Steam Horror Story

Return of the Subscriber Agreement

By Ariolander on December 22, 2009 3:58:41 AM from

I have been a big fan of Steam and before this event and if I had an option between Steam, D2D, or Impulse I would almost have always have sided with Steam but after my most recent experience with them it is only now I realize how by using Steam I had trapped myself in a corner.

Earlier this week I had purchased a game that was on sale as an early gift for a family member to hold him off till his real one arrived late for Christmas. I didn't know it at the time but because of some glitch in Steam's systems the gifting failed but my CC was still charged and I was none the wiser. Since I told my brother all about the game, hyped him up, got him excited, but he never received it he ended up buying it for himself. I saw him playing it on Steam and thought all was well but after asking him how he liked my gift only to get a puzzled look in return.

Because of the way Steam works if you buy multiple copies of a game Steam simply eats your money for the 2nd copy and you get nothing instead of crediting your account or giving you an extra serial. I didn't want that to happen so as soon as I learned about this I immediately contacted steam support for a refund. The first time I got a forum response because apparently their gift system fails often and resending is a common occurence.

Took another support request for them to realize the issue was not in the fact I couldn't send but the fact I couldn't send and because of that he already owns the game I wanted to give him to which the customer service guy replied that they can't give me a refund or even credit cause according to their Subscriber Agreement any money I give them is theirs and they don't have to give me a return because I am not in the European Union which has laws that require a 30 day grace period.

So I am left in an odd situation. I paid for a game to be given to my brother, they failed to deliver my game, and now they are refusing to return my money either. Upon looking at the forums I found this wasn't the first time this has happened either and when one guy tried to contact his credit card company for a refund they banned his account for "fraud" and disabled access to over $500 in games.

I didn't want to risk loosing some +$300 games I had tied to my account so I was saving my credit card company as a last resort. It took no less than 6 support messages exchanged to get my refund where they tried my patience continually pointing to how their Subscriber Agreement makes it OK that they can take my money, not deliever a product, and ban me if I protest.

I tried to remain polite through the entire process but they were totally unresponsive and the sheer frustration that some stupid EULA makes it ok to commit what in any other industry would be fraud infurtiated me. By the 6th message I had given up and laid down basically said that if they did not refund me for the product they failed to deliver I would file a complaint with the BBB, my local newspaper, and contact my credit card company. My $300 in games be damned I as gonna do it and was already researching Small Claims Court as a solution if they took my games away after my CC company reversed the charges.

I eventually got my money back but only after threatening them and the final line of my message reading:
"The money means nothing to me but at this point it is a matter of principle. What part of YOU RUINED CHRISTMAS don't you understand?"
I was pretty worked up now that I looked back at it. After typing this I had to wipe tears of frustration out of my eyes before finally clicking send.

Even after I got my money back it seems they just had to have the last laugh. They emailed me "Please note in the future that Steam purchases, per the Steam Subscriber Agreement, are not refundable - this refund was issued as a one-time customer service gesture." and just had to rub that stupid Subscriber Agreement into my face one last time.

I find it appalling that a company could have such utter contempt against their customers after they have their money locked in. Just because you are online, it is digital distribution, and we gotta agree to EULAs and Subscriber Agreements does not mean that you can take peoples money, tell them to sod off, and do whatever you want because they agreed to your terms. At the end of the day you are still a retailer, I am still a customer, and taking money but not delivering a product is still fraud... Subscriber Agreement or not.

I don’t think I am ever going to spend another dollar on Steam because next time I have an issue, they refuse me a refund, and chargeback seems like my only solution that’s another dollar they are going to leverage against me in the threat of banning my account for fraud when they themselves are the frauds.

Edit:
I can't fix it can some mod please make the text readable for the GalCiv guys?

0 Karma | 64 Replies

Quoting Nesrie,

reply 48

Quoting Kodiak888, reply 47

Lets forget about that "what ifs" and technical possibilities and lookat the situation rationally.

This is why I responded to you the way i do. If someone disagrees with you, that does not make them irrational nor does it mean that they will be "laughed out of the court." You appear to have very limited or no knowledge about how contract law works. You don't sign on the dotted line and therefore sign away all your protected rights just because they say so. The way the EULA's are written now, most of them, not some, are very unlikely to be held up in court when a case actually reaches that point. It's not even iffy. Consumers have rights, and most those rights people are unaware of so they have you sign a piece of paper that discourages most people from even attempting to have those rights upheld.

You think if a landlord hands you a 30 page piece of paper that says you are not entitled to water on his residential rentals and if you sign that paper suddenly that overrides existing laws? It doesn't. EULA are not promises on forums thrown up by some low grade moderator. Contract law is serious business, and of course it's a what if scenario. The only way your arugment holds water if we create a bubblle around one minute in time and pretend there was no past and that there will be no future. Those kind of arguments are pretty much useless.

You can respond to me any way that makes you happiest. I'm not taking any offense, it's all just good fun. 8)

Not agreeing with me is not what is irrational, most of the time it is in fact quite rational. However, just because a contract can be challenged and anulled does not mean that all EULA agreements are silly and to be ignored. You seem to be using a vague understanding of how contract laws work and are trying to apply them to an unregulated, utterly different and uncontested contract. Your example with a landlord is as good as comparing an existing law nestled safely in the books with an apple and trying to figure which tells time better. When you cite which law is broken when Steam justifiably bans you for breaking their rules, then I'll start to see your side of the argument. When you sign on the dotted line, you DO lose most of the ground you're standing on. Short of a breach of contract or any obvious illegalities (your water example) then you're most likely wasting everyone's time and money. You can sue anyone for anything. Rationally thinking, I don't understand the idea that thinks a reformation in the EULA agreements will be retroactive and allow past users to regain lost programs, games, and services. Just because something is possible does mean it is plausible. Now, I am refering to specific parts of our consumer limitations, not all of them.

If EULAs get pushed hard enough, they'll fall. Consumers do have rights, and deserve improved and substantial advancements to our options of recouse. The digital market is unlikely to crash without some strange unseen factor being equated in, but it will eventually become costly to keep up with all of these account activations and user limitations, and there will be digital casualties and lost access to things that shouldn't be lost. I fear that it will only be then that we see the needed changes, and carelessly feeding the beast now will just pay for better lawyers tomorrow. If you knowingly sign a legitamate contract, then you agree to abide by those rules. Your recourses are few and expensive, and you stand to loose as much if not more than you stand to gain. If that wasn't true, then contracts in general would be useless. The EULA is a flimsy contract, but only because you're already knee deep in the product before you have a chance to agree or disagree, and not agreeing means you have a useless box and an expensive coaster. They're still uncontested and not breaking any current laws or regulations. Change the latter and the former will change.

I don't see how my argument is limited to a bubble. It could be that I'm too tired to build the scenario correctly, but I can't see how it applies at all. I agree that in the future things will change and my arguments will be invalidated, but those changes won't help out the guy who gets banned tomorrow and loses his collection, or the person who bought two of the same game and wants his money back. Again, replace cars with software and run through the same scenario. We deserve much better rights, but the companies need to retain some as well or they won't be around for us to argue about anymore, and then we'd all have to sleep, or spend time with our families. 8P

Quoting Whiskey144,

reply 49

@CraigHB- Sins of a Solar Empire is an Impulse game, and I have NEVER needed to use Impulse to play the game. EVER.

In fact, the first time I got it, I only updated to v1.05, and never touched Impulse until I trawled the forums a bit.

Not all games require Impulse, but you can't play the dlc-expansions, and don't have access to any of the later patches without Impulse. If you get banned you'll permanently loose all of that as well. Steam is the bigger culprit for this scenario, but Stardock is a bit leaning closer to the edge with each new game release.

Quoting ManSh00ter,

reply 50

And this will only get worse as digital distribution gets more common. This is the real DRM companies have wanted for years; the ability to cut you off anytime they please. It will not surprise me in the slightest once purchased games inevitably come with time limits attached. You might argue, "But I'll never buy a game that expires after a year!" Shut up. Yes you will. After they attach it to enough AAA titles, people will start giving in to such a scheme. And they will rationalize it ("Well, I'm finished with it after a couple months anyway..."), and it will become accepted.
That's why I crack all my bought games and I usually buy them via digital distribution services. Ciao online checks. Good bye DRM. And the game boots up faster.

DRM never has and never will work. Steam or no Steam, just make yourself a copy on the DVD and include a crack for it. That way you know that the product you bought will always be available for you.

In fact, good digital distribution schemes should always include the option to store the files on a user's DVD. Its easier on your bandwidth (well I got flatrate so I don't care, but I can imagine how the guys who don't have flatrate feel when they've got to uninstall a digitally bought game weighing ten gigs or more...)

If you get banned your keys are no good, and without keys you can't activate any games that need activation. Modifing the game to get around all of that shouldn't be needed to enjoy it. It should just be enjoyable without the run around. Cracks are also illegal in the US. It's untested and no one is going to bust down your door riding a unicorn of righteousness, but illegal none the less. This just ties into the argument that without better user rights we will turn to piracy (cracks fall under the label of piracy for my intents), or board games. Both options hurt the industry and true game lovers.

Meh. There's no way to establish individual guilt in court in the case of just using a crack on your legitimate copy and not distributing it, so it may as well not be illegal for all intents and purposes. In any case, if you got cahones, stick it to the man, its not like you actually pirated the game.

Also, cracks used on legit copies do not hurt the industry in the slightest. I did not say "download all your games for free" I said, buy your games, then crack them so you don't have to deal with activations, forgotten serials, invasive DRM etc.

I agree with you that this should not be something we have to do in order to enjoy the product we own. We're not renting games here, we buy them and that copy is ours to do as we please with in the privacy of our own computers. I would go so far to say that I have the right to "pop the hood open" and check out the code if I can. Though technically that's "illegal" too. For whatever reason. I suppose they don't want anyone checking out their coding tricks and learning stuff. Next thing you know, they're going to outlaw libraries.

However, until big companies wake up and realize that their DRM schemes only hurt legit customers, those of us who like to use their digital property as they see fit and within the legal limits pertaining to all property (that includes reselling, which some say is the real reason for restrictive DRM) - well, we have to turn to the, I shall not say illegal but informal methods of handling said property.

My stance is, if I buy a car, I can do with it as I please. I can drive it, smash it, mod it, disassemble it make a helicopter out of it, check out how it works, put it back together and then sell it to some poor schmuck. I can even take out the electronic locks out of it and replace them with one of those old fashioned medieval locks with giant keys. because I bought the car and its mine. Same with games, EULA's be damned. I don't even read the damn things, they're not legally binding.

I have a couple games I donwloaded no CD cracks for. That's for a couple old store bought games I have. I'd rather not use cracks if I don't have to. It's real easy to end up with a virus or trojan when browsing and downloading that kind of thing. Also, you have no assurance that the cracked .exe will perform properly and is free of mailcious code. I'd rather not go there if I don't have to.

I agree that you should own the software when you buy it, just like you stated in the example. Software publishers are leaning toward the idea that you are renting their software when you give them money. I believe that's a violation of our consumer rights.

Quoting CraigHB,

reply 53

You're new on the internet huh? I don't know where you download your no-cd cracks but I download from places which are safe and which got the no-cd cracks from releasegroups.

EULA for software are not unregulated Kodiak. There is copyright law involved. Software publishers/developers don't have a right to override copyright law at whim just because they want to. Look at Vernor vs Autocad. You act like these issues are so far in the future that it's not even worth looking at such far off "what ifs". There are cases working through the courts as we speak now. Not only that, but you seem to suggest we don't look at what ifs, but having people "laughed out of court" is also a what if situation. So it's okay to look at what if situations if it supports your argument, but not if it doesn't. Really though, there are modern cases. It's not going to take until 2019 for some of these broader issues to be ironed out. These copryright holders seem to forget that having a copyright does not actually give them them a right to have complete control over individual copies sold... we'll see more cases sooner than later to cement, or possibly, loosen copyright laws against the consumer. It's not a matter of what if, but when.

Quoting Kodiak888,

reply 47

Quoting vieuxchat, reply 43
I backup every game I buy, then write them to a DVD. How is it different from a retail version (apart the re-sailing thing) ?

These backups are mostly, if not entirely useless without the Client. And without some of the updates which are unavailable to you outside of piracy even ones that work without the client are near useless. This is what needs to be addressed. We've lost or are losing the ability to play our games and have no form of protection. Even with G4WL, if you get banned you can still install your games but since the keys are tied to a banned account, when you create a new account they won't transfer over, which means that you can save your game, if play it at all. We deserve a better form of protection or the rest of us will stop playing or go to piracy so we can play the games we legally bought, and stay there to keep from being ripped off in the future. If the console market gets as restrictive as the PC market is becoming then the piracy will skyrocket above what it currently is there as well.

When you buy a retail version of a game you don't get patches with it. That's exactly the same. You can install the game from your backups, and play it without the client. Exactly like a DVD version.

In fact the real problem isn't using the client, but how games need patches nowadays. When you buy a console game it works. You really don't need (there is exceptions, but really few) patching. And you don't buy the right to get patches when you buy a game.

Quoting CraigHB,

reply 46

Impulse games create a signature file that ties authentication to your account and machine specific codes such as your hard drive volume serial number. If you reformat your drive or buy a new computer, then restore your Impulse games from a physical backup, you have to connect to a Stardock server to re-authenticate. This creates the new sig files required for the games to actually run.

Physical backups and restores for Impulse games work fine on the same Windows installation, but then what's the point of keeping physical backups if they're only good for the current Windows install. You're pretty much dependant on the ability to connect and authorize through Stardock to keep your Impulse games going from one machine or install ot the next. The same can be said more or less about any other online digital distributor. Even if you buy games on physical media, they often use online authentication requiring an account of some kind. All of this creates a situtation where the publisher has full control over your access to the software. As someone said above, doesn't smell right.

Do you have a source for your claims about a signature file? Specifically, proof that all Impulse-purchased games require authentication.

In other words, unless you're talking about GOO, which is a form of DRM (very light, but still DRM), you are spreading misinformation. Nowhere have I read that every Impulse title creates a signature file and requires authentication/activation.

If you don't believe what I'm saying about signature files, then do a file search on sig.bin. If that's still not convincing enough, delete the files and start the associated games. They'll ask for authentication.

You're new on the internet huh? I don't know where you download your no-cd cracks but I download from places which are safe and which got the no-cd cracks from releasegroups.

No, I've been on the internet since the early 90's. I'm no elite hacker, just a guy who browses the internet same as everyone else. I've never even heard of a "release group". That sounds like elitist crap to me. The problem is the sites I've found that make patches readily available often get compromised which results in nasty things happening when I download and browse things off the site. Not that the sites are hostile per se, they're just big targets for vandalism. Then there's torrents which are a whole other security mess. I'd just rather avoid all of it if possible.

Quoting CraigHB,

reply 58

No source, just my own experience, so yea, I guess I would need to narrow my statements to the games I've actually bought through Impulse. So let me modify that statement to "some games" use a signature file. I would assume that Stardock uses the same authentication scheme for all of its titles, but I don't know that and I have no sources to site.

If you don't believe what I'm saying about signature files, then do a file search on sig.bin. If that's still not convincing enough, delete the files and start the associated games. They'll ask for authentication.

I know that GOO-enabled games require authentication at installation, but yeah, I do not believe that Impulse requires activation for games that do not contain DRM.

Yeah, right now I have only 1 Impulse title (Sins of a Solar Empire+Entrenchment; technically that's 2 I guess), and I don't even have a file that is sig-anything.

If you installed Sins through Impulse, you *will* have a sig file somwhere. The sig files live in hidden directories so you have to take the necessary steps to see them in your file listings. On Windows XP, for example, the Sins sig.bin lives in C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\Ironclad Games\Sins of a Solar Empire\License

I believe store-bought copies of that game did not carry any kind of DRM. Like GalCiv 2, authentication is only required to download and install updates. Once you've updated the game, the sig.bin file is always required, for those two games at least. If you want to play the store-bought version for lack of DRM, that's certainly your perrogative, but the updates are free and comprehensive. Why wouldn't anyone take advantage of them?

In any case, I expect GC2 and Sins will be the last two games Stardock publishes in store-bought form without DRM. To avoid getting flamed as I did before, I *believe* this to be the case. Impulse is going to be the way of the future for Stardock and the Impulse DRM model will apply to all games they publish for better or worse.

Quoting CraigHB,

reply 61

There is no "Impulse DRM." There is GOO, which is part of the Impulse Reactor, but unlike Steam, Impulse does not strap DRM to everything.

Well I have a sig.bin file for GalCiv II, but that was out before Impulse so I don't think it's impulse specific unless they updated/patched the game.

Impulse does have a form of DRM in that Impulse is required to install and update games purchased through Impulse or published by Stardock. That IS a form of DRM. That outside of GOO which is another form of DRM. Unless my understanding of what Impulse can and cannot do is incorrect, and it could be, I am not able to copy my Tropico 3 game and just install it wherever I want without Impulse or some sort of activation.

For the Impulse games I've already mentioned, you can simply copy the game's program files to another machine and the game will run (without ever starting Impulse) . The game will ask for authentication using it's own panel and once completed, the game runs fine. I know because I have done this in copying games off my desktop computer to my laptop computer. Also, in doing reloads on my desktop. My Impulse games are installed on a D: drive so when I reload Windows, it's all still there. All I have to do is update a few registry entries which is easy to do if you save them off beforehand. When I start up a Stardock game, it asks for authentication and creates a new sig file. Then I'm all set. It's a lot faster and easier than installing Impulse, redownloading, then reinstalling.

There is no "Impulse DRM." There is GOO, which is part of the Impulse Reactor, but unlike Steam, Impulse does not strap DRM to everything.

It also depends on how you define DRM. If you're talking purely in terms of software mechanisms, then yes, I understand and agree with your statement and stand corrected. However, DRM is a fairly general term that can mean a lot of things. The simple fact that you need to login to an account to gain access to Stardock products is a form of DRM, in its most generic sense.

The Forums Are Now Closed!

The content will remain as a historical reference, thank you.

Steam Horror Story

Return of the Subscriber Agreement