Locked out of Steam/Civ V because of PayPal security

Status
Not open for further replies.
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 might be wrong on this and if i am, someone will clarify this, but...

After you activated your boxed copy of civ, it's linked to this steam account forever. You can't reinstall it and active on new account (key is already used and steam won't allow to activate it again)
 
JOY!!! :D

Never thought it would be so good to hear that music again.

48 Hours of frustration and terror later they decided it was OK to reactivate my account.

If only they had notified me sooner with a warning, all of this could have been avoided.
 
Just in time for the weekend - it seems. The Oracle has spoken... let the (March!) Patch be a supplemental treasure to deal with.
As i said earlier, s**t happens.

This concludes the latest adventures on Steam Train Wreck episode #44.2, news at 11:00 comin' up - stay tuned, we (now) control the Horizontal & the Vertical -- The INNER Limits.
 
After you activated your boxed copy of civ, it's linked to this steam account forever. You can't reinstall it and active on new account (key is already used and steam won't allow to activate it again)
YES.
And everybody should understand why.
You can and will be able to install forever on the very SAME solid account, though.
Not because you have a Boxset copy, but the ID & parametric 128bits protection belongs to you - once and for all.
Check Impulse while you're at it.
 
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.

That's the problem. Steam has the monopoly for a couple of games. You can't go somewhere else.

What people need to understand. You don't "buy" software from steam. You only pay for software. It's like "permanently" renting the right to use software. I don't understand how and why this is better than the old way of BUYING the software. Steam behaves like an OS for games. You need to install it to run software. It does nothing productive though.

If steam gets even bigger, customers will be facing another microsoft mess. One company controlling the market and thereby actively blocking competition and innovation.

PS One question: HOW do games get on steam? Does the publisher pay steam or does steam pay the publisher?
 
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.

Great point.

The EULA he signed gave them the rights to terminate the subscription if they bought a game from them. He bought the game from GameStop, so this doesn't apply, and, thus, they cannot enforce this clause.
 
Great point.

The EULA he signed gave them the rights to terminate the subscription if they bought a game from them. He bought the game from GameStop, so this doesn't apply, and, thus, they cannot enforce this clause.

Actually he agreed to the steam subscriber agreement when he installed steam. Which states they can cancel his account at any time. Since access to a steam account is required to play civ V.. they defacto can legally cancel that as well. Not saying its fair.. but thats the way steam works.

13. TERM AND TERMINATION

Either you or Valve has the right to terminate or cancel your Account or a particular Subscription at any time. You understand and agree that the cancellation of your Account or a particular Subscription is your sole right and remedy with respect to any dispute with Valve.
3. In the case of a free Subscription, Valve may choose to terminate or amend the terms of the Subscription as provided in the "Amendments to this Agreement" section above.
A free subscription is what applies to anyone with a steam account regardless of what game was purchased and where from. Since playing a steamworks game requires an account.. and steam can cancel your account at any time.. your at the whim of valve.

and if you don't like it.. refer to this gem.
A. EXCLUSIVE REMEDY -- STEAM AND THE SOFTWARE.

YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT YOUR SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR ANY DISPUTE WITH VALVE WITH REGARD TO STEAM OR THE SOFTWARE IS TO DISCONTINUE USE OF STEAM AND CANCEL YOUR ACCOUNT. BECAUSE SOME STATES OR JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, IN SUCH STATES OR JURISDICTIONS, VALVE, ITS LICENSORS, AND THEIR AFFILIATES LIABILITY SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW.
 
According to what I am seeing, they could cancel his account, but NOT his access to a game that he bought elsewhere.

This actually goes hand in hand with what I was saying in another thread, but that is for that other thread.

To point out the important parts, In case of a one time purchase of a product license (so far, ok) from Valve (but this was from GameStop!), Valve may...cancel...access to the software via Steam. Now, they cannot do this, because the purcahse was made elsewhere. They could cancel an account, but they cannot deny access to a game bought somewhere else.

You can see how silly it is to enforce this part of the EULA later, where they say they may (but don't have to) let you download the game...his game was on the disc already, so there would be no need for CiV to come though Steam.
 
According to what I am seeing, they could cancel his account, but NOT his access to a game that he bought elsewhere.

This actually goes hand in hand with what I was saying in another thread, but that is for that other thread.

To point out the important parts, In case of a one time purchase of a product license (so far, ok) from Valve (but this was from GameStop!), Valve may...cancel...access to the software via Steam. Now, they cannot do this, because the purcahse was made elsewhere. They could cancel an account, but they cannot deny access to a game bought somewhere else.

You can see how silly it is to enforce this part of the EULA later, where they say they may (but don't have to) let you download the game...his game was on the disc already, so there would be no need for CiV to come though Steam.
They aren't denying access to a game. They are denying access to an account. It just so happens that 2k made the game require an account.
Breaking it down.
Steam can cancel your account at any time.(see my post above)
2k prevents you from playing your game without a steam account.
SO steam can not prevent you from playing your game.. however since a steam account is required, them blocking your account has an added affect of you no longer being able to play your game. Since you no longer meet the requirements set out by 2k
. Maintaining an active account is part of the EULA for the game
The Software may require an internet connection to access internet-based features, authenticate the Software, or perform other functions. In order for certain features of the Software to operate properly, you may be required to have and maintain (a) an adequate internet connection and/or (b) a valid and active account with an online service as set forth in the Software documentation, including but not limited to third-party gaming platform, Licensor or a Licensor affiliate. If you do not maintain such accounts, then certain features of the Software may not operate or may cease to function properly, either in whole or in part.
. So.. you no longer meet the terms by steam canceling your account. Meaning you no longer have access to the software.
This is why people should read and understand these things.. lol

Now i'm certainly not agreeing with the practice. But its legally sound, and a major reason I avoid steamworks games. It effectively turns any game into a subscription based model(similar to MMOs). Only the subscription is free, includes ALL your steamworks games, is controlled by valve and can be canceled at anytime. You still own your copy.. you simply cannot play it without an account.. similar to if you canceled your account or got banned etc from WOW or any other MMO.

PS One question: HOW do games get on steam? Does the publisher pay steam or does steam pay the publisher?
Many times the developer chooses to Use Steamworks API simply because it adds alot of functions and its free to them. The major catch is it links the game to steam. It saves them money and time from having to write their own functions,Drm, multiplayer connectivity, Achievements, leaderboards, etc. Not to mention they don't have to run their own servers for patches.

So no one really pays anyone.. but the value is for both. Devs/publishers get a large swath of prewritten functions and patch servers etc.. and steam gets a game that ties anyone who wants to play it to their service. Not to mention the game will be sold on steam. Meaning steam gets some retail profit from the game.
The only losers in the deal are potential customers who don't like steam(and other digital retailers who think its a sound business move to sell games that force their customers to make an account at a competing store). But with steams userbase I imagine most game devs have no issue ignoring those who refuse to assimilate to the steamworks model.(people like me)

@OP
Glad you got it cleared up, hope you don't run into any further issues.
 
Not to mention the game will be sold on steam.

I beg to differ.
The game is not sold. If it was sold, you'd have the right to resell it. You rent the game. That's a big difference. If you buy something, you can return it, resell it and you probably have a plethora of other privilegues. On steam you pay 50$ to be allowed (by steam) to play a 3rd party publisher's game.

After spending money on steam you don't own anything. That's the main problem. (See OP)
 
That's unfortunate, but it's really more of a cautionary tale about paypal rather than steam. The horse has bolted in this case, but seriously, don't use paypal for anything you care about. If this experience wasn't enough, a few google searches will bring up a colossal amount of horror stories, and if you want other high profile examples theres the problem notch (minecraft creator) had when they froze his account, and of course the wikileaks situation.

They screw people over regularly, whether it's through awful customer service, being slow to respond to fraud, or just deciding to freeze legitimate accounts (withholding the funds) if they so wish. Take a moment to read through the terms of the 'service' they provide, it's pretty frightening.



What else could they possibly do? If someone is fraudulently purchasing games, of course they are going to freeze an account. Paypal made the accusation, not steam.

Think for a second. If this was attempted fraud the steam account would quite probably have been stolen as well, since most people are smart enough to not sh*t where they eat. The alternative youre advocating is that steam turns a blind eye to people having their accounts stolen, since rejected (potentially fraudulent) tractions are a clear warning flag. And for the record, I know many people who have lost accounts either through malware stealing logins, or more often being tricked into using a link from a compromised steam buddy so it *does* happen. And guess what, steam support got those accounts back for them.

If you want to avoid problems like this in the future remove the intermediary, especially if its a company as notorious as paypal.

Feel free to dislike steam, but you're talking utter nonsense.

yeah, but at least notch wasn't pissing off the most powerful people in the world to further his anarchist agenda. Wikileaks would have been attacked any and every way possible.
 
PS One question: HOW do games get on steam? Does the publisher pay steam or does steam pay the publisher?

1) Publishers submit titles & products from which Valve picks the most potentially profitable assets.
2) Hard to tell from reading the "Phrasing" you used, but let me try to illustrate from a financial perspective other than the legality mumbo-jumbo mess which is -IMO- speculative at times.

-- Would you maintain servers Online without covering at least the cost?
-- Publishers pay for the Online Space or more accurately Bandwidth flow reserved for their specific products *TO* Steam/Valve in a partnership contract (again, on that contract are clauses signed that we or i don't known anything about). Collaboration, in principles.
-- Then, the two-way street transactions begin; Users buy off servers, then Steam sends the ca$h to Publisher(s) while cutting a fair share for administrative costs (the usual shipping/handling service fees to use an analogy) off that money - say 2% or more.

Thus, the Profit pie gets split to the middle-men just as your regular stores in shopping malls do. It's called Markups in my experience of the whole Economic Model.

Who gets to decide the Price of Products is an entirely different issue since Publishers may have given great leeway to Steam (or Impulse, or D2D, or... etc) - again - through contracted (and shared) deals.

In the meantime, Check This out from StarDock, and pay extra attention to the GBOR section - cuz, that's exactly where the essential is for both the consumers and how they can expect their needs to be fulfilled for THEIR games.
 
Turns out there are big differences between the companies:
From the documentation:
1. Gamers have the right to return games they have problems with.
(...)
4. Gamers have the right to have their games not require a third party program to run in order for their games to function.
(...)
7. Gamers have the right to re-download any game they have purchased.
(...)
9. Gamers have the right to play their single player games without requiring an Internet connection.
10. Gamers have the right to sell or transfer physical copies of their games to other people.

Gamers have rights!
OMG, imagine having rights...! I asked the "who pays who question" because it doesn't make any sense whatsoever (from a copy protection-view) to have "steam-ONLY" games. This only makes sense for steam to get rid of pesky competitors. So I assumed the might be paying the publisher.

After reading this thread I am done with that company. Thanks for the info @ OP.
 
You know that Newell also declared once that HIS precious company is much more profitable than Apple & Google, don't you?
Yep, Steam was first to the market (there had to be one) but i guess the "popularity" got to their heads.
Consumers have the power and they'll always seek out the best deals for (quite frankly) just some games.
Online services (including PayPal, etc) are simply convenient enough... but it's still our choice to make.
 
Solution, don't use Paypal. Seriously, Paypal sucks and does crap like this all the time.
WRONG!


The correct solution is: dont use Steam!

I beg to differ.
The game is not sold. If it was sold, you'd have the right to resell it. You rent the game. That's a big difference. If you buy something, you can return it, resell it and you probably have a plethora of other privilegues. On steam you pay 50$ to be allowed (by steam) to play a 3rd party publisher's game.

After spending money on steam you don't own anything. That's the main problem. (See OP)

Quoted for truth!

If your card gets declined paying for <name your MMO> they'll freeze your account, too.

If you don't pay up, you don't get the game. End of story.
Reading comprehension FAIL FAIL FAIL - the dude exceedingly clearly wrote that he did buy the game, paid for it (bought the De Luxe edition for which he plonked down a hundred bucks) and was cleared by Steam to play it after registering.

It's going to depend on the country. In the U.S., EULA's are legal documents
That's nor quite true. Here, get some actual facts:
WikiPedia said:
The enforceability of an EULA depends on several factors, one of them being the court in which the case is heard. Some courts that have addressed the validity of the shrinkwrap license agreements have found some EULAs to be invalid, characterizing them as contracts of adhesion, unconscionable, and/or unacceptable pursuant to the U.C.C. &#8212;see, for instance, Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology,[2] Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd..[3] Other courts have determined that the shrinkwrap license agreement is valid and enforceable: see ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg,[4] Microsoft v. Harmony Computers,[5] Novell v. Network Trade Center,[6] and Ariz. Cartridge Remanufacturers Ass'n v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc.[7] may have some bearing as well. No court has ruled on the validity of EULAs generally; decisions are limited to particular provisions and terms.
The 7th Circuit and 8th Circuit subscribe to the "licensed and not sold" argument, while most other circuits do not[citation needed]. In addition, the contracts' enforceability depends on whether the state has passed the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) or Anti-UCITA (UCITA Bomb Shelter) laws. In Anti-UCITA states, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) has been amended to either specifically define software as a good (thus making it fall under the UCC), or to disallow contracts which specify that the terms of contract are subject to the laws of a state that has passed UCITA.
Recently, publishers have begun to encrypt their software packages to make it impossible for a user to install the software without either agreeing to the license agreement or violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and foreign counterparts.
The DMCA specifically provides for reverse engineering of software for interoperability purposes, so there was some controversy as to whether software license agreement clauses which restrict this are enforceable. The 8th Circuit case of Davidson & Associates v. Jung[8] determined that such clauses are enforceable, following the Federal Circuit decision of Baystate v. Bowers.[9]

Moderator Action: Multiple posts in a row merged.
 
I beg to differ.
The game is not sold. If it was sold, you'd have the right to resell it. You rent the game. That's a big difference. If you buy something, you can return it, resell it and you probably have a plethora of other privilegues. On steam you pay 50$ to be allowed (by steam) to play a 3rd party publisher's game.

After spending money on steam you don't own anything. That's the main problem. (See OP)

Licenses renting software instead of selling it existed long before steam. After buying software and breaking one of license agreements You were using it illegally. And it was very easy to do it.
- add nocd crack, because you're tired of inserting cd every time you want to play
- modifying software by something so simple as replace file with texture or model (yes, it's simply modding, but it wasn't allowed for some games, yet people still was doing it)
- a lot fo software you can't resell, yet still ebay have lot's of them and buyers think, they legal.

Only difference steam provided is now companies have tools to stop you from using their software after you break license agreement.

PS. My point of view, that blocking whole account by steam was to much - still stands. I'm just a bit tired of people who don't know what they're talking about.
 
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.
Very true (great post), except Steam didn't manage to convince quite everyone - some of us aren't 100% brainwashed, yet.
 
WRONG!
Reading comprehension FAIL FAIL FAIL - the dude exceedingly clearly wrote that he did buy the game, paid for it (bought the De Luxe edition for which he plonked down a hundred bucks) and was cleared by Steam to play it after registering.

Actually, they did that under the assumption that the purchase would be completed. Then Paypal held the purchase, so the game was not yet paid for. So, Steam locked it until they were sure the purchase would be completed.

Read it again. Steam cleared him to play it after registering...until they realized the funds weren't coming through from Paypal.

And, if you read on down the thread, Steam *did* unlock his account, and he can now play fine, once Paypal got their stuff together and released the funds.

i.e. don't use Paypal. If I use my credit card, and the purchase is authorized by the company, the funds will clear fine. If the credit card's going to not give the funds, they'll decline the transaction off the start, and the game will never get bought. The only time they'll try to pull the money back later will be if it was A) fraudulent or B) disputed by the customer. In either case, Steam is fully within their rights to lock the game till that's resolved fully. If it was fraudulent, that's obviously a bad purchase, and if the customer tries to take the money back later because they don't want the game or something, then that's grounds to lock it, too. Basically, if I'm a merchant, and I sell you a product that I have a way to disable, and your payment method doesn't fully pay me, I'm going to disable your product till I *do* get paid. Simple as that.

Of course, if people didn't think it was fine and dandy to pirate everything they could, then the trend toward 'ET Phone Home' software wouldn't exist. SC2 requires a connection to Bnet to play because of this. Even single-player offline mode requires a connection once a month or it locks itself. You can bet Diablo 3 will be the same, because there's a lot of people who think that copying a game to 10 of their best friends is fine and dandy.
 
JOY!!! :D

Never thought it would be so good to hear that music again.

48 Hours of frustration and terror later they decided it was OK to reactivate my account.

If only they had notified me sooner with a warning, all of this could have been avoided.

Hey, good stuff :) Restores my faith a little bit. Did they send you any sort of information on the whole procedure?
 
Turns out there are big differences between the companies:
From the documentation:
1. Gamers have the right to return games they have problems with.
(...)
4. Gamers have the right to have their games not require a third party program to run in order for their games to function.
(...)
7. Gamers have the right to re-download any game they have purchased.
(...)
9. Gamers have the right to play their single player games without requiring an Internet connection.
10. Gamers have the right to sell or transfer physical copies of their games to other people.

Gamers have rights!
OMG, imagine having rights...! I asked the "who pays who question" because it doesn't make any sense whatsoever (from a copy protection-view) to have "steam-ONLY" games. This only makes sense for steam to get rid of pesky competitors. So I assumed the might be paying the publisher.

After reading this thread I am done with that company. Thanks for the info @ OP.
Keep in mind, however, that this is not a real bill or rights.

That's nor quite true. Here, get some actual facts:
Did you really tell me to "Get some actual facts", and then immediately quote WikiPedia? WikiPedia is an unacceptable source for, literally, anything that you want to be taken seriously. Especially when you quote something that states, quite plainly, that EULA's are decided to be valid or invalid based on their content-- which is a valid statement about any contract.

To humor it,
Cases that Lost:
  1. Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology involved the automatic acceptance of a license upon opening the box, and was declared invalid based on the lack of express acceptance of the contract via an "I Agree" button or actual signature. -- Source: 4LawSchool.com, Contract Case Briefs.
  2. Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd. involved copyright infringement, because Quaid Software Ltd. developed a software that could circumvent Vault Corp's software (ProLok being the DRM software, and RamKey being the circumvention technique). -- Source Harvard Cyber-Law

Cases that Won:
  1. ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg involved ProCD compiling a directory of contact information from thousands of registries, and then selling that information on a CD. Zeidenberg purchased the CD, clicked "I agree" on the EULA, and then created a website to sell that information for a price cheaper than the CD. ProCD won the case. -- Source: eCaseBriefs
  2. Microsoft v. Harmony Computers involved Harmony Computers reselling software that it purchased from Microsoft Licensees. Harmony claimed that their purchase of the software protected them under the First Sale Doctrine. The court ruled that, because Microsoft's software was licensed (not sold) that the First Sale Doctrine did not apply, as outlined in the license. -- Source: Google Documents, Memorandum of Decision, 846 F.Supp. 208
  3. Novell v. Network Trade Center involved Network Trade Center (NTC) purchasing, in bulk, software from Novell- then waiting until Novell provided an upgrade license- then reselling the software and the upgrade licenses for profit. Because NTC was not a registered or authorized vendor of the software, they lost the case. Source: Google Documents, Memorandum of Decision, 25 F.Supp.2d 1218 (1997)
  4. Ariz. Cartridge Remanufacturers Ass'n v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc. involved Lexmark printing on the outside of a cartridge box, that customers agree upon opening the box that the used cartridge will be returned; then sold these "prebate" units at a lower cost than the units that did not have to be returned. This practice was encouraged by paying vendors who returned the cartridge. The Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association (ACRA) argued that Lexmark's use of a chip that did not allow other manufacturers to refill the cartridge constituted unfair competition, that the EULA on the box was not legally enforcible, and that the promises on the box were out of Lexmark's control. ACRA failed to present a valid case, with Lexmark's EULA only precluding the return of cartridges to non-Lexmark refillers; the promises on the boxes being in-line with Lexmark's business model; and also failed to provide any relevant facts regarding the "lock-out chip." Lexmark won. Source: FindLaw.Com, ACRA vs Lexmark case

Steam's EULA is not a shrink-wrapped contract, but rather a Click-wrapped contract; excluding it from having Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology used against it in a court of law. Nothing regarding Steam's EULA, in regards to freezing your account under suspicion of illegal activity, is not legally-binding. Given Microsoft v. Harmony Computers, from your own post, Valve can legally restrict your rights as a purchaser of a license, upon your agreement to that license, in regards to that license.

Because Steam's license requires agreement prior to use, and PayPal's freezing of a transaction can provide reasonable suspicion of fraudulent activity or theft; Steam is entirely within their rights to freeze an account.

My stance stands: Steam's EULA is a legal document in the United States; however, in other countries (specifically in the EU, as stated by Steam's EULA) certain clauses may not be applicable. However, in such jurisdictions, those clauses will be assumed to be protected under the fullest extent possible.

Maybe you should "get some actual facts." I shouldn't have to explicitly outline that terms that would be illegal in a written contract would invalidate a digital one; and you shouldn't quote WikiPedia if you don't understand what it is you quoted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom