Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Something About Valve....

Last response: in Video Games
Share
February 2, 2005 5:39:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

There is something about Valve that set it apart from other developers.

They are the first games developer/publisher.

The way they work, the anti-piracy scheme they established, the mass
users control they uphold and the discipline they maintain.

For the firts time ever, anti-piracy measure really strikes a big lethal
hit to potential pirates.

For the first time ever in history of gaming, users have to stop and
don't take things for granted anymore and show respect or attention to
the developers: "The game you bought with your money is not your
property, it's still ours and you are just granted a privilege to use
it, so be careful with that privilege, respect it and don't think that
whatever wrongdoings (cheat in multiplayer for example) you do with it
won't go unnoticed or unpunished".

Users so far get spoilt and get used to the sofar false comforting zone
:"if I bought the game, putting into the cd rom drive, installing it,
then I can do whatever with it, I can run it whenever I like, I can
un-install it any time if I get bored with it, and resell it if I am
done with it. It's all is a private matter between me and the game I
bought legitimately."

In some extent, users can still do all of these things, but the
umbilical cord tied to their games, the communication link, the
monitoring and reporting tool, the enforcement instrument, the ever
present watching STEAM now makes it harder and help them to realise that
playing Valve games is not only a right they can buy with their meager
$50, but a privilege and they have to treasure that privilege as it can
be taken away from them any time.

Sofar, after users bought the game from the store and go home , the link
or relationship between them and the game developers could be considered
stopped, ended , finished. If a game user is not interested, he never
has to rely on the developers or publishers to be able to play the
games. He don't have to update his awareness towards the said developers
for further instructions and nurturing. But now more closer than ever
before, the personal relationship between game player and developers has
been established, intimate and that compulsory relationship demands
total respect from users....

Valve is the first developer to change gamers' mentality and get them
out of the false comfort zone that they enjoy "illegitimately" (?) so
far.

Besides nurturing and rewardings (update game content), users need
discipline (ban) and monitoring (depending on server to play), left to
their own devices, users tend to stray from the good paths and become
naughty. Therefore discipline is good for users. They don't deserve the
"benefit of the doubt" the other game developers gave them so far.

More about : valve

Anonymous
February 2, 2005 5:39:33 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

"Daniel" <daniel@dontbother.com> wrote in message
news:42004B74.E4D20616@dontbother.com...
> For the first time ever in history of gaming, users have to stop and
> don't take things for granted anymore and show respect or attention to
> the developers: "The game you bought with your money is not your
> property, it's still ours and you are just granted a privilege to use
> it, so be careful with that privilege, respect it and don't think that
> whatever wrongdoings (cheat in multiplayer for example) you do with it
> won't go unnoticed or unpunished".

Huh? The games people buy with their money is never, ever their property;
you are buying a LICENSE to use said game, but it still belongs to the
developer/published. Didn't this ever occur to you? Valve are simply making
this fact clearer with Steam.
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 5:39:33 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

"Daniel" <daniel@dontbother.com> wrote in message
news:42004B74.E4D20616@dontbother.com...
>
> For the firts time ever, anti-piracy measure really strikes a big lethal
> hit to potential pirates.
>

Only to people dumb enough to not use BitTorrent/Edonkey and download the
vengeance release. I did buy this game, but I have to laugh at these people
who think Steam has ended piracy. They'll usually point to the articles of
"Valve bans 20,000 steam accounts", all the while ignoring the fact these
are only the morons who decided to use a leaked serial key and then connect
*directly* to Steam. The other releases bypass Steam entirely. I've heard
one of them even works on cracked multiplayer servers.
Related resources
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 5:39:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

> Huh? The games people buy with their money is never, ever their
property;
> you are buying a LICENSE to use said game, but it still belongs to
the
> developer/published. Didn't this ever occur to you? Valve are simply
making
> this fact clearer with Steam.

But the licence has been transferable in the past. This is not the case
with HL2 because it is tied irrevocably to your Steam account.

At least, in parctice it has been transferable, even if the EULA said
different. I don't have access to any of my games right now, so is
someone in a position to see what any of their EULAs say about selling
the game and transfering the licence? Assume that you completely
uninstall your copy and hand over all the discs, manuals, box etc and
pass it on in it's entirety.
February 2, 2005 5:39:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

Patrick Michael wrote:

> Only to people dumb enough to not use BitTorrent/Edonkey and download
> the vengeance release. I did buy this game, but I have to laugh at
> these people who think Steam has ended piracy. They'll usually point to
> the articles of "Valve bans 20,000 steam accounts", all the while
> ignoring the fact these are only the morons who decided to use a leaked
> serial key and then connect *directly* to Steam. The other releases
> bypass Steam entirely. I've heard one of them even works on cracked
> multiplayer servers.

Debatable, since dumbness can be debated for using P2P...

Correct though, that the game was pirated, although not quite as quickly as
most. I suppose I am lucky that I still play Q3 online and couldn't care less
about STEAM.

I think they may turn off more users than they gain by employing stricter
anti-piracy measures. TurboTAX went to activation one year, and quickly
removed it. Probably due to negative feedback from PAYING customers.
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 5:39:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

"GFree" <nickt4001@yahoo.com.au> schrieb:

[..]
> Huh? The games people buy with their money is never, ever their property;
> you are buying a LICENSE to use said game, but it still belongs to the
> developer/published.[..]

Have you ever realised there are many different countries around the world?
And that those countries have laws different from the laws applying to you?

I give you some hints to think about:

Where I live, I can go and buy a game. I don't have to know or respect
that thing called EULA, because it has no meaning for me. With my purchase,
I _own_ the media (i.e. DVD) and I can do with it whatever I want (eat it,
sell it, throw it away, put George W. Bush photo on it and jump around
on it, etc. pp. - you get the clue). So please, open your mind and stop
thinking what belongs to you also must belong to all other people around
the world. Thank you.
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 5:39:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

Martin Seibert wrote:
> "GFree" <nickt4001@yahoo.com.au> schrieb:
>
> [..]
> > Huh? The games people buy with their money is never, ever their
property;
> > you are buying a LICENSE to use said game, but it still belongs to
the
> > developer/published.[..]
>
> Have you ever realised there are many different countries around the
world?
> And that those countries have laws different from the laws applying
to you?
>
> I give you some hints to think about:
>
> Where I live, I can go and buy a game. I don't have to know or
respect
> that thing called EULA, because it has no meaning for me. With my
purchase,
> I _own_ the media (i.e. DVD) and I can do with it whatever I want

Where are you, Austria? I'm pretty sure you're covered by EU
legislation and the EULA is enforceable.

In any case, you have not disagreed with the previous comment. You do
indeed own the media - which is the plastic DVD disc and its packaging.
You also own a license (the EULA) to install and use the game on a
single PC (usually). What you don't have any ownership of is the
software itself. You cannot dissassemble, alter etc the code and it
isn't yours to duplicate and pass on - for financial reward or
otherwise. You're allowed to make a backup for your own purposes but
that's it.
This is in essence exactly the same as buying a book, film, or music.
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 5:39:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

"sittingduck" <spam.to.sitting-duck@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95F110FEF3E95duckrulestheuniverse@news.easynews.com...
> Patrick Michael wrote:
>
> > Only to people dumb enough to not use BitTorrent/Edonkey and download
> > the vengeance release. I did buy this game, but I have to laugh at
> > these people who think Steam has ended piracy. They'll usually point to
> > the articles of "Valve bans 20,000 steam accounts", all the while
> > ignoring the fact these are only the morons who decided to use a leaked
> > serial key and then connect *directly* to Steam. The other releases
> > bypass Steam entirely. I've heard one of them even works on cracked
> > multiplayer servers.
>
> Debatable, since dumbness can be debated for using P2P...
>
> Correct though, that the game was pirated, although not quite as quickly
as
> most. I suppose I am lucky that I still play Q3 online and couldn't care
less
> about STEAM.
>
> I think they may turn off more users than they gain by employing stricter
> anti-piracy measures. TurboTAX went to activation one year, and quickly
> removed it. Probably due to negative feedback from PAYING customers.

TurboTAX had some serious issues with their activation scheme. If the scheme
failed or was revoked/expired at some point, you could never access your old
tax returns again. This caused major legal issues (suppose the IRS needs to
do a review on your old tax returns but you can not access them.... ouch).

I don't mind the Steam account that much but only for one thing: If Steam
(server) is down, people have trouble playing Steam's games (see many posts
on this forum). And, as you can see, you can still pirate those games. The
more complex and user unfriendly those schemes get, the more likely the game
will be pirated.
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 5:56:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

"Chadwick" <chadwick110@hotmail.com> schrieb:

[..]
> Where are you, Austria? I'm pretty sure you're covered by EU
> legislation and the EULA is enforceable.

Nope, it's not. Read the law. The purchase contract is only valid in terms
of 'rules' known at the time of the purchase. The EULA is invalid, because
it is not part of the purchase contract, therefor it's not enforcable.
Plain and simple.

> In any case, you have not disagreed with the previous comment. You do
> indeed own the media - which is the plastic DVD disc and its packaging.
> You also own a license (the EULA) to install and use the game on a
> single PC (usually). What you don't have any ownership of is the
> software itself.

Right. I don't onw the software, but with my ownership of the media, I
automatically (!) get _right to use_ the software on the media. That
means, I'm not buying a license, I am buying a media with automatically
gives me the right to use the software on it.

> You cannot dissassemble, alter etc the code and it
> isn't yours to duplicate and pass on - for financial reward or
> otherwise.

I AM allowed to reingeneer the code for my own personal usage (of course,
I'm not allowed to give this code away) if the software does not work and
I could make it work for me that way.

> You're allowed to make a backup for your own purposes but that's it.

And I'm allowed to do with the media whatever I want. And if I sell it,
I'm selling the media, the right to use the software automatically is
passed over the person who bought the media from me.

> This is in essence exactly the same as buying a book, film, or music.

Not really. It's allowed to backup and bypass copy protection for software,
not for audio CDs. Weird, but hey...
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 6:34:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

Anton Spaans wrote:
<snip>
>
> TurboTAX had some serious issues with their activation scheme. If the scheme
> failed or was revoked/expired at some point, you could never access your old
> tax returns again. This caused major legal issues (suppose the IRS needs to
> do a review on your old tax returns but you can not access them.... ouch).

Looks like TurboTax is trying to make amends and keep some customers
happy. :-)
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5557315.html?tag=adn...

--
Jethro[AGHL] aka Phat_Pinger
Reply Email: jeff (at) tibben (dot) ca
February 3, 2005 2:31:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

Interesting Article on The Inquirer:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=21002

sittingduck wrote:

> Patrick Michael wrote:
>
> > Only to people dumb enough to not use BitTorrent/Edonkey and download
> > the vengeance release. I did buy this game, but I have to laugh at
> > these people who think Steam has ended piracy. They'll usually point to
> > the articles of "Valve bans 20,000 steam accounts", all the while
> > ignoring the fact these are only the morons who decided to use a leaked
> > serial key and then connect *directly* to Steam. The other releases
> > bypass Steam entirely. I've heard one of them even works on cracked
> > multiplayer servers.
>
> Debatable, since dumbness can be debated for using P2P...
>
> Correct though, that the game was pirated, although not quite as quickly as
> most. I suppose I am lucky that I still play Q3 online and couldn't care less
> about STEAM.
>
> I think they may turn off more users than they gain by employing stricter
> anti-piracy measures. TurboTAX went to activation one year, and quickly
> removed it. Probably due to negative feedback from PAYING customers.
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 4:38:22 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

Martin Seibert wrote:
> Read the law. The purchase contract is only valid in terms
> of 'rules' known at the time of the purchase. The EULA is invalid,
because
> it is not part of the purchase contract, therefor it's not
enforcable.
> Plain and simple.
>
You've obviously got a better grasp of the legal technicalities than
me, and perhaps I'm not using the right words in a subject where the
precise definition of a term is critical.
But isn't the EULA directed at the "End USER", rather than the
PURCHASER, so it doesn't form part of the purchase contract, but is the
"conditions of use". Is there a difference in law between buying
something and using it?


> Right. I don't onw the software, but with my ownership of the media,
I
> automatically (!) get _right to use_ the software on the media. That
> means, I'm not buying a license, I am buying a media with
automatically
> gives me the right to use the software on it.

OK, I accept that my use of the terminlolgy may be wrong. By "license"
I did mean your general "right to use".


> I AM allowed to reingeneer the code for my own personal usage (of
course,
> I'm not allowed to give this code away) if the software does not work
and
> I could make it work for me that way.

Really? I thought most EULAs state that you can't reengineer etc the
code, with no qualification - just a blanket "no, you can't". If the
software doesn't work you have a consumer right to return it as "unfit
for purpose" or "broken", or something like that, but surely not to
rewrite the software?


> > You're allowed to make a backup for your own purposes but that's
it.
>
> And I'm allowed to do with the media whatever I want. And if I sell
it,
> I'm selling the media, the right to use the software automatically is
> passed over the person who bought the media from me.
>
.... provided they also agree to the "terms of use" in the EULA. If not
then they just own the medium and can also pass it on.

This is where HL2 is different because the EULA removes the right to
sell the medium, but surely that cannot be enforceable because the
purchaser would not have been aware of that at the time of purchase. By
linking the cd-key to your Steam Account, Valve have made the medium
almost impossible to resell anyway, thereby enforcing a clause which
apparently would not be supported under law. Does this mean Valve are
acting illegally?
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 4:42:36 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

Those rules only apply to users with actual Steam accounts. Most of which
were created from paying individuals. So, while legitimate users are
strapped down with red tape, pirates are getting a free ride without needing
to login to Steam, without needing to play online and without needing to
have Steam eating up memory in the background.


"Daniel" <daniel@dontbother.com> wrote in message
news:42004B74.E4D20616@dontbother.com...
> There is something about Valve that set it apart from other developers.
>
> They are the first games developer/publisher.
>
> The way they work, the anti-piracy scheme they established, the mass
> users control they uphold and the discipline they maintain.
>
> For the firts time ever, anti-piracy measure really strikes a big lethal
> hit to potential pirates.
>
> For the first time ever in history of gaming, users have to stop and
> don't take things for granted anymore and show respect or attention to
> the developers: "The game you bought with your money is not your
> property, it's still ours and you are just granted a privilege to use
> it, so be careful with that privilege, respect it and don't think that
> whatever wrongdoings (cheat in multiplayer for example) you do with it
> won't go unnoticed or unpunished".
>
> Users so far get spoilt and get used to the sofar false comforting zone
> :"if I bought the game, putting into the cd rom drive, installing it,
> then I can do whatever with it, I can run it whenever I like, I can
> un-install it any time if I get bored with it, and resell it if I am
> done with it. It's all is a private matter between me and the game I
> bought legitimately."
>
> In some extent, users can still do all of these things, but the
> umbilical cord tied to their games, the communication link, the
> monitoring and reporting tool, the enforcement instrument, the ever
> present watching STEAM now makes it harder and help them to realise that
> playing Valve games is not only a right they can buy with their meager
> $50, but a privilege and they have to treasure that privilege as it can
> be taken away from them any time.
>
> Sofar, after users bought the game from the store and go home , the link
> or relationship between them and the game developers could be considered
> stopped, ended , finished. If a game user is not interested, he never
> has to rely on the developers or publishers to be able to play the
> games. He don't have to update his awareness towards the said developers
> for further instructions and nurturing. But now more closer than ever
> before, the personal relationship between game player and developers has
> been established, intimate and that compulsory relationship demands
> total respect from users....
>
> Valve is the first developer to change gamers' mentality and get them
> out of the false comfort zone that they enjoy "illegitimately" (?) so
> far.
>
> Besides nurturing and rewardings (update game content), users need
> discipline (ban) and monitoring (depending on server to play), left to
> their own devices, users tend to stray from the good paths and become
> naughty. Therefore discipline is good for users. They don't deserve the
> "benefit of the doubt" the other game developers gave them so far.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 3:58:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life (More info?)

"Martin Seibert" <realsyntech@gmx.at> wrote in message news:<36gn9eF51i2ogU1@individual.net>...

> It's soooo simple: when you buy something in a store (online is a different
> story) ONLY the 'product terms' KNOWN at the time of the purchase are
> valid. Everything that comes to your knowledge AFTER the purchase is not
> valid (like a piece of paper in the box, the EULA during installation,
> etc.) As a customer: if you CAN say, "I did not know, it was not mentioned"
> it is not valid. And so it is with all contracts. Very simple - and FAIR.

I've done a bit of background reading and it's not quite so clear.
There haven't been many test cases in court, but where there have, the
court considers each case on its own merits. Consequently, there is
no straight answer to the question of the enforceability of a EULA.

Muddying the water is the fact that the consumer should reasonably
expect an EULA with software, and also reasonably expect that it will
contain certain clauses (eg. you don't own the product, no warranty,
no copying and distribution, no reverse-engineering). As the consumer
should expect these clauses to apply, some courts have considered that
the purchase was made in the knowledge of their existence, and that
they are therefore enforceable.

Equally, if the box says "Conditions apply" on the ourside, then some
courts have judged that the purchaser was made sufficiently aware of
the presence of the EULA and that is therefore enforeceable even
though the exact clauses were not known. The purchaser was aware of
the presence of the conditions and should have returned the product if
he did not agree to the EULA terms.

Of course, a lot of stores won't accept a return if the shrinkwrap is
broken - hence the problem.

One further issue - apparently German law doesn't recognise a
"license" in this way. Not too sure of the details, but it might
explain your opinion of EULAs.

So, it looks like there is no good answer to this one. The jury is,
quite literally, out.
!