This gaming business today is nothing but a racket. Just buy cheap SP offline video games.

Complain to legislation about how licensing works. That's your problem.

Don't expect Valve to be a charity that freely gives money back when they don't have to. They're a business, after all.

What game did you purchase that did not have a EULA?

引用自 Faust：

Bought, installed, played, and got robbed of a game with a 3rd party EULA that says "We can steal your money"? Well they did say that, didn't they? I guess I shouldn't have purchased it if I wasn't fine with it.

A bit vague. What game.? And also, why does everyone feel the need to engage in ridiculous paraphrasing? Do you really think you need to interpret a EULA for us, or are you worried that examining it without your bias won't lead to your interpretation?

No EULA is going to say "We can steal your money", and even if it did, it's not enforceable for obvious reasons. If you have a legitimate issue you don't need to make yourself look ridiculous to have it addressed.

引用自 Faust：

But getting hit with an invasive anti-consumer 3rd party EULA that says "We can steal your money" AFTER I already bought and played the game that had no EULA at all? Subjecting a player to a contract that he or she is not allowed to back out of despite not even signing it in the first place? That's just a revolting thing to do. Might as well have not bothered warning us of these EULAs on the store page if publishers can just twist us any way they want at any point in time.

Well keep in mind that the product owner adding, or updating their EULA isn't a 3rd party EULA. They're the 1st party in regards to their game... And you're not getting refunds because the product owner wants to manage their product.

引用自 Faust：

There should be a clause in the refund policy that makes players who bought a videogame without a 3rd party EULA eligible for a refund regardless of how long they've owned or played it for if said EULA gets added later down the line, provided that the time of purchase occured before its introduction.

Don't hold your breath that the world is going to realign around your self-serving interpretations of events.

If you have a problem with Take-Two's change, your legal complaint and refund would have to come from THEM not the store you bought it at

Especially given you can buy the games from a LOT more places than just steam.

Which is why these "suggestions" are legal nonstarters to begin with. No court in any country is going to make the store party to your dispute with the company actually issuing the licence

引用自 nullable：

why does everyone feel the need to engage in ridiculous paraphrasing. Do you really think you need to interpret a EULA for us, or are you worried that examining it without your bias won't lead to your interpretation?

I didn't think someone would be pedantic enough to require detailed legal language of what is essentially bordering on common industry knowledge at this point.

引用自 nullable：

No EULA is going to say "We can steal your money"

Right. It's going to say "We can terminate the services for any reason or no reason".

引用自 nullable：

and even if it did, it's not enforceable for obvious reasons.

Obvious reasons like what?

引用自 nullable：

Well keep in mind that the product owner adding, or updating their EULA isn't a 3rd party EULA. They're the 1st party in regards to their game

They're the third party on Valve's platform.

引用自 nullable：

Don't hold your breath that the world is going to realign around your self-serving interpretations of events.

Bad faith sentence on top of previously displayed poor argumentation. No longer going to waste time entertaining your input.

引用自 TBS AlexDK：

The issue for you would be that Take-Two owns the game IP, so Take-Two's EULA would be the 1st party EULA for the game (since any non Valve / Steam EULA would be 3rd party from the store site of things)

And Valve owns the storefront. If a company wants to sell on their store - they need to play by their rules. If for example a company doesn't want refunds to be issued within Valve's refund policy - their only practical choice is not to sell on Steam.

I have no legal argument (if that's what you're getting at) because most of us outside the EU might as well all be corporate property at this point "legally speaking", but I'm just hoping someone at Valve would consider it a merited suggestion. They have done things before that benefitted the consumer side without being legally forced to. I strongly assume they understand better that most of the industry that providing a service that consumers are satisfied with is a viable business strategy. It may be a pipe dream for me to hope a single thread will result in a sizable change like that, but you miss 100% of the shots you don't take.

This is a real problem to be sure but I do not think this can be the real solution. Relying on one corporation to protect you from another corporation's Calvinball clauses in their contracts is a little... eh... And it is not feasible for Valve to hold funds in escrow to defend you from these things even if they wanted to. This is a tougher problem than you realize and not something Valve can fix.

引用自 Crazy Tiger：

Complain to legislation about how licensing works. That's your problem.

Don't expect Valve to be a charity that freely gives money back when they don't have to. They're a business, after all.

They're in a strong position to apply some pressure. Would cost them very little to send a few official letters or making a public statement. Would cost them some to enact new rules for game publishers on steam with respect to sudden changes running contrary to original contract, but it's certainly not outside their reach.

And yet, zilch done. The concept of changing a contract after purchase and agreement is a grey area at best, and something they could participate in improving the conditions of. If they wanted to.

引用自 fluxtorrent：

If you have a problem with Take-Two's change, your legal complaint and refund would have to come from THEM not the store you bought it at

Especially given you can buy the games from a LOT more places than just steam.

Which is why these "suggestions" are legal nonstarters to begin with. No court in any country is going to make the store party to your dispute with the company actually issuing the licence

I assume that you're assuming that I want this policy to apply retroactively, which is the only reasonable scenario in which I could see you making that post.

I do not. I've made peace with that purchase. I just don't want to see it keep happening.

引用自 William Shakesman：

This is a real problem to be sure but I do not think this can be the real solution. Relying on one corporation to protect you from another corporation's Calvinball clauses in their contracts is a little... eh...

You could interpret refunds themselves as one corporation protecting me from another. It's not a legal right in all countries, and even if it were - Valve are the ones shouldering the logistics so I don't have to sue whoever sold it to me.

引用自 William Shakesman：

And it is not feasible for Valve to hold funds in escrow to defend you from these things even if they wanted to. This is a tougher problem than you realize and not something Valve can fix.

Maybe they can introduce a policy where you're not allowed to have a 3rd Party EULA added retroactively. Either you put it there when the game hits the store or you kick rocks. That could be a viable patchwork solution. Sure, many companies could just add one-clause EULA going "YOU AGREE TO EVERYTHING WE WILL EVER WRITE HERE IN THE FUTURE", as they already do. And then I would just not buy their games. :3

引用自 Faust：

It may be a pipe dream for me to hope a single thread will result in a sizable change like that, but you miss 100% of the shots you don't take.

But taking a shot that you miss can cause collateral.

This has been discussed time and time again. Every game has a EULA, in one form or another and many don't outright say what it is or just ride on the steam subscriber agreement. They can change, and when owners change, they often do change. ROR:R is no exception to this. Owners changed, EULA changed.

引用自 Faust：

引用自 fluxtorrent：

If you have a problem with Take-Two's change, your legal complaint and refund would have to come from THEM not the store you bought it at

Especially given you can buy the games from a LOT more places than just steam.

Which is why these "suggestions" are legal nonstarters to begin with. No court in any country is going to make the store party to your dispute with the company actually issuing the licence

I assume that you're assuming that I want this policy to apply retroactively, which is the only reasonable scenario in which I could see you making that post.

I do not. I've made peace with that purchase. I just don't want to see it keep happening.

引用自 William Shakesman：

This is a real problem to be sure but I do not think this can be the real solution. Relying on one corporation to protect you from another corporation's Calvinball clauses in their contracts is a little... eh...

You could interpret refunds themselves as one corporation protecting me from another. It's not a legal right in all countries, and even if it were - Valve are the ones shouldering the logistics so I don't have to sue whoever sold it to me.

引用自 William Shakesman：

And it is not feasible for Valve to hold funds in escrow to defend you from these things even if they wanted to. This is a tougher problem than you realize and not something Valve can fix.

Maybe they can introduce a policy where you're not allowed to have a 3rd Party EULA added retroactively. Either you put it there when the game hits the store or you kick rocks. That could be a viable patchwork solution. Sure, many companies could just add one-clause EULA going "YOU AGREE TO EVERYTHING WE WILL EVER WRITE HERE IN THE FUTURE", as they already do. And then I would just not buy their games. :3

Then don't buy games. Problem solved. Valve is certainly not going to become your financial nanny

引用自 Deadoon：

But taking a shot that you miss can cause collateral.

Specifically?

引用自 Deadoon：

This has been discussed time and time again. Every game has a EULA, in one form or another and many don't outright say what it is or just ride on the steam subscriber agreement. They can change, and when owners change, they often do change. ROR:R is no exception to this. Owners changed, EULA changed.

"We've discussed this time and time again. Serfdom is legal. You belong to your master. You can be sold to someone else. You can be executed. It's all according to the laws."

Then don't buy games. Problem solved. Valve is certainly not going to become your financial nanny

Not an argument.

引用自 Cray：

引用自 Crazy Tiger：

Complain to legislation about how licensing works. That's your problem.

Don't expect Valve to be a charity that freely gives money back when they don't have to. They're a business, after all.

They're in a strong position to apply some pressure. Would cost them very little to send a few official letters or making a public statement. Would cost them some to enact new rules for game publishers on steam with respect to sudden changes running contrary to original contract, but it's certainly not outside their reach.

And yet, zilch done. The concept of changing a contract after purchase and agreement is a grey area at best, and something they could participate in improving the conditions of. If they wanted to.

Why does everyone think Valve is eager to try and abuse their market position. I know it sounds very appealing when all you want is to get your way. People don't seem to understand why Steam has been successful with developers, in part Valve doesn't try to control other people's products or force them to operate as Valve dictates.

But some people are sure it's a great idea to weaponize Valve. Those people are fools.

引用自 Faust：

引用自 William Shakesman：

This is a real problem to be sure but I do not think this can be the real solution. Relying on one corporation to protect you from another corporation's Calvinball clauses in their contracts is a little... eh...

You could interpret refunds themselves as one corporation protecting me from another. It's not a legal right in all countries, and even if it is - Valve are the ones shouldering the logistics so I don't have to sue whoever sold it to me.

引用自 William Shakesman：

And it is not feasible for Valve to hold funds in escrow to defend you from these things even if they wanted to. This is a tougher problem than you realize and not something Valve can fix.

Maybe they can introduce a policy where you're not allowed to have a 3rd Party EULA added retroactively. Either you put it there when the game hits the story or you kick rocks. That could be a viable patchwork solution. Sure, many companies could just add one-clause EULA going "YOU AGREE TO EVERYTHING WE WILL EVER WRITE HERE IN THE FUTURE", as they already do. And then I would just not buy their games. :3

One need little imagination to see that had you arrived on this board prior to the refund policy and suggested a 2 hour 14 day refund period, the regulars on this board would INSIST it is impossible, corporations would NEVER agree to this, how dare you greedy customers make demands of corporations! They are Valve's customers too! Yadda yadda. It is all very predictable and tiresome and there is NOTHING less popular here than the idea that any constraint on a corporation should ever exist to benefit a customer in any form. So yes on the topic of refunds, touche.

Still, I have to understand that realities change and sometimes these EULAs must update. The calvinball clauses are emblematic of legal language required to enable these updates. They must happen at some point. But the maximalist legal language does put the customer at the mercy of companies who abuse this legal courtesy. It is a difficult problem as they do have a legitimate purpose.

引用自 Faust：

Specifically?

You want them to not change EULAS, or make it so they can't use third party eulas(when your example is actually a first party eula ironically), games which change hands might need to shut down because they end up in a legal catch 22. A EULA is an agreement between two parties, when the second party changes, the agreement must be updated. You rely on their services, and cannot use their services without being in compliance with their agreements. Don't like it, don't play it.

引用自 Faust：

"We've discussed this time and time again. Serfdom is legal. You belong to your master. You can be sold to someone else. You can be executed. It's all according to the laws."

Strawmans don't reinforce your argument, they diminish it. If you don't know what you are talking about, just admit it and move on.

引用自 Faust：

Not an argument.

Fix your quoting.