Valve Flagrantly Violates Sherman Antitrust Act

[ColdFront]

http://alienbabeltech.com/abt/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=33165
I discuss the violation here.

[Skybird]

I read that somewhere, too.

What Steam/Valve practically demands is that other companies/services providing the given game, shall be barred from offering the same content and product at a lower price, which therefore prevents competing with Steam by more competitive pricing.

Since Steam only serves as kind of a reseller, but is not the manufacturer or rpeucer of the games, that indeed is unacceptable. They want to forbid their competitors to outbid them. It also aims at establishing kind of an non-allowed price fixing, probably violating anti-cartell laws.

That simply is a total and complete No-Go.

[ColdFront]

I read that somewhere, too.

What Steam/Valve practically demands is that other companies/services providing the given game, shall be barred from offering the same content and product at a lower price, which therefore prevents competing with Steam by more competitive pricing.

Since Steam only serves as kind of a reseller, but is not the manufacturer or rpeucer of the games, that indeed is unacceptable. They want to forbid their competitors to outbid them. It also aims at establishing kind of an non-allowed price fixing, probably violating anti-cartell laws.

That simply is a total and complete No-Go.Fully agreed. For those in the USA who want to report Valve for antitrust violations, here are the guidelines: http://www.justice.gov/atr/contact/newcase.html

[Dowly]

This thread is a bit stupid. :hmmm:

[ColdFront]

This thread is a bit stupid. :hmmm:Yeah, my cohorts at ABT can't understand kindergarten math.

[Catfish]

What Steam/Valve practically demands is that other companies/services providing the given game, shall be barred from offering the same content and product at a lower price, which therefore prevents competing with Steam by more competitive pricing.

Sounds exactly as TTIP eh ? :03:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership

"Partnership", yeah right [/cyn]

[Bilge_Rat]

STEAM may demand it, but to what extent can they enforce it?

For example, I was shopping for "Brave New World", the last expansion pack to Civilization 5. STEAM is charging $30, but it is easy to find online resellers selling STEAM keys for as little as $10.

[Dowly]

STEAM may demand it, but to what extent can they enforce it?

For example, I was shopping for "Brave New World", the last expansion pack to Civilization 5. STEAM is charging $30, but it is easy to find online resellers selling STEAM keys for as little as $10.

Brave New World isn't Early Access title. What Valve is doing here is making sure no one can ask higher price for an Early Access key than what it is listed on Steam.

As for enforcing, Early Access is their service, they can enforce it anyway they like. But if the same title is sold on some other type of service other than Early Access, the price can be set to anything the devs/publishers want.

PS. Did I use bold enough to make everyone realize this is about EARLY ACCESS titles ONLY. So, no, Valve is still not the evil overlord and Gabe Newell still doesnt eat newborn babies for breakfast.

PPS. Coldfront, good luck with the DoJ. :haha:

[ColdFront]

Brave New World isn't Early Access title. What Valve is doing here is making sure no one can ask higher price for an Early Access key than what it is listed on Steam.No, they are not. Way to misread what Valve said.As for enforcing, Early Access is their service, they can enforce it anyway they like. But if the same title is sold on some other type of service other than Early Access, the price can be set to anything the devs/publishers want.And lose access to ~80% of PC gaming? I don't think they can.PS. Did I use bold enough to make everyone realize this is about EARLY ACCESS titles ONLY. So, no, Valve is still not the evil overlord and Gabe Newell still doesnt eat newborn babies for breakfast.

PPS. Coldfront, good luck with the DoJ. :haha:You've never heard of Order of War: Challenge, have you? That's because the tech press suppressed Valve's rape of a multiplayer community.

[Sailor Steve]

Valve fanboy?
Your argument is a good one. There is no need to use insults to support it.

[ColdFront]

Your argument is a good one. There is no need to use insults to support it.Thanks. I'll remove the insult.

[ikalugin]

What do you think is a better alternative to Steam service?

[ColdFront]

What do you think is a better alternative to Steam service?As of now, none. No one can match Steam's library.:down: Heard nothing but bad about Uplay. I've heard Origin has far better customer support than Steam, but everyone has such a ingrained anti-EA bias for no legitimate reason that it's only just hanging on due to compelling exclusives. GOG only has old games and is struggling to catch up.

[ikalugin]

As of now, none. No one can match Steam's library.:down: Heard nothing but bad about Uplay. I've heard Origin has far better customer support than Steam, but everyone has such a ingrained anti-EA bias for no legitimate reason that it's only just hanging on due to compelling exclusives. GOG only has old games and is struggling to catch up.
I think that Origin behaving like a malware may be one of the reasons why people hate it.

[Dowly]

No, they are not. Way to misread what Valve said.Sorry, that was my mistake. Brain said one thing, fingers did something else. :)

So, Valve is asking for Early Access developers to not price their Steam price higher than available on other places.

[ColdFront]

I think that Origin behaving like a malware may be one of the reasons why people hate it.Yet when Steam is accused of the same thing, all Gaben has to do is say "we don't care what porn you watch", and everyone forgets all about allegations of Steam spying on users.Sorry, that was my mistake. Brain said one thing, fingers did something else. :)

So, Valve is asking for Early Access developers to not price their Steam price higher than available on other places.Good to see you understand. You've got it.

[Dowly]

Good to see you understand. You've got it.I understand what Valve is saying, but I don't understand why you have such a big problem with it.

[ColdFront]

I understand what Valve is saying, but I don't understand why you have such a big problem with it.The problem is that if another site is selling the early access game for less than Steam, then that means Steam is selling it for higher, which Valve is prohibiting in its new Early Access policy. So this new policy bans other websites from competing with Steam on price.

[Bilge_Rat]

Woot! the Steam thanksgiving sale is here. Brave New World is 75% off!

Let the shopping begin.

[CaptainHaplo]

The problem is that if another site is selling the early access game for less than Steam, then that means Steam is selling it for higher, which Valve is prohibiting in its new Early Access policy. So this new policy bans other websites from competing with Steam on price.

Hmmm.. No it doesn't. It means the policy is designed to insure that Steam can MATCH the price - which brings value (through the reduced price) to the larger customer base.

Lowered prices (matching sale prices elsewhere) with a larger market portion equates to greater sales, which helps the developer pay his/her bills and keep working on the "next big thing".

Quite honestly - having done the "early access" bit a few times I am more against the whole "early access" movement than I am with Steam wanting to stay competitive for its users.

[ColdFront]

Hmmm.. No it doesn't. It means the policy is designed to insure that Steam can MATCH the price - which brings value (through the reduced price) to the larger customer base.

Lowered prices (matching sale prices elsewhere) with a larger market portion equates to greater sales, which helps the developer pay his/her bills and keep working on the "next big thing".

Quite honestly - having done the "early access" bit a few times I am more against the whole "early access" movement than I am with Steam wanting to stay competitive for its users.Hmmm.. No it doesn't. Read the policy again:We expect Steam customers to get a price for the Early Access game no higher than they are offered on any other service or website. Please make sure that’s the case.This means that any website that sells the same early access game for less ensures that Steam is selling it for higher, which would violate the new policy. More > Less. Kindergarten math. But my fellow morons on ABT can't even do that. One was so stupid he insisted that the Sherman Antitrust Act hasn't existed since 2005. I had to point him to a antitrust case in 2012 which cited a violation of the Act.

[Gargamel]

I really don't see an issue with this.

They aren't asking for a monopoly on an item, just equal pricing. And it's not permanent equal pricing, it's only for early access.

So if a dev wants to sell their product for a lower price (Why they would makes no sense), they can avoid steam altogether.

How, exactly is this hurting devs? Steam is forcing a higher price point.

If the consumer wants a cheaper price, they only have to wait a bit for the game to be released. There's no way this is an anti-trust issue, as there will always be other options for the consumer. I find it very doubtful the DOJ would consider "Early Access" a 'need' for consumers.

[CaptainHaplo]

OK first of all - the "policy" reads as a request. Note the "please" verbage.

Second - anti-trust means a monopoly - nowhere in there does Valve state that early access sales must be through them only. Instead - they ask only that they be allowed to insure that their price matches that of others.

Price matching. So "More>less" doesn't apply - rather, "price=price" does. So where exactly does "anti-trust" apply?

[Red October1984]

Even if they did violate something.....I like Steam too much. They still get my business...and there's probably a lot of people who are in the same boat.

[Gargamel]

Even if they did violate something.....I like Steam too much. They still get my business...and there's probably a lot of people who are in the same boat.

That's really not the way to be looking at this. Big Corporations want you to think like this, so they can raise their prices and yet you'll come mindlessly flocking to them (see: TV).

It's the vigilant consumer who will eventually bring the downfall of the mega corps (I hope). While I disagree with CF's OP, I do like his style.

[ColdFront]

OK first of all - the "policy" reads as a request. Note the "please" verbage.When Steam has a marketshare estimated between 70% and 80%, that "please" becomes "do it, or lose big time."Second - anti-trust means a monopoly - nowhere in there does Valve state that early access sales must be through them only. Instead - they ask only that they be allowed to insure that their price matches that of others.Steam already is a monopoly, and the Sherman Antitrust Act states anything in restraint of trade is a violation.Price matching. So "More>less" doesn't apply - rather, "price=price" does. So where exactly does "anti-trust" apply?Actually, both do. Valve is saying early access can be no higher on Steam, which means "Steam price<=price" and "if you let anyone undercut Steam on price, you're in violation, because if they sell for less, we are selling for higher, which we have outlawed." If Valve wanted to do "Steam price=price" without antitrust violation, they would have said "no higher than Steam", which means "Steam price>=price" and "we don't prohibit prices as long as they aren't higher than us".

[Red October1984]

That's really not the way to be looking at this. Big Corporations want you to think like this, so they can raise their prices and yet you'll come mindlessly flocking to them (see: TV).

It's the vigilant consumer who will eventually bring the downfall of the mega corps (I hope). While I disagree with CF's OP, I do like his style.

I agree with you...but Steam is pretty reasonable. Not many other gaming retailers sell stuff for 75-90% off over the holidays and during certain seasons. I really only buy stuff during sales.

I don't buy into the early access/special editions stuff so that's my position. Until they screw over bigtime, i'll stay with them.

[ColdFront]

I agree with you...but Steam is pretty reasonable. Not many other gaming retailers sell stuff for 75-90% off over the holidays and during certain seasons. I really only buy stuff during sales.I've heard Steam isn't reasonable when it comes to customer support, and that Origin's customer support is way better. In fact, I even heard one guy say he expressed interest in the Titanfall closed beta to an Origin employee, and that employee let him into it. Steam's sales are equaled or beat by Amazon and GamersGate.I don't buy into the early access/special editions stuff so that's my position. Until they screw over bigtime, i'll stay with them.Hope you don't regret that like the Order of War: Challenge community is right now. Valve ripped the game wholesale from their libraries after that community tried to keep its multiplayer alive. The tech press covered it up, the story only broke because of Forbes, and even after it broke the tech press refused to report it, except for MaximumPC.

[CaptainHaplo]

I've heard Steam isn't reasonable when it comes to customer support, and that Origin's customer support is way better. In fact, I even heard one guy say he expressed interest in the Titanfall closed beta to an Origin employee, and that employee let him into it.

I used to be pretty "anti-steam", but now I prefer it. So you "heard" stuff a couple of times. I heard Mike Brown in Ferguson was attacked and then shot in the back by a racist cop. Guess what - that wasn't exactly true.... Nor has my experience with steam been anything like what you have "heard", and personal experience trumps rumor and hearsay any day. Origin does have good support - kind of. Its live and always available.... but often times can't fix the issue. The fact Dragon Age Inquisitor runs like crap on a 12 core monster with 48G of ram and a very good (not screaming) vid card shows that the publisher (Origin/Steam/Others) has limited ability to fix problems.

Steam's sales are equaled or beat by Amazon and GamersGate. Sometimes they are. Sometimes they are not. What has that got to do with anything? Sales are great - regardless of who has them.


Hope you don't regret that like the Order of War: Challenge community is right now. Valve ripped the game wholesale from their libraries after that community tried to keep its multiplayer alive. The tech press covered it up, the story only broke because of Forbes, and even after it broke the tech press refused to report it, except for MaximumPC--3 months later.
Order of War can be purchased and played on Steam right now. The "Challenge" part (multiplayer "expansion" that required always on connection to Square Enix servers) of the game was removed because Square Enix (Not Steam/Valve) shut down the servers that allowed it to function. Steam did not control the servers, nor did they have any decision in the process of shutting them down. To blame Valve for the decisions of another company entirely - is just plain silly.

What should Valve have done - leave a known non-functional game in people's libraries? Oh - and the users that had the game - still had the game installed on their computers. Steam didn't "rip" the game files and data away. The game simply wouldn't work - due to Square Enix. All Steam did was make sure no one tried to run a game that everyone knew wouldn't work, then clog up Steam's support channels over something they had no ability to fix.

Read the ToS with Steam - you know they have the right to dump every game you have if they want. They won't because it will kill the business - but if the users are upset, they need to take it up with Square Enix, not Valve.

[Gargamel]

How exactly is steam a monopoly?

I can digitally order games from a couple online vnedors I know of, and could easily find another dozen if I cared to look. I can also go down to walmart or bestbuy or radioshack or etc etc etc.

You have plenty of other choices for your gaming needs, you just choose to not explore them.

A monopoly is when the consumer has no other choice but to buy a product or service from one company.

[ColdFront]

I used to be pretty "anti-steam", but now I prefer it. So you "heard" stuff a couple of times. I heard Mike Brown in Ferguson was attacked and then shot in the back by a racist cop. Guess what - that wasn't exactly true.... Nor has my experience with steam been anything like what you have "heard", and personal experience trumps rumor and hearsay any day. Origin does have good support - kind of. Its live and always available.... but often times can't fix the issue. The fact Dragon Age Inquisitor runs like crap on a 12 core monster with 48G of ram and a very good (not screaming) vid card shows that the publisher (Origin/Steam/Others) has limited ability to fix problems.I heard from first hand sources, unlike with Ferguson, which is coming second hand from news sources.Order of War can be purchased and played on Steam right now. The "Challenge" part (multiplayer "expansion" that required always on connection to Square Enix servers) of the game was removed because Square Enix (Not Steam/Valve) shut down the servers that allowed it to function. Steam did not control the servers, nor did they have any decision in the process of shutting them down. To blame Valve for the decisions of another company entirely - is just plain silly.

What should Valve have done - leave a known non-functional game in people's libraries? Oh - and the users that had the game - still had the game installed on their computers. Steam didn't "rip" the game files and data away. The game simply wouldn't work - due to Square Enix. All Steam did was make sure no one tried to run a game that everyone knew wouldn't work, then clog up Steam's support channels over something they had no ability to fix.Now this is just plain lying. Valve only restored the singleplayer after the brief outrage, which everyone forgot about soon due to the brainwashing of Steam sales. What Valve should have done is lived up to their can-do-no-wrong reputation and left the multiplayer community alone. They had managed to maintain multiplayer through tunneling. Or they could have tried to maintain official multiplayer. You know, like Origin is trying to do with all their games that got affected by Gamespy shutting down.Read the ToS with Steam - you know they have the right to dump every game you have if they want. They won't because it will kill the business - but if the users are upset, they need to take it up with Square Enix, not Valve.And they shouldn't have the right. Order of War: Challenge proved that they will dump games, and that was only the beginning. Valve is the one that destroyed a multiplayer community, not Square Enix. Square Enix failed to prevent multiplayer from surviving, and they weren't the ones who ripped out the game. Because Valve did it, the tech press covered it up for months, and the story only broke because of Forbes.

Brainwashed Steam fanboys like you will blame anyone and everyone but Valve. Just like when Valve ripped many of EA's games from Steam. People blamed EA, because they can do no right, and Valve can do no wrong.
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/steam_savior_or_slayer_pc_gaming?page=0,1

Which brings us back to Steam's ongoing feud with EA. All sources indicate that the yanking of many high profile EA games from Steam was Valve's decision, not EA's, as EA's DLC practices violate Steam's terms of service. Regardless of who's at fault, the reaction from the Steam community has largely been "f- EA, I'm boycotting that game." The fact is, whether by means of high-minded gamers boycotting on principle, or simply through lack of convenience, advertising and exposure, publishers that decide to forgo Steam WILL sell less copies, and this effect only increases the more dominant Steam is.
What will the publisher response be? Will it be for each major publisher to create their own storefront like EA has done with Origin, creating an even more fragmented PC market? And if high profile titles don't sell on the PC, will publishers capitulate to Steam, or just cut their losses and give up on PC gaming entirely? It's tough to say, but given the climate of AAA publishing on the PC, it's not inconceivable that publishers would cut their losses entirely and double-down on console markets with their own more publisher-friendly distribution models.

[CaptainHaplo]

I heard from first hand sources, unlike with Ferguson, which is coming second hand from news sources. So your data is "second hand" - since its not something you experienced yourself. My experience with Steam is firsthand knowledge. Also - regarding Ferguson, my data comes not from the media, but from hard data such as forensic analysis. The hard data is there, one must merely be willing to review it.

Now this is just plain lying. Valve only restored the singleplayer after the brief outrage, which everyone forgot about soon due to the brainwashing of Steam sales.

I admit that I can not speak to whether or not the single player game had an outage. However, I did not say there was no outage - I simply pointed out that the single player game is alive and well - and available on Steam. No lie there, so direct accusation without cause are not only uncalled for, but in this case - also inaccurate.

What Valve should have done is lived up to their can-do-no-wrong reputation and left the multiplayer community alone. They had managed to maintain multiplayer through tunneling. Or they could have tried to maintain official multiplayer.

Multiplayer to operate LEGALLY required users to play on Square Enix servers. That wasn't a steam thing - that was part of the ToS in the game from Square Enix. Thus, when the official servers where shut down, there was no LEGAL way for multiplayer to continue. To ask or expect Valve to assist (or even look the other way) while users violate the ToS of the publisher on the Steam service is just insane. That would be a sure way to make sure Square Enix never let Steam sell another game they put out.

You know, like Origin is trying to do with all their games that got affected by Gamespy shutting down.

That is an OPTION they might have been able to do - but they are under no obligation to do so. Even if they wanted to put forth the capital to build servers to support it (which is doubtful since ongoing sales would not be likely to make that expense "break even") - it is highly likely that doing so would have required licensing or at least "permission" from Square Enix to do legally. That is an awful lot of work and resources wasted - so it looks more like Valve made a business decision that you don't like - but its perfectly ethical and reasonable.

And they shouldn't have the right.

You are SO wrong here. They should and do have the right because every single person affected by the removal of the game from their library AGREED to let Valve have that right. No one made those users agree - they chose to agree voluntarily. If you agree to something knowing that a bad result down the line "could" occur - you hardly have reason to complain if the bad ending occurs. Every single user KNEW that the possibility existed, agreed to that risk, and thus has no reason to whine.

Don't like Steam's ToS? Don't agree to them and thus don't use the service. Which IS an option for people you know. Note you didn't answer Gargamel on his question about Steam being a monopoly - is that because you realize it isn't - but just don't want to admit it?

Order of War: Challenge proved that they will dump games, and that was only the beginning.

It proved that in certain circumstances, business decisions will be made to remove games in a way that complies with the ToS that every user has agreed to.

Valve is the one that destroyed a multiplayer community, not Square Enix. Square Enix failed to prevent multiplayer from surviving, and they weren't the ones who ripped out the game. Because Valve did it, the tech press covered it up for months, and the story only broke because of Forbes.

Square Enix shut down servers that were legally required for the community to play multiplayer. Steam simply enforced the Terms of Service it already had in place. I get that you don't like the rules, but no one made you or anyone else agree to them. Your angst over the "tech press" is what it is - but has nothing to do with whether Valve acted unlawfully.

Brainwashed Steam fanboys like you will blame anyone and everyone but Valve. Just like when Valve ripped many of EA's games from Steam. People blamed EA, because they can do no right, and Valve can do no wrong. http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/steam_savior_or_slayer_pc_gaming?page=0,1

Linking a 3+ year old article - with very outdated information, hardly bolsters your case. I am no "fanboy" - I have Origin, Capsule and a few other "gaming" apps on my machine in addition to Steam. Had you even read the article you linked, you would note that "EA's DLC practices violated Steam's ToS." They could hardly expect their consumers to abide by their ToS if publishers wouldn't.

Silent Hunter 5 was an "always on" required game. So was Assassins Creed II. Both by UBI. They decided to remove that requirement. Square Enix didn't remove that requirement. Steam has to enforce its rules - be it on EA or on the consumer who would want to "hack" the executable to get around a legal requirement of the game.

We get it - you don't like Steam. Fine. That is your right. But your arguments have no basis in law. Valve is not a monopoly. Nor did they "kill" the multiplayer community. They enforced their rules - rules everyone agreed to that was affected. You don't have to like it - but making baseless and false claims doesn't win you many arguments.

[ColdFront]

So your data is "second hand" - since its not something you experienced yourself. My experience with Steam is firsthand knowledge. Also - regarding Ferguson, my data comes not from the media, but from hard data such as forensic analysis. The hard data is there, one must merely be willing to review it.All I have to say is what Tribesman said about you:That's strange, I could have sworn your link for your data on that subject and the quotes you lifted to post was from a white supremacist website:hmmm:
I admit that I can not speak to whether or not the single player game had an outage. However, I did not say there was no outage - I simply pointed out that the single player game is alive and well - and available on Steam. No lie there, so direct accusation without cause are not only uncalled for, but in this case - also inaccurate.Way to misquote me. Outrage, not outage. "ENGLISH, ***********! DO YOU SPEAK IT!?"Multiplayer to operate LEGALLY required users to play on Square Enix servers. That wasn't a steam thing - that was part of the ToS in the game from Square Enix. Thus, when the official servers where shut down, there was no LEGAL way for multiplayer to continue. To ask or expect Valve to assist (or even look the other way) while users violate the ToS of the publisher on the Steam service is just insane. That would be a sure way to make sure Square Enix never let Steam sell another game they put out.No such law, and TOS aren't law.That is an OPTION they might have been able to do - but they are under no obligation to do so. Even if they wanted to put forth the capital to build servers to support it (which is doubtful since ongoing sales would not be likely to make that expense "break even") - it is highly likely that doing so would have required licensing or at least "permission" from Square Enix to do legally. That is an awful lot of work and resources wasted - so it looks more like Valve made a business decision that you don't like - but its perfectly ethical and reasonable.Yes, they are under obligation to live up to their reputation. And considering how Valve is too busy wiping its ass with $100 bills to make Half-Life 3, they've got plenty of money to throw at Square Enix. There's nothing ethical or reasonable about tearing away a game from players who had done no wrong.You are SO wrong here. They should and do have the right because every single person affected by the removal of the game from their library AGREED to let Valve have that right. No one made those users agree - they chose to agree voluntarily. If you agree to something knowing that a bad result down the line "could" occur - you hardly have reason to complain if the bad ending occurs. Every single user KNEW that the possibility existed, agreed to that risk, and thus has no reason to whine.Fascist much? Might makes responsibility, it does not make right. They were forced to accept TOS in order to access the vast majority of PC games, that's coercion.Don't like Steam's ToS? Don't agree to them and thus don't use the service. Which IS an option for people you know. Note you didn't answer Gargamel on his question about Steam being a monopoly - is that because you realize it isn't - but just don't want to admit it?Here's your answer: they are a monopoly due to their massive marketshare estimated between 70%-80%. That's good enough for people to describe De Beers as a diamond monopoly when they had 85% marketshare.Square Enix shut down servers that were legally required for the community to play multiplayer. Steam simply enforced the Terms of Service it already had in place. I get that you don't like the rules, but no one made you or anyone else agree to them. Your angst over the "tech press" is what it is - but has nothing to do with whether Valve acted unlawfully.Again, no such law. And who is the angsty one-someone who quotes the facts, or someone who deliberately misquotes and uses stats from white supremacists?Linking a 3+ year old article - with very outdated information, hardly bolsters your case. I am no "fanboy" - I have Origin, Capsule and a few other "gaming" apps on my machine in addition to Steam. Had you even read the article you linked, you would note that "EA's DLC practices violated Steam's ToS." They could hardly expect their consumers to abide by their ToS if publishers wouldn't.Way to miss the point. The point is that Valve never gets blamed for anything they do, others are always scapegoated.We get it - you don't like Steam. Fine. That is your right. But your arguments have no basis in law. Valve is not a monopoly. Nor did they "kill" the multiplayer community. They enforced their rules - rules everyone agreed to that was affected.Psychologically project much? They are a monopoly. You don't think 70%-80% of PC gaming marketshare is a monopoly? Tell that to De Beers.You don't have to like it - but making baseless and false claims doesn't win you many arguments.Psychologically project much?

[Jeff-Groves]

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/jfep.gif

[Sailor Steve]

Okay, let's get away from GT, away from the insults and back on topic please.

[CaptainHaplo]

All I have to say is what Tribesman said about you:

Had you been following along, I have posted 3 links - one to a paper/booklet that some claim was written by a racist, one that linked to the FBI crime data numbers and one that linked to the Department of Justice. All three backed the assertion I made, so trying to paint me as racist simply isn't going succeed or make your argument any stronger. My data specific to Ferguson I have not linked - but if you want to actually review the stuff like autopsy reports, toxicology results, investigative findings, etc - just ask.

Way to misquote me. Outrage, not outage. "ENGLISH, ***********! DO YOU SPEAK IT!? You stated that the game was removed from people's libraries. I stated that while the game may have been unavailable for a time (I don't know if it was or wasn't) - it has resurfaced on Steam as a playable game - minus multiplayer. Thus I used the term OUTAGE. I did not claim that there was not some "outrage" - I simply didn't feel it necessary. Rather I took your claim of the game being "gone" and demonstrated it to be less that completely factual.

"No such law, and TOS aren't law. Good thing you are not a lawyer. Intellectual Property Law applies to software (aka - copyright) and makes the Terms of Service for usage a legally enforceable contract. Using software in ways not allowed under the Terms of Service can result in a number of legal remedies being pursued. Anything from a "cease and desist" order to fines and even imprisonment can be the results.

Yes, they are under obligation to live up to their reputation. They have an obligation to live up to their side of the contract. They did so. Their reputation is theirs to lift or destroy as they see fit - whether you approve or not. Unless you own a controlling interest in the company, which seems rather unlikely.

And considering how Valve is too busy wiping its ass with $100 bills to make Half-Life 3, they've got plenty of money to throw at Square Enix. So in your angst and hatred you feel like you know what wise business decisions they should be making are.... So why don't you own a competing product then? Go on, show those no good bums how to do it right!

There's nothing ethical or reasonable about tearing away a game from players who had done no wrong. Again, the game is available - just without multiplayer. Steam has no ethical, moral or business obligation to spend its resources on a game going forward that won't make them a profit. They DO have the obligation to spend their capital wisely so that the shareholders and investors make money. That's why its a BUSINESS. To claim that the players had "done no wrong" is a falsehood - they had gone outside the intended use of the software by trying or successfully making it play/work in a way that did not conform to the ToS - namely using the Square Enix servers. Doing that is no different than "cracking" an exe to get around DRM.

Fascist much? Might makes responsibility, it does not make right. Well, you have now called me fascist and racist. Nice... I can tell you are going to go far here at Subsim....

They were forced to accept TOS in order to access the vast majority of PC games, that's coercion. You seriously need to understand what coercion is. Go read and then explain where Valve has used force or threats to make people sign up with them.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coercion

Here's your answer: they are a monopoly due to their massive marketshare estimated between 70%-80%. That's good enough for people to describe De Beers as a diamond monopoly when they had 85% marketshare. Microsoft has a roughly 90% share in the desktop market - yet they are not a monopoly. The NFL has a 100% market share on professional football in the US, but they are not violating anti-trust laws. The NBA, PGA, NHL all are the same. Market share is not the ONLY measure of a monopoly. Steam is not a monopoly because they do not directly interfere with, threaten or use force to destroy their rivals. Many other game services exist and are very viable. Something that a monopoly would never allow....

Again, no such law. And who is the angsty one-someone who quotes the facts, or someone who deliberately misquotes and uses stats from white supremacists? Terms of service are a legally enforceable contract. Considering your having to reach into the bag of consistent namecalling - I would wager that your the angsty one.... Add in your vehement and misplaced attacks on Steam - pretty much locks it in.

Way to miss the point. The point is that Valve never gets blamed for anything they do, others are always scapegoated. Your new here, so let me help you in learning something. Steam doesn't get a pass on this forum. For a very long time (2010 period) many of us were anti-steam. Much of the actions they and other services took (like stealing pc specs) without permission were significantly and hotly debated.

Psychologically project much? :88)

They are a monopoly. You don't think 70%-80% of PC gaming marketshare is a monopoly? Tell that to De Beers. This again? Read the answer earlier in the post, get educated on the topic, then if you still disagree, come back and discuss it without the venom you have right now.

Psychologically project much?Careful - you are repeating yourself. I have given example of why your claim regarding Steam is false. Rebut it if you can, or break out your "in case of a lack of good argument, launch personal attacks" emergency manual. The choice is yours.

[ColdFront]

You stated that the game was removed from people's libraries. I stated that while the game may have been unavailable for a time (I don't know if it was or wasn't) - it has resurfaced on Steam as a playable game - minus multiplayer. Thus I used the term OUTAGE. I did not claim that there was not some "outrage" - I simply didn't feel it necessary. Rather I took your claim of the game being "gone" and demonstrated it to be less that completely factual.Nice backpedaling.Good thing you are not a lawyer. Intellectual Property Law applies to software (aka - copyright) and makes the Terms of Service for usage a legally enforceable contract. Using software in ways not allowed under the Terms of Service can result in a number of legal remedies being pursued. Anything from a "cease and desist" order to fines and even imprisonment can be the results.WRONG. TOS are contracts and are valid only insofar as they do not violate law.They have an obligation to live up to their side of the contract. They did so. Their reputation is theirs to lift or destroy as they see fit - whether you approve or not. Unless you own a controlling interest in the company, which seems rather unlikely.BTW, Valve is private owned, no stock.
http://www.subeimagenes.com/img/tom-cruise-crazy-laugh-7026-593634.gif

Again, the game is available - just without multiplayer. Steam has no ethical, moral or business obligation to spend its resources on a game going forward that won't make them a profit. They DO have the obligation to spend their capital wisely so that the shareholders and investors make money. That's why its a BUSINESS. To claim that the players had "done no wrong" is a falsehood - they had gone outside the intended use of the software by trying or successfully making it play/work in a way that did not conform to the ToS - namely using the Square Enix servers. Doing that is no different than "cracking" an exe to get around DRM.By your definition, Valve is merely a distributor of this game and not involved with its DRM, therefore they have no right to touch the game.
You seriously need to understand what coercion is. Go read and then explain where Valve has used force or threats to make people sign up with them.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coercionThe coercion is "[self-censored] us or be locked out of the vast majority of PC gaming".Microsoft has a roughly 90% share in the desktop market - yet they are not a monopoly. The NFL has a 100% market share on professional football in the US, but they are not violating anti-trust laws. The NBA, PGA, NHL all are the same. Market share is not the ONLY measure of a monopoly. Steam is not a monopoly because they do not directly interfere with, threaten or use force to destroy their rivals. Many other game services exist and are very viable. Something that a monopoly would never allow....Of those, all but Microsoft have official sanction. And yes, Microsoft is a monopoly.Terms of service are a legally enforceable contract. Considering your having to reach into the bag of consistent namecalling - I would wager that your the angsty one.... Add in your vehement and misplaced attacks on Steam - pretty much locks it in.There you go again. TOS are a contract, and are only valid insofar as they do not violate law.Your new here, so let me help you in learning something. Steam doesn't get a pass on this forum. For a very long time (2010 period) many of us were anti-steam. Much of the actions they and other services took (like stealing pc specs) without permission were significantly and hotly debated.I'll believe they were anti-Steam when I see it.Careful - you are repeating yourself. I have given example of why your claim regarding Steam is false. Rebut it if you can, or break out your "in case of a lack of good argument, launch personal attacks" emergency manual. The choice is yours.You damn just love to psychologically project yourself, don't you? Goback2Stormfront.

[CaptainHaplo]

Nice backpedaling.

Not backpedalling - correcting your claim that I misquoted you. You stated I misquoted, which I did not. But I get that you would rather argue semantics than deal with the lack of validity in your claim....

WRONG. TOS are contracts and are valid only insofar as they do not violate law. You are correct. The problem is you are claiming that their ToS violates the law. Yet you have yet to do more than produce a claim. Cite case law that backs up your contention that software is only purchased and not "leased" as Steam ToS basically states.

BTW, Valve is private owned, no stock.
Well someone owns it - so it "might" have been you LOL. Also - even private entities are often owned in part by investors. Just because they are not publicly traded or available does not negate private investment.

By your definition, Valve is merely a distributor of this game and not involved with its DRM, therefore they have no right to touch the game.

Quite untrue. Even as a "mere distributor" they are bound by the agreements that they make with the publishers. That generally requires them to agree to enforce the publishers ToS on their service. Thus they have a legal obligation to do so.

The coercion is "[self-censored] us or be locked out of the vast majority of PC gaming".

Then Origin is a monoply, as they are the ONLY source for EA pc games. Thats 100% of the EA pc game market. Why haven't you sued them yet?

There you go again. TOS are a contract, and are only valid insofar as they do not violate law.

Yes, we agree there. The problem is your making a claim that it is violating the law but have been shown repeatedly that your wrong. However, you refuse to accept common sense arguements in your malevolence toward Steam. If you were right, don't you think folks like Origin, Capsule, etc would have launched legal challenges?

I'll believe they were anti-Steam when I see it.

Its called the search function - feel free to use it.

You damn just love to psychologically project yourself, don't you? Goback2Stormfront.

And there we have it - you had the chance to debate the points and instead you go for the personal slam. Thanks for proving my point.:yeah:

[ColdFront]

Not backpedalling - correcting your claim that I misquoted you. You stated I misquoted, which I did not. But I get that you would rather argue semantics than deal with the lack of validity in your claim....Yes, you did, backpedaler.You are correct. The problem is you are claiming that their ToS violates the law. Yet you have yet to do more than produce a claim. Cite case law that backs up your contention that software is only purchased and not "leased" as Steam ToS basically states.Does anyone have to "cite case law" to prove a law was broken? Of course not. Case law is for precedent only.Quite untrue. Even as a "mere distributor" they are bound by the agreements that they make with the publishers. That generally requires them to agree to enforce the publishers ToS on their service. Thus they have a legal obligation to do so.And here you are taking without knowing what Square Enix's TOS are. But I'm pretty sure that these TOSs don't include "suppress anyone who keeps multiplayer alive".Then Origin is a monoply, as they are the ONLY source for EA pc games. Thats 100% of the EA pc game market. Why haven't you sued them yet?http://www.subeimagenes.com/img/tom-cruise-crazy-laugh-7026-593634.gif
How much more out of your ass can you possibly talk? Origin = PC gaming? By your infantile whatever-I-want-it-to-be logic, Steam = PC gaming, and any exclusives = monopoly.Yes, we agree there. The problem is your making a claim that it is violating the law but have been shown repeatedly that your wrong. However, you refuse to accept common sense arguements in your malevolence toward Steam. If you were right, don't you think folks like Origin, Capsule, etc would have launched legal challenges?They probably have, but antitrust cases take time to develop.And there we have it - you had the chance to debate the points and instead you go for the personal slam. Thanks for proving my point.:yeah:I did both. Go back to the sandbox at Stormfront, kid.

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

http://i1266.photobucket.com/albums/jj529/zacharybaty/tumblr_nce1hv67iZ1tmhhoqo1_400_zps9mllgen9.gif

[Jimbuna]

Look can we all try and keep cool heads rather than going down the route of name calling and exchanging insults?

This is the second request on this thread for calm, there won't be any more.

[Dowly]

This is what Square Enix said about Order of War servers:

Whilst we have loved seeing you enjoy playing Order of War on Steam, unfortunately it is no longer viable for us to continue to run the multiplayer servers due to the low volume of traffic and so the servers were switched off on September 1st, 2013. The multiplayer aspect of Order of War and Order of War: Challenge have subsequently ceased to function, and customers will notice that Order of War: Challenge has been removed from their Steam library. For those who have been playing our game, we thank you for your support and hope you had fun.

Sounds to me like they asked the non-functioning part of the game be removed from Steam.

[ColdFront]

Look can we all try and keep cool heads rather than going down the route of name calling and exchanging insults?

This is the second request on this thread for calm, there won't be any more.Very well, but remember who started the insults.This is what Square Enix said about Order of War servers:



Sounds to me like they asked the non-functioning part of the game be removed from Steam.Sounds to me like they're just commenting on events.

[CaptainHaplo]

@Jim - I have remained calm and will continue to do so...
(My inquiry about Tribesman was simply in reference to the argument style. If coldfront or anyone else took that as an insult, well that has more to do with how negatively that person must view Tribesman than it does anything else. No insult was intended.)

@coldfront -

Here is where your logic is failing. Users who purchased access to Order of War: Challenge did not own the game, they merely leased it. That was spelled out in the ToS. The lease expired when Square Enix took down the multiplayer servers.

Pay attention to the last sentence from the announcement by Square Enix:

For those who have been playing our game, we thank you for your support and hope you had fun. I added emphasis to show that Square Enix KNEW that the decision to shut down the servers would stop gameplay and that the action was INTENDED to stop the game from working. Had Square Enix been willing to allow multiplayer through other means, they would have said so. They did not - thus one can only come to the conclusion that they did not wish for the game to be played any longer. Many publishers (Ubi & Rockstar are examples) release either a patch or server code so that such games can be played either offline or without official servers. Square Enix did not do so - reinforcing the conclusion that they did intend for all "Challenge" gaming to cease.

Square Enix chose for the game to end. In essence, they ended the lease that the purchasers had - with the result of a then unplayable game. As a "hosting" distributor, Steam legally would have been engaged in copyright infringement (IP law) had they allowed access to a game after the lease was expired by Square Enix. In reality, they had little choice but to remove it from the user libraries. Failing to do so could have gotten them sued - and they would have lost. Steam didn't own the game. The users didn't own the game. Square Enix did - and they said no one could play it anymore.

Blame whomever you like - its obvious that facts won't change your mind. That is ok though, because your entitled to your opinion. Doesn't matter one whit to me - because I will continue to use Steam, along with Origin (though somebody better fix my Dragon Age Inquisition!!!) and other services. Use whatever you want and be angry all you want. Ultimately, you either will do something about what you feel is a grievous wrong by trying to shut down the big, bad, evil Steam machine, or you will deal with it. Either way, the sun will still come up tomorrow. I wish ya the best and relegate you to my ignore list.....