Locked out of Steam/Civ V because of PayPal security

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lose a full-time job and trust me, you'll have some extremely costly catching up to do.
Divorce is a monthly fee, too. And kids, well... they want stuff.
Well, the secret is to not spend more than you earn. America's consumer culture leads to debt that results in these problems. We need to learn that debt is BAD.

Not true. Everybody takes a haircut in a 13, including secured creditors (who lose out on interest). The reason the credit card companies wanted to change the law was that in a 7 they got nothing, and something beats nothing any day of the week.
I'm pretty sure I remember something about a law being passed recently (within the past couple years) that required people to pay credit card debt even after filing for bankruptcy.
 
Listen too, forty2j --

Banks want money from us.
And life has a knack for bad lucks such as not being able to meet a credit-card-payment to escape their definition of control over the net price of every consumables you could exemplify.
There comes a day where your family budget goes out of whack for reasons beyond your liberty to spend.
And 9% is a greater number than 8% if doubled by compound interests, i should know i have a University Degree in Finance which i PAID for in 84, btw.
And two daughters & a wife that shared the path.
Realize this; i lived under different economic conditions than there is today.
While this PC (right in front of my Eyes) isn't the first i invested in.

The guy's been screwed.
He claims Steam or PayPal were responsible.
Everyone jumped all over the opportunity to share some thoughts, i added my experience with such issues beyond the simplistic Consuming facts.
And quite frankly, peanuts to me.
 
This is merely an example of the larger trend of the lower/middle classes becoming slaves to the wealthy/corporate elite. Unfortunately the wealthy elite is very good at using rhetoric to blind the public to what is really going on (a good example of this is the recent debate of public unions - the wealthy elite is branding the relative increase in public wages as greedy public servants so people won't notice that private wages have been frozen for over 40 years).

This.

And finally there's an example here, about which no one before wanted to think about, and which the "defenders" always tried to let them appear as negligible.
Self chosen dependencies...they are always bad, no matter what arguments you can bring as defense.
 
And life has a knack for bad lucks such as not being able to meet a credit-card-payment to escape their definition of control over the net price of every consumables you could exemplify.

This is the statement that is controversial. The counterargument is that there was a series of choices that led up to that point, and if you'd made better choices at a few key points along the way you wouldn't have ended up in that situation. You're not going to settle that question by arguing about it. The difference in opinion is axiomatic, as we can't test whether or not different choices would have led to a different outcome.

Regardless of your views, that has nothing to do with the OP's topic. The question on the table is whether or not Valve's action against the OP is legitimate.

Self chosen dependencies...they are always bad, no matter what arguments you can bring as defense.

Short of bloodshed, I don't see what can be done about the situation generally. Voters are a disorganized mess of preferences; interests are not.
 
Seems to me that the problem here is that Steam has frozen the account rather than just disabling the game.

The net effect is no different than if you paid Amazon for a game, it shipped to you, you told the credit card company not to honor the charge, and in response Amazon sent a raiding team to your house to confiscate every Amazon purchase you'd ever made.

It's legitimate to question why Steam can legally take the action they did, but Amazon is prohibited from doing the same. Especially since a just remedy (disable the game, not the account) should be technologically feasible.

Well, for one, disabling an account and forced entry are two very, very different things. If you get banned from the CFC forums, it's not the same thing as cutting out your tongue. Poor analogy aside, that EULA you signed?

The EULA You Signed said:
13. TERM AND TERMINATION / C. Termination by Valve:
2. In the case of a one-time purchase of a product license (e.g., purchase of a single game) from Valve, Valve may choose to terminate or cancel your Subscription in its entirety or may terminate or cancel only a portion of the Subscription (e.g., access to the software via Steam) and Valve may, but is not obligated to, provide access (for a limited period of time) to the download of a stand-alone version of the software and content associated with such one-time purchase.

14. APPLICABLE LAW JURISDICTION
You agree that this Agreement shall be deemed to have been made and executed in the State of Washington, and any dispute arising hereunder shall be resolved in accordance with the law of Washington. You agree that any claim asserted in any legal proceeding by you against Valve shall be commenced and maintained exclusively in any state or federal court located in King County, Washington, having subject matter jurisdiction with respect to the dispute between the parties and you hereby consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of such courts. In any dispute arising under this Agreement, the prevailing party will be entitled to attorneys' fees and expenses.
-- http://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/

You signed a contract allowing them to do this.
 
Poor analogy aside, that EULA you signed? You signed a contract allowing them to do this.

You seem to have missed the point of the analogy, which is that Valve has confiscated merchandise unrelated to the transaction in question. The fact that no forced entry is necessary is the entire reason that Valve can take the action in question while Amazon cannot. Yet the outcome is identical.

Claiming that Valve can take the action due to a signed contract is a ridiculous oversimplification of contract law. Functionally, they can take the action because they have the power and it would take significant, infeasible expense to fight the action legally. Notice that item 14 is deliberately designed to increase expenses for you and decrease expenses for them.
 
I would like to introduce you to the concept of "Cause and Effect."

"PayPal put a hold on the $12.48 payment for some reason, and Steam locked my account under the classification of fraud."

PayPal's error, being an alleged arbitrary hold on funds, led to Steam handing a game to a customer- and then never getting paid for it. Steam not getting paid led to Steam withholding their services. I would also like to know what PayPal's justification for freezing an account "for some reason", if not an implied accusation of fraud. If you think that a pseudo-banking organization is justified in arbitrary withholding of your money, I don't understand how you can then say that a DRM organization is wrong for assuming that you owning a game without paying for it is theft.

The point remains: Don't use PayPal with Steam. If PayPal arbitrarily decides not to pay for purchases, and you know that Steam will react this way- and there is an alternative... use PayPal? No. Use your debit card. PayPal is notorious for this kind of action, and honestly, has a worse reputation that Steam ever will. Granted, if Steam thinks you are screwing them... they will eff you hard. However, PayPal has a history of just screwing you- regardless of what you did.

Make a purchase? Just kidding! Withholding funds.
Hold some money? Just kidding! Empty your bank account.
Transfer funds? Just kidding! Thanks for the cash.

However, the reason that Steam will close your account is that... it's not your account. It's Steams account- and they can close it whenever they want. As a DRM company, if they can't confirm that there is only 1 copy of the game out there... they will consider your copy forfeit. Most games EULA's as well as Steam's EULA are written this way. If you violate the terms of the contract, the company's obligation to you is nullified. Yes, it is a misunderstanding in this case- and Valve has atrocious customer service... but these are all very, very well known issues. The cause of this dilemma is PayPal just cancelling transactions because it's Friday. Or the moon is out. Or your socks are white.

I will admit (and have admitted), Steam needs to make these kinds of issues easier to resolve- but it's not their fault that PayPal is an unreliable, garbage system that is marginally better than handing your credit card information out on one of the various "chan" forums.

Thanks for the patronizing first line Esem. Really helps start us off on the right foot. Now let me do unto you in turn and introduce to you the concept of "irony."

Your post basically breaks down into two things. First, several paragraphs of "Paypal sucks - don't use it with Steam!" Second, "Did you read Steam's EULA? They're well within their rights!" Now for that concept of irony? I never disagreed with either of those points, and I'm trying to figure out why you spent so much time responding.

See, first off all you say that you don't understand how I don't believe Steam could consider that theft. Reread my post - I fully realize why they did freeze his account, and I make that clear. Then you go on to say "Don't use paypal!" - well, I openly admit that paypal can be problematic and I've never suggested the guy should keep on using it. Though, I would say, since you're acting like EULA's are justification for bad customer treatment, you should read the Paypal agreement - what they did was 100% within their rights according to their EULA. Since you seem to be in the business of defending poor customer treatment due to EULA claims, perhaps you'd like to give a stirring defense of paypal in your next post?... The OP can use paypal if he wants - but expect there to be the odd hiccup like this. Oh, and just for the record, your whole "just kidding" thing are *extremely* rare type cases and, in THIS case, Paypal solved the issue quickly while Steam won't even give the guy a chance to solve it.

But, that gets me to the second part - this paragraph.

"However, the reason that Steam will close your account is that... it's not your account. It's Steams account- and they can close it whenever they want. As a DRM company, if they can't confirm that there is only 1 copy of the game out there... they will consider your copy forfeit. Most games EULA's as well as Steam's EULA are written this way. If you violate the terms of the contract, the company's obligation to you is nullified. Yes, it is a misunderstanding in this case- and Valve has atrocious customer service... but these are all very, very well known issues. The cause of this dilemma is PayPal just cancelling transactions because it's Friday. Or the moon is out. Or your socks are white."

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say. Are you agreeing with me? Because it sure sounds like it. Yes, their EULA strictly makes this possible. Is it HORRIBLE customer service to treat paying customers this way? Damned straight. I never suggested that they were beyond their rights to do this - I suggested that I was shocked many people thought it was OK for them to take the fellow's account (and yes, I realize it's ultimately their account, but from a non-strict ownership point, it's his account that he has payed for access to and he uses). Specifically, that they'd close it without giving him a chance to exonerate himself.

The cause of this dilemma is paypal stopping the payment for whatever reason - thanks for your lesson in cause and effect. That's not my concern though. If my dog pees on the carpet and my wife shoots the dog in response, I'm not concerned with the dog peeing on the carpet any more even though cause and effect pretty clearly shows the mess on the carpet if the root cause of the string of events. That's a gross overreaction and an unfair response. Maybe she's legally allowed to do that - in some countries, that swings. Does that mean I say "Oh, she's within her rights - I'll let it slide." No, I take the gun away and probably find a new wife before I spill my tea or some such. In this case, Paypal messed up and fixed it fast. Steam's reaction, while within their rights, is hugely unfair to this fellow - they have the power to let him prove his innocence and get his account back, but they just seem unwilling to do it. This is my concern. I'll hearken back to my example of Blizzard. Their EULA for WoW has a lot in common with Steam's, and they gave me a chance to get a similar issue squared away by faxing them documents proving I was the account owner. Seems only reasonable, even though strictly speaking they didn't have to. Valve deserves some heat if they are not willing to do the same, because even though someone peed on the rug, they're going way overboard in putting the gun to his account without giving him a chance to clean it up. He's willing, why isn't Steam? And why are we (not you specifically, but many in this forum) trying so hard to downplay that Steam isn't willing?

As for your lesson in irony? You tell me that Paypal is problematic, which I agree with. You say that Steam was in its rights to take away his account and has horrible customer service, which I know. The irony is, you all but agree with me in your post, you just don't choose to take that last step of saying "Why the heck isn't Steam letting this guy prove he's innocent?"

Overall, I don't really know why you posted. You're mainly pointing out things I already touched upon in the post you responded to.
 
You seem to have missed the point of the analogy, which is that Valve has confiscated merchandise unrelated to the transaction in question. The fact that no forced entry is necessary is the entire reason that Valve can take the action in question while Amazon cannot. Yet the outcome is identical.

Claiming that Valve can take the action due to a signed contract is a ridiculous oversimplification of contract law. Functionally, they can take the action because they have the power and it would take significant, infeasible expense to fight the action legally. Notice that line 14 is deliberately designed to increase expenses for you and decrease expenses for them.
The outcome is not identical. In one, your privacy was invaded and Amazon violated illegal entry into a residence in order to repossess items that did not belong to them. Steam is repossessing an account and (in essence) suspending the licenses to use any software attached to the account until the game has been paid for.

Reason? Because converting a Steam purchase to a Non-Steam purchase is really... really easy. If you download the DLC, copy it out of your folder, then cancel the subscription- if Steam then disables that DLC, what is to stop you from just copying it back into a folder and disabling automatic updates? Or copying it over a non-steam version of the game? I'll tell you: Nothing but technical expertise stands in your way. Steam is aggressive, because it needs to be.

Generally speaking, consumers are dishonest, greedy bastards who will steal anything if given the chance. If this wasn't true, physical stores wouldn't have cameras, security guards or those things at the door that ring if you walk out with a stolen item. People won't steal from other people because that might make that person's life harder- but people can't assign that same reasoning to the store. Contrary to what our mothers tell us- we are not special. The company will treat everyone like the baseline. If you have never stolen from a grocery store, there isn't a section with no cameras you get to shop in- everyone gets the same treatment.

Valve can take the action because it's Valve's account. You don't have any rights to the account, because you haven't paid for it. If CFC disables your account, you can't sue them- same deal. Just because there are games tied to the account doesn't mean much; if Steam believes you to be doing something illegal (Section 5, Paragraph 2) they can terminate your account without notice. Is it really a surprise that a company whose primary obligation is to prevent unlicensed copies of a software from floating around, while ensuring that the vendor gets paid, will make theft and piracy risky?

Line 14 isn't anything unique. As an online organization, they are stating that agreeing to the EULA is like coming down to their offices and signing the contract. They aren't going to come to your house and have you sign. They then state that if you do take Valve to court and lose, you will reimburse Valve for the court costs. If you win, Valve will reimburse you. This is all pretty standard stuff.
 

Yeah, after a frustrating 18hr work day, immediately following 4hrs of sleep, I TL;DR'd your post after the first few lines. I saw that we had similar points of view, but didn't really care after I had written the response; especially since I still interpret your post to place the majority of the blame on Steam- where PayPal is the root cause of the issue.
 
The difference in opinion is axiomatic, as we can't test whether or not different choices would have led to a different outcome...
Agreed!
It all sums up to - behavior of a re-seller-distribution-device that cuts its fair share of a big pie while losing the most basic principle of "sales" transaction; respect.
 
Fair enough Esem. Paypal is the root of the issue, but as the wife shooting dog analogy was meant to illustrate, the root of the issue isn't where I feel the attention should lie. Paypal is a commonly used service, and even banks and credit cards can and do freeze payments for a variety of reasons just like paypal can. When this happens - and Steam WILL run into this again - even though they are within their rights, should Steam's reaction be to shut down the account claiming fraud without giving the user a chance to exonerate themselves? They can, but I'm just amazed someone would defend it. There are avenues to follow that would allow a mutually agreeable resolution, and it's an utter travesty of customer support that they don't keep those avenues open for users.

Not denying that paypal is problematic, but seriously, why give Steam a free pass on this? Frozen payments happen. This type of resolution - or lack thereof - is pretty damned unacceptable and not worthy of defense. Other companies do it much better, Steam really should step up.
 
Generally speaking, consumers are dishonest, greedy bastards who will steal anything if given the chance.

Proof? I vehemently disagree. Companies, on the other hand...

@AfterShafter: I think the reason people defend it so much is that they assume legal rights = moral rights. They are very different, in fact. While Valve was within their legal rights, IMO they went WAY beyond their moral rights.
 
The outcome is not identical. In one, your privacy was invaded and Amazon violated illegal entry into a residence in order to repossess items that did not belong to them. Steam is repossessing an account and (in essence) suspending the licenses to use any software attached to the account until the game has been paid for.

The outcome is that stuff you legitimately paid for has been confiscated. Again, the difference in means (and thus the relative shift in power balance) is what enables Steam's move and disables Amazon's.

Look, if you went and rented a TV from Rent-A-Center and didn't pay for it, they can come get the TV. But they can't take your PC while they're at it on the pretext of covering the value of the unpaid charges. Valve's doing that here.

Valve can take the action because it's Valve's account. You don't have any rights to the account, because you haven't paid for it.

This is where things get a little complicated. If Valve inflicts economic harm by denying access to the account, there are a lot of potential avenues of attack. The precise details will vary with Washington state law, which I certainly don't know well enough to comment on intelligently. But there are almost certainly consumer protection statutes that apply, as in the 2002 PayPal case.

In practice, this doesn't happen because our consumer can't prove sufficient economic harm to make legal proceedings worthwhile. PayPal was an attractive target for a class action because the stakes were higher.

Line 14 isn't anything unique.

I'm fully aware of that. I am merely pointing out something that you seem to have missed - that line is designed to increase your legal costs and decrease theirs, thereby increasing their bargaining power in the situation. They can inflict greater harm against an individual without provoking a lawsuit due to that line. Simple.
 
The outcome is not identical. In one, your privacy was invaded and Amazon violated illegal entry into a residence in order to repossess items that did not belong to them. Steam is repossessing an account and (in essence) suspending the licenses to use any software attached to the account until the game has been paid for.

Reason? Because converting a Steam purchase to a Non-Steam purchase is really... really easy. If you download the DLC, copy it out of your folder, then cancel the subscription- if Steam then disables that DLC, what is to stop you from just copying it back into a folder and disabling automatic updates? Or copying it over a non-steam version of the game? I'll tell you: Nothing but technical expertise stands in your way. Steam is aggressive, because it needs to be.

Generally speaking, consumers are dishonest, greedy bastards who will steal anything if given the chance. If this wasn't true, physical stores wouldn't have cameras, security guards or those things at the door that ring if you walk out with a stolen item. People won't steal from other people because that might make that person's life harder- but people can't assign that same reasoning to the store. Contrary to what our mothers tell us- we are not special. The company will treat everyone like the baseline. If you have never stolen from a grocery store, there isn't a section with no cameras you get to shop in- everyone gets the same treatment.

Valve can take the action because it's Valve's account. You don't have any rights to the account, because you haven't paid for it. If CFC disables your account, you can't sue them- same deal. Just because there are games tied to the account doesn't mean much; if Steam believes you to be doing something illegal (Section 5, Paragraph 2) they can terminate your account without notice. Is it really a surprise that a company whose primary obligation is to prevent unlicensed copies of a software from floating around, while ensuring that the vendor gets paid, will make theft and piracy risky?

Line 14 isn't anything unique. As an online organization, they are stating that agreeing to the EULA is like coming down to their offices and signing the contract. They aren't going to come to your house and have you sign. They then state that if you do take Valve to court and lose, you will reimburse Valve for the court costs. If you win, Valve will reimburse you. This is all pretty standard stuff.

I did customer service for several years, and now I do online fraud detection and verification. I know how this works. There are lots of things we (I) CAN do. That's not the point. I don't do things that intentionally screw over my customers, when obviously there was just a single, easily-solved issue (or at least I give them the benefit of the doubt first). That's just plain stupid and abusive, and it's a good way to get people to go somewhere else. I don't go out of my way to stick people.

Of course, there is nowhere other than STEAM for these customers to do their Civ shopping. Steam people can do and say whatever they want (within their rules) and there's not much anyone can do about it. On top of that they've somehow convinced people that this is a "service" for the customers.
 
Well its Friday, my work is done, and rather than kick off a nice game of Civ V, all I have to do is some hear and vent some STEAM about Steam.

Let me give a complete timeline to clear up any confusion.

2/20/2011 11:40 PM: Attempt to buy some DLC's for Civ V from Steam and get to verify my email address.

Buy some DLC's and when attempting to pay with PayPal they decide its time to verify my account as well with new password and security question setup.

2/20/2011 11:50 PM: Emails from both Steam and PayPal thanking me for my purchase and a receipt for my payment.

New Scenarios and Civs available in the game.

2/21/2011 Start a new Diety game in Civ V. All is well

2/23/2011 7:33 PM I get the message I posted above from Steam declaring my account locked.

I see this a few hours later and call PayPal immediately, getting transferred a few times, but always dealing with professional English speaking individuals who promptly straightened things out once validating who I was and that the charge was valid.

I then stumble through the always confusing Steam UI and manage to finally open a support request to unlock my account stating that the funds where released as well as updating the original request that I had called PayPal and release the hold.

I fire up the game (I was already logged into Steam) and note that I cannot load my Diety game because a DLC has been locked. I can however start a new game.

2/24/2011 At some point during the day I got an update notice from the Steam client, and thinking it was my DLC coming back, I let it restart. WRONG. Now I am locked out.

2/24/2011 12:05 PM I get this boilerplate response to the ticket I had opened:

Hello, Thank you for contacting Steam Support. The purchase of Civilization V Babylon DLC and Civilization V Double DLC Pack has been disputed by Paypal. The Paypal account holder will need to close the dispute and have the funds returned to Steam. If the account holder is unable or unwilling to drop the dispute and let the PayPal know that the purchase is valid, and in turn have the funds returned to Steam, we will not be able to reactivate the account. All games on your account are locked to the account and can not be transferred to a different account. A different payment method can not be used for this game; the money must be returned by the PayPal account that made the original purchase. If the dispute is closed and the funds are released back to Steam, the account will be reactivated. However if PayPal closes the dispute by “Reversing the Payment”, meaning they send the funds for the purchase back to you, the Steam account will remain locked and you will lose access to all of the games on the account. There are no options to resolve a dispute once PayPal has closed the case, so we suggest that you contact them immediately. PayPal Help Center https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_help-ext Please let us know if you have any further questions. We are not able to do anything further with your account while a PayPal dispute is still pending, please remedy this issue with PayPal before asking for the account to be reactivated.

This was over 12 hours since the funds where released and they give no indication of even looking to see if they where.

2/24/2001 11:37 PM - I open a second ticket (3 total now) and post again that the funds are released, please unlock my account.

18 hours later and no more responses on any of the three open tickets.


That's the history so far. Now, as for blame, I blame Steam.

I have used PayPal for years and have NEVER had a problem. I was not happy with the tighter security I faced, but in today's world, I cannot really find fault. The handled my problem IMMEDIATELY. Steam doesn't even have a phone number you can call.

I also have a credit card I use exclusively for online purchases. I have had LOTS of problems with held payments, phone calls validating a sale, etc...

PayPay is quick and easy to use. You type your email and a password, click a few buttons, and you have paid. No name/address/number entry.

I bought a boxed copy of Civ V with NO expectation of being at the mercy of Steam. I assumed it would be used for multi-player only. Now I cannot play that game unless I reinstall it and steam and setup a new account, losing all of the achievements I have earned, not to mention the DLC's I have now actually paid for.

I know for a FACT that Steam locked out my DLC, and that would have been completely fair and OK with me. They had no reason or right to lock my entire account and prevent me from playing a game that was legally paid for. I also place some blame on Firaxis/2K for putting their fans in this mess.

I have been a Civ fanatic for years and now I am at the mercy of a lousy company called Valve. Held payments and fraud detection are normal and expected practices and Steam should deal with them correctly, not lock down an account since they clearly have a way to retrieve/lockout the DLC. Since there customer support is so slow they are completely wrong in locking an account unless a clear pattern of misuse is evident. Unless Firaxis comes up with a work around for this we are at the mercy of Steam until Civ VI comes out. :mad:
 
OK, instead of just ing about Steam, I decided to try them out. Because we aren’t getting the patch for this weekend, and my brain was set on doing something new with Civ V I decided to purchase the DLCs for the three extra civilizations. I logged onto Steam and purchased the DLCs for the three new civs. So, here it is in a nutshell.

Opinion before purchase

The very idea of Steam pisses me off and I don’t like having my gaming dependant on whether or not a stupid online service is active or not.

In general, Steam just sucks.

Opinion after purchase

The very idea of Steam still pisses me off. I just don’t like having my gaming dependant on whether or not a stupid online service is active or not. Don’t. Like. Steam.

In general, I can live with Steam. Purchasing the DLCs for the three civs was quite easy, as part of my purchase process they updated the game. I used a credit card, not *&^$^! PayPal which I hate with a passion.

In conclusion I still hate the very idea of Steam in that I need them to play a game I’ve already purchased. In their favor, it was easy as hell to update my game. For Civ V I will just learn to live with Steam. As to future purchases of any games, if they require Steam, I won’t buy them.

At least I have something new to do this weekend with Civ V playing my three new civs. I would have rather had the patch, but you just have to go with the flow sometimes.
 
This was over 12 hours since the funds where released and they give no indication of even looking to see if they where.

2/24/2001 11:37 PM - I open a second ticket (3 total now) and post again that the funds are released, please unlock my account.

18 hours later and no more responses on any of the three open tickets.

I bought a boxed copy of Civ V with NO expectation of being at the mercy of Steam. I assumed it would be used for multi-player only. Now I cannot play that game unless I reinstall it and steam and setup a new account, losing all of the achievements I have earned, not to mention the DLC's I have now actually paid for.

I would definitely wait for them to reply to your ticket-- however long that will take-- rather than setting up a new account and losing the DLC you paid for.

And yeah, sucks that it's happening to you. Sorry to hear it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom