I Want Out

[Iranon]

@ Solo4114: Fair enough points, but not everyone taking part in this discussion lives in the USA. I'm not a lawyer but dealt with the relevant bits (consumer rights, EULAs, terms of service) as part of an economics/business studies degree, in the context of German law.

You won't see me claim I know much about the American legal system, but I'm fairly sure that generalisations by fiitting everything into rough analogies to established context like esemjay is fond of isn't appropriate for a legal context on either side of the pond (although it may be ok for discussing things like morality and fairness).

This thread really needs better differentiation between loose and formal points.

 

[Nares]

We worry about piracy.

Steam doesn't protect from piracy. Hosting online gameplay through Steam can prevent pirated copies from playing online multiplayer through validation checks, but you don't need Steam for that.

I've read reports here and elsewhere that CiV was available within a week of release. I know of other games where this was also case.

All Steam really offers is a point of sale. That's great for certain developers or distributors, but most of what they offer can be done in-house.

For any major title it's a liability; the community doesn't like it, and from what I hear its online hosting is terrible, with poor peformance and terrible support.

Sorry if any of this is technically inaccurate. I'm not a programmer, software engineer, network architect or anything even close. But it is an accurate description of just how useless Steam is as a security feature.

 

[Randall Turner]

Esemjay, let the "sharing account" issues go, they're irrelevant. They're piracy, and that's not what this thread is about. It's about a desire to legally transfer ownership of a game we've purchased.

I just popped over to my Steam account and tried to figure out whether I could give one of my games to my brother. Without emailing Steam support it really looks like I can't. I'm not going to email them until I discuss this internally with my fellow geeks whilst building packfiles or such tomorrow, and frankly one of them'll know w/o me having to set up a support account.

Now. If it turns out we can't transfer ownership, welp, it's not a good thing. It's not about dollars and cents, it's about people being happy. We don't want people upset, that's not good. It's not a case of being a Pollyanna, it's just good business practice. (And despite the cynical bent of some of us here, corporations aren't the Anti-Christ necessarily, developers want you to have a good experience with their products.) So, why is it this way?

I'm guessing man-hour costs. Not support, but rather If there were an automated title transfer mechanism the irregularity would geometrically increase the difficulty of determining whether people were pirating, ie, sharing accounts. One of the previous posters was on-target with his cost-effective "sneaky" observation - if you're going to get piracy protection via Steam, detection had better be cheap, they're not rolling in money. I'm suspecting it's a question of the lesser of two evils - in order to have PC games financially feasible at all, you have to pay the price of possibly rubbing a few consumers the wrong way so's you can automate infringement detection.

I'll chat with a production type tomorrow and see if that's the case. We also have a Valve contact, maybe I can ask him. <shrug>

And this isn't a big deal, we're just chatting.

Edit: hey, Nares, I'll tell you what works vis a vis piracy. Don't publish PC games. I was just eating lunch with an associate last week and we were, "what the heck are they thinking?" (execs who pushed for a Pc sku.) I'm really of the opinion that unless you're doing an MMO, it's borderline not worth the effort. Which sucks for me, as they're (standalone, big-budget PC strategy games) my genre of choice. That said, not sure about how effective a piracy prevention measure Steam is, again, I'll ask. (I am all those things you listed and more, but I just don't work in that area.)

 

[Nares]

I'm really of the opinion that unless you're doing an MMO, it's borderline not worth the effort.

Any game which performs primarily through some online hosting is relatively safe.

Take DoW2, which is Steam supported. The game has been pirated, but pirated copies can't play the online modes. The campaign was fun and all, but that is a game which is much better in online multiplayer. It's not totally safe from pirating, but it's really a case where a pirated copy is an "extended demo."

Of course, there are performance issues which seem related to Steam that may have been avoided had its distributors supplied their own online hosting.

There are other little tricks to use which can push people to buy legitimate copies. Consider that whoever is cracking the game is generally as lazy as anyone else is. If it's easy enough to crack 90% of the game, and the last 10% of the game is of marginal importance to the gameplay (say FMVs or music), they're far less likely to put in the effort to crack that last 10%.

As for being worth the effort, if the game is good enough, people will buy it, even if they're normally inclined to pirate it. Developers hear "if the game is good enough" and think that means graphics or some equally unimportant aspect of the game. I think it just reflects how poor most games really are; I recall in the 90's when I first started playing computer games, seeing shelves upon shelves of mediocre or worse games, back when widespread piracy was not an issue. Now I see maybe one shelf of computer games, but most of them are of significantly better quality because it's just not economical to release subpar products.

 

[Randall Turner]

Any game which performs primarily through some online hosting is relatively safe.

Take DoW2, which is Steam supported. The game has been pirated, but pirated copies can't play the online modes. The campaign was fun and all, but that is a game which is much better in online multiplayer. It's not totally safe from pirating, but it's really a case where a pirated copy is an "extended demo."

If you googled me, you know I work for THQ. Relic is one of our sister studios. I've had a number of friends, good engineers, who've left there b/c the business model wasn't stable enough. (PC profit margins too low or nonexistent.) General consensus is that if people'd paid for a significant fraction of their games that're floating around, they'd be emminently solvent.

Another of our PC studios that went out of business, the president's closing press conference he estimated 10:1 pirated-to-legal ratio.

There are other little tricks to use which can push people to buy legitimate copies. Consider that whoever is cracking the game is generally as lazy as anyone else is.

Hasn't been my experience. <shrug> Isn't my problem at the moment, thankfully.

I don't want to hijack the thread into a piracy rant. It's a problem. It's also a problem if you can't give away a game you've bought, I think. But they are related.

 

[Dedrytus]

I think Steam is not about piracy. If you want to play game without paying for it, you will always find a solution. In my opinion Steam gives one, very important thing to game developers: you can not sell your game. For them, selling game you do not want is THE SAME as piracy, because they have no money from it. One person gave them money, two played (maybe more). With Steam tool they just disabled aftermarket. My example: my friend gave me five games (he finished them, and that was enough for him). I played them... one of them I still have, four others I gave to my friend. Single money and three players. With Steam this is not possible.

 

[Iranon]

On a per-case basis the secondary market actually hurts more than piracy: The person who bought a used game was obviously willing to part with money, which may not apply to the majority of pirates.

 

[lschnarch]

General consensus is that if people'd paid for a significant fraction of their games that're floating around, they'd be emminently solvent.

Another of our PC studios that went out of business, the president's closing press conference he estimated 10:1 pirated-to-legal ratio.

First I have to say that I am strictly against piracy.
Nevertheless, the above implied assumption that all pirated copies would have been bought is just wrong.
In the early 80'ies, when it was not clear whether the German equivalent of copyright laws would cover software as well, it was almost sports to have as many copies as possible. People had literally hundreds of discs, filled with game after game. The value would have been in the thousands of DEM at that time.
But in no way they would have bought each and every title, if copying would not have been possible.

I am pretty sure that today it is not that much different. Of course it is a nice daydream of developers to imagine that *their* software is so fantastic that everybody would have bought it if there wouldn't have been piracy.
The sad truth is, most software just is *not* that fantastic.

That doesn't mean that piracy wouldn't have any effect on sales figurers. Unfortunately, it has.
But even bigger is the effect of quality.

And honestly, the effort which the developers have put into a certain title often enough is not worth the money the customer has to spend for it.
Prime example is the game we are talking about in this forum. At Steam Germany, it still is sold for € 49.99. At Amazon Germany, the price has already dropped to € 22.99. The latter is what I would call a realistic price niveau, as the game isn't worth more. And it never has been.
Rant aside, many software titles are of very low quality, but are sold as an AAA title.
There will be always pirates, as there will be thieves always. Unfortunately, this is part of the human nature.
But in many cases, the economic flop of software titles or whole studios is less due to piracy, but much more due to their incapability to release good software.

 

[Lheim]

And honestly, the effort which the developers have put into a certain title often enough is not worth the money the customer has to spend for it.
Prime example is the game we are talking about in this forum. At Steam Germany, it still is sold for &#8364; 49.99. At Amazon Germany, the price has already dropped to &#8364; 22.99. The latter is what I would call a realistic price niveau, as the game isn't worth more. And it never has been.
Rant aside, many software titles are of very low quality, but are sold as an AAA title.
There will be always pirates, as there will be thieves always. Unfortunately, this is part of the human nature.
But in many cases, the economic flop of software titles or whole studios is less due to piracy, but much more due to their incapability to release good software.

First off - apologies for the earlier troll reference.

I also have to pop in to agree with this sentiment right here. I won't say piracy is right - but it's driven by far more than greed. It's driven by a deliberate policy of denying refunds on behalf of games sellers combined with exorbitant prices and lax quality control and unreliable-at-best reviews.

I am extremely sceptical about most games on the market. I always try games and read extensively before buying. I'm not poor - but I'm skimpy, codsarnit , and I really hate the feeling that I've gotten ripped off, I'm extremely prone to buyer's remorse. The anti-piracy conditions that've spread around only increase my wariness.

There's always greed. But the PC gaming industry is driving itself into a coffin half through treating it's consumers like criminals. We don't like that and we don't patronise it!

Civ V was pirated within days of release, available for download on the torrent webpages. Not weeks; days. In an environment like that.. what's the point? I don't buy the fiction that all pirated copies of games would have been sales. It's baloney; you might as well view pirating as free demoing, and try to hook players into buying the game for available online play, content, and patches, as Stardock does.

 

[Randall Turner]

Lheim, I really just came on here to see if I could add a scout to my initial setup without learning a new programming language.

Piracy is what it is. I totally get it. I don't do it myself, but in large part because it's just not worth the hassle. If games were five times as expensive and ten times as "shiny" to me, I probably would. And of course, that pretty much describes the difference between my worldview and a college student's. (well, that plus they've got five times the energy.)

Anyway, I was just trying to work through for myself why a service would be as restrictive as Valve seems to be. No stress.

Disappointed re: the scout, though.

 

[esemjay]

Esemjay, let the "sharing account" issues go, they're irrelevant. They're piracy, and that's not what this thread is about. It's about a desire to legally transfer ownership of a game we've purchased.

The OP is specifically talking about transferring ownership of the account- which is, by definition, account sharing- and thus, pirating.

 

[Randall Turner]

The OP is specifically talking about transferring ownership of the account- which is, by definition, account sharing- and thus, pirating.

...as one of his options. That's not his goal, it's only a means to an end. His objective is to transfer ownership legally. (though he wants compensation.)

I'm sure you already know this. This is sort of why I was questioning your point of view, you're coming from somewhere. (Which place I've obviously been re: worries about industry viability.)

Look, esemjay, if account sharing were his whole point I wouldn't have been interested enough to post in the thread. I'm not going to share my account. I might very well like to give the game to my brother, though.

 

[esemjay]

...as one of his options. That's not his goal, it's only a means to an end. His objective is to transfer ownership legally. (though he wants compensation.)

I'm sure you already know this. This is sort of why I was questioning your point of view, you're coming from somewhere. (Which place I've obviously been re: worries about industry viability.)

Look, esemjay, if account sharing were his whole point I wouldn't have been interested enough to post in the thread. I'm not going to share my account. I might very well like to give the game to my brother, though.

I'm not arguing the legitimacy of transferring ownership of the game- I've even stated that, in order for "Account Sharing" to stand up to allegations of piracy, you have to have tried to transfer the game from the account legally. When I argue that account sharing is piracy, and my stance is contested, am I supposed to assume that the other person is talking about something other than account sharing?

When I talk about sharing accounts being piracy, and another poster argues that sharing games isn't piracy- I'm going to assume there was a breakdown in communication. I have not once in this thread stated that sharing games is piracy. So long as people are willing to argue that the account you are using through Steam follows the same rules as the game you are trying to transfer, my choices are to either allow misinformation to disseminate, or assert the flaw in the argument.

I've also stated that Steam likely doesn't care about the "little fish" pirate. My stance has been, and always will be: Illegal is illegal. Do what you want, but if you get caught- don't expect to "sue" (As several arguments against mine have stated) because you signed away rights through the EULA. When contested that the EULA is not a legally binding document, I argue that in most jurisdictions it is- especially the way the Steam EULA is presented to you prior to acquisition of the software.

If the OP transfers the account, both the OP and the purchaser should be informed that doing so could invalidate the account- and that Valve would be entirely within it's rights to do so. If you agree with this statement- then you are a minority in this conversation.

 

[Lheim]

I've also stated that Steam likely doesn't care about the "little fish" pirate. My stance has been, and always will be: Illegal is illegal.

This is where you and I and a lot of other posters will have to agree to disagree. In many people's world views, breaking a law (or contract provision for that matter) that is either unethical or immoral, in order to do something that is in principle moral but forbidden by the letter of the law or contract is neither unethical nor immoral. How shall we say.. Lawful Good versus Neutral Good?

 

[Randall Turner]

Dude, you're overthinking this. Or I'm not being clear.

When you're replying to me, let the account transfer/sharing legality issues go.

Reason? You're preaching to the choir. I agree with you. It's something that Valve has every right to prohibit. We're not arguing.

Except perhaps over whether account sharing is actual "piracy", I think it is. But then we're getting into semantics, arguing over the definition of "piracy" doesn't sound attractive to me.

 

[esemjay]

Dude, you're overthinking this. Or I'm not being clear.

When you're replying to me, let the account transfer/sharing legality issues go.

Reason? You're preaching to the choir. I agree with you. It's something that Valve has every right to prohibit. We're not arguing.

Except perhaps over whether account sharing is actual "piracy", I think it is. But then we're getting into semantics, arguing over the definition of "piracy" doesn't sound attractive to me.

This is embarrassing... we seem to be on the exact same page. My mistake. Carry on!

This is where you and I and a lot of other posters will have to agree to disagree. In many people's world views, breaking a law (or contract provision for that matter) that is either unethical or immoral, in order to do something that is in principle moral but forbidden by the letter of the law or contract is neither unethical nor immoral. How shall we say.. Lawful Good versus Neutral Good?

I can appreciate that.

 

[CyberChrist]

Except perhaps over whether account sharing is actual "piracy", I think it is.

As long as no more than 1 person at a time are able to utilize each individual account I seriously don't see any issue with two or more sharing one - especially not if the account is free of charge (like Steam's is).

Be it husband/wife, brother/sister within the same household or (ie.) 2+ MMORPG players giving each other access to use their collective spread of characters on their individually owned accounts for boxing(1 player control 2+ characters at the same time) - and/or for logging on specific characters to loot items that drop - when the original owners of the accounts holding the characters used cannot be online (for whatever reason).

Why companies even bother throwing cash after trying to prevent such sharing is beyond me - as I don't see that they stand to gain anything from doing so, except perhaps disgruntled customers and the potentially loss of business from people who can't/won't buy more than 1 copy due to cash issues, ideology or because they can get a similar product from another company ... without the mentioned EULA restriction.

However, I do fully understand the need to get rid of the vermin eating the corn, but before pulling the trigger you should make damn sure that the blurry figure in your sights is actually the vermin you are after ... and not your own foot. (Directed at software houses in general).

 

[esemjay]

As long as no more than 1 person at a time are able to utilize each individual account I seriously don't see any issue with two or more sharing one - especially not if the account is free of charge (like Steam's is).

Be it husband/wife, brother/sister within the same household or (ie.) 2+ MMORPG players giving each other access to use their collective spread of characters on their individually owned accounts for boxing(1 player control 2+ characters at the same time) - and/or for logging on specific characters to loot items that drop - when the original owners of the accounts holding the characters used cannot be online (for whatever reason).

Why companies even bother throwing cash after trying to prevent such sharing is beyond me - as I don't see that they stand to gain anything from doing so, except perhaps disgruntled customers and the potentially loss of business from people who can't/won't buy more than 1 copy due to cash issues, ideology or because they can get a similar product from another company ... without the mentioned EULA restriction.

However, I do fully understand the need to get rid of the vermin eating the corn, but before pulling the trigger you should make damn sure that the blurry figure in your sights is actually the vermin you are after ... and not your own foot. (Directed at software houses in general).

I agree. So long as you are being reasonable, and don't appear to be trying to circumvent the DRM... I don't think Steam or a judge would care.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

I believe that what the post you quoted is saying, is that the Constitution is the only set of rights that cannot be signed away through contract- hence "inalienable" rights.

Your Miranda Rights state "You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can (and will) be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you by the state. Do you understand these rights?"

At this point, you acknowledge the understanding your rights- you are verbally signing a contract. If you decide to waive those rights, they no longer apply- and you cannot use them.

If you sign a EULA, any rights that were previously awarded- yet are NOT considered inalienable by the US Constitution, or it's equivalent in your country- can be waived by your agreement.

In other words, signing a EULA that restricts your rights... you are voluntarily waiving those rights. The rights are not inalienable, so it's completely legal.

Actually unless the US system is completely different (and far more biased to the producer) than in Ireland that is simply not the situation. I happily sign EULAs without reading a single clause, simply because I know the main points of relevant Irish laws (SOGASOS act 1980 & amendments, laws of contract, court decisions, etc.) and any single clause that doesn't conform to those laws is inapplicable under the law. That is why they are called "laws" and not "suggestions", and also why they are either established by Constitution, Act of Oireachtas, or the courts and not just something arbitrarily made up by someone in the street.

There is no way for a company to make me sign away my rights under the law. I may come to an agreement with them to not fully prosecute my rights, but it is not a binding agreement and if the law is breached then I can ignore it. If you honestly belive that contracts between two private parties can supercede the laws of a soverign state, then your conception of the law is pretty much worse than useless.

 

[Balerune]

200$? I spent about 300$ on a new videocard and about 80-90 $ on the game (and I wanted to spend more, much more ), played about 100 hours and figured out I actualy enjoy reading civfanatics more than playing the game.

I needed a new comp anyway; this plays civ 5 great except that the game is unplayable for me except for one mod; so I'm in the same boat reading the posts while waiting for the modder to fix what was broke the last patch around and add even more stuff (I would have been satisfied if he only just fixed what firaxis broke in the last patch.)

But at least the civ 5 icon looks cute sitting on desktop

Next time around (will there be a next time?) I'll just download the icon and save myself the money.