is allowed, but there is not even a summary.
Legally seen, You don't buy 'just' a license here due to this.
and court would disagree even if that was clear on the buy page anyway (see the european law).
edit to note: (I"m talking about how it is where I live basically.)
edit (1h later): Also note, I am not disagreeing with Valve or something nor trying to find excuses or whatever. I just wanted to point out how the law works over here, that is it. I agreed to behave in a certain way, though my imagination of that way maybe different from Valve's intention when they asked about it in the SSA, and so far we have found no problems with eachother, so that is all that matter imo.
What matters is behavior, not words. What is real, not imagination or promised. Valve doesn't take products away from me and I can access them whenever thanks to Valve's services (that lets me download them from their CDN).
to me that matters, not how solid or not legally solid their SSA is or how well their store pages are designed (legally at least).
This is a check-box that you have to check when checking out regardless of payment method.
https://imgur.com/a/r7tFhxH
Regarding EU/UK/Canada you are exempt from section 11 and 7 which is outlined in the SSA. You're not exempted from section 2A regarding content and service licensing, nor section 2F regarding Ownership of content and services which more clearly and explicitly reserves the right of ownership to Valve and its affiliates (e.g. publishers).
You do have a separate section regarding right of withdrawal and refunds which just alters the terms of their refund policies if you want to file it via their form. That doesn't apply to licenses you've already purchased which you've launched and then acknowledged the expressed loss of the right of withdrawal.
https://help.steampowered.com/en/faqs/view/369C-3E9F-76FD-DEDA
And the terms are subject to change at any time for any reason without notice.
I guess I forgot about that somehow. I do recall receiving a popup when making a purchase during checkout / payment.
In case you're interested:
The law we have over here is based on the EU law.
https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/contract-information/index_en.htm
(this page summarizes it, but the actual terms are in a link at the bottom - EU Directive basically)
But, anyway like I said, I don't really care on how Valve does things myself or how well they match how things would be optimal over here.
If you take the EU literally, there should be a short, consistent summary of your own expectations with a product. Google actually tries this, but hasn't found a good optimal way to do it either.
Taking a second look at that screenshot:
They can explain in a simple way what technology they use to secure the connection when you purchase, but they can't easily explain what exactly you're paying for.
The top part just shows the game as well, rather than a license and its limited terms ... kinda odd that they decided not to do that basically.
meh-
Also I completely assume that it being a license that you buy is one of the 'main characteristics' of the product you purchase, if-- it is a license you pay for.
Also... that "not sold" is completely broken as well when they use words like 'Purchase' and "buy" on the store itself. meh number 2.
idc I guess. xd
Edit
Here is what that line actually is supposed to refer to (I think).
https://paulrrogers.com/2014/07/why-is-software-licensed-and-not-sold/
by the way, quite literally anything can be sold with the EULA 'licensed, not sold' agreement thing, including cars, so companies started experimenting with it.
more and more the right to own anything (any copy of anything) is taken away from people.
and it causes problems obviously.
for one, it means that the consumer cannot fix products they essentially control and/or interact with, even if it is nessecary to do so for them, and need to wait on the product provider.
Another issue is that the product provider can at any time change these agreements and take the product away, which isn't what this line is intended for.
Its intended to protect the producer's income, but that power can be abused.
In essence this creates inequal / unfair terms, where the consumer is the one most strained. (just naming examples)
Considering Valve is a US based company, EU customers basically can't do much anyway; but Valve has been showing interest in obeying EU law and even local laws here and there.
That's what your disagreement is about imho.
Wow, right to idiotic... I'm sure your opinion is valid in its entirety... can't argue with that logic...
HAHAHAHAHA!!!!
There was a case that... caused bees to lawfully/legally be classified as fish.
I think everyone knows that bees aren't fish.
There is more weirdness like that going on with this system.
but I can see when people refuse to see bees as insects rather than fish, how they would also see "Oh no, that never happened." and are capable of gaslighting everything and everyone into believing they never bought anything despite hitting purchase and buy buttons.
and despite all the advertisement pages say "your (software)", etc.
but, I also noticed that ownership works differently in the US, as in, you're a lot more 'free' to do things when you're owner of something than over here. (being an owner bypasses copyright in the us apparently)
So for example, if someone 'sells' you a car, you could take it apart and are allowed to copy techniques used in its assembly for your own cars.
(that said, even under lisense of renting this happens apparently, but it is suddenly less legal to do so)
over here, where I live it would be illegal since those techniques still belong to the company that assembled it, etc.
summarized: We have more limited ownership, but... there are things that the eulas attempt to take away on that level beyond the limits we have by default, some of which are a heavy risk since they could be abused by a company providing the ... I'm not sure what it is under common law. over here it would still be products. xd
One other thing is that part of it is anti-consumer. As in, games should be a hobby you can do with your friends.
One of these things is that they could try to take that away, much like how netflix really wants everyone on their own account (but also doesn't want reputation damage).
It isolates people, because sharing becomes something you cannot do by default at least. (and that is one of the things the EU law would protect, as well as resale (under specific circumstances obviously) )
It's a theft to take away purchased software by technically leaving a lock (DRM-check) on it while removing the key (server OK response) at a random point after the "support discontinuition" just because you don't want to give in to a scam made by Microsoft.
We need a lock without external key (like when you run Steam offline) or with a permanent guaranteed key, otherwise I want my money back for those 1000 games.
Let's amplify our interest with the gog website serving as many of the games we own on Steam to us afterwards as possible, as long as Steam doesn't respond.
The publischer had until today Windows 7 support on their selling page for the the game I checked and probably on all others.
As I beta test a new game there, I con confirm that it will run on Windows 7 as well without problemes.
They declined... But I guess they may discuss this further. Because the guy who answered very likely has no authority to decide this in any direction.
Ok karen, go sue them. Good luck losing a ton of money which you could have instead used to buy a new PC. Lol.
Why would they do that? There is no economic benefit in doing so. People STILL on windows 7/8 after almost a decade are probably viewed as an economic write off.
Nothing worse then a male "Karen"