Why the SimCity beta nonsense should be a reminder to backup your Steam games

[deano2099]

Horrifying behavior: Around the launch of Battlefield 3, people were banned from BF3 (was it Origin/all of EA, or just BF3?) for filling the forums with hatespeech and vitriol. Something similar happened with Mass Effect 3. Honestly, can any of you say that you want to play with the people who scream things like "I <forcefully had sex with> your mom you <derogatory term for a person of african descent>"? Seriously, can you, with a straight face, say that you want to play with those people in multiplayer games?

No, but all I want is to be able to click a button that says 'mute this player and never pair me up with him again'. If everyone does that, eventually those people just end up playing with each, which if they've paid for the game, they should be able to do.

The reason I feel that way is because I don't always know if my opinion is going to match the opinion of the people running the place on what constitutes offensive. Sure, right now it's just racism and hate speech, but what if the next game is run by a fundamentalist Christian and I get into an argument with someone over religion while playing the game, and he reports me and I get banned? Or the other way around?

That's fine, but what I think some people like to point out is that there's still the potential for it to happen, and if it was any other company that would be enough to condemn them. Think about how people went batshit over the "Origin will spy on me!" thing when there was zero indication that it was doing anything malicious. Despite that it was enough for people to act like it was a real threat.

If we're going to pick about EULAs then we should be holding everyone to the same standard. You're absolutely right that just because something is in the EULA it doesn't necessarily mean that it will be enforced, but that doesn't always mean it should be disregarded.

I'm certainly no Steam apologist, I don't think either has a good enough EULA in terms of consumer rights. But Steam are moving in the correct direction, while EA are moving backwards. I'd also argue against the idea that they had no intention of using that clause. As has been mentioned, Origin (and Steam) already have a 'we can ban you any time' clause. So legally they are already covered for every case. So the only reason to add an extra specific case and say 'including this' is if they actually intend to do that. Otherwise it gets silly. It's like putting "EA will also ban you from Origin if you wear a top hat on a Thursday" in the EULA. And you go, "yeah but obviously they're not going to do that", so I have to ask "why say it then?".

The answer is to make it even easier for when they do ban people for that reason, beyond just the general 'we can ban you for anything' clause. If they never intended to use it, it shouldn't have been there in the first place. Putting it in pretty much demonstrates intent, as there's no other reason to have it there. The "one in a million" cases are covered by the general terms.

[soldant]

I'm certainly no Steam apologist, I don't think either has a good enough EULA in terms of consumer rights. But Steam are moving in the correct direction, while EA are moving backwards.

How are Valve moving in the right direction? Their EULA is still pretty scary, and it even has that class action waiver which people kicked up a fuss about a while back. There's even a clause in there about prohibiting the use of proxys or other methods (unspecified at that) to disguise a person's place of residence for effectively any purpose relating to avoiding billing or subscriptions restrictions (which could include activation I guess). How many people have ignored that? Granted Valve has ignored it too, probably since it's not uncommon, but that could change. They even mention that your "online conduct on Steam" (which might extend to the Steam Community... now isn't that a scary thought!) may also lead to your account being suspended. They can suspend without warning or notice. Do you classify that as "moving in the correct direction"? See, I can pull out scary EULA clauses too.

I'd also argue against the idea that they had no intention of using that clause.

Well I did agree with this when Shooop argued that potential != actual intention or something. That said, Valve don't have a history of enforcing many of their EULA clauses by their strictest interpretation - lots of gifting for money (e.g. all in for a four pack, just cover part of the charge) for example which technically goes against the EULA is ignored (though curiously while Valve make it clear that it can't be done on their gifting FAQ, I can't see anything specific in the EULA that mentions it except vague references to transferring subscriptions). That said, so far the hate with Origin has mostly been about rash interpretations of its EULA, along with finger-pointing over its conduct as a publisher (specifically dealing with devs, which isn't overly relevant). The worst thing to come out of Origin is the weird forum banning, but apparently Valve could do that with Steam if they wanted to (through reading their EULA). Yet they don't.

I'm sure there's also been cases of people who think their Steam account termination is unfair and fascist or whatever cool word they're throwing around, but we just don't hear about it because Steam is awesome. Still, Shooop does have a point that the previous conduct of a company can be a decent indicator as to what they might do. Valve don't seem intent on enforcing their EULA to the letter. Then again, neither do EA.​

[Grizzly]

What change of heart? It was a poll I started to determine whether Offline worked or not for people at that point in time. Seems 20% of people still had issues. A 1 in 5 chance of Steam not working is hardly 'reliable' by any measure. Still feel free to claim it's me attempting to say there were no problems though Griz Vs establishing the likelihood.. If anyone is saying Steam Offline mode is reliable it's Shooop. How about taking it up with him?e

I pretty distinctly remember you arguing that online DRM was not an issue due to the prevalance and reliability of online drm at that time - at which point several people pointed out it wasn't - see also steam.
Just a side note which you now have explained adequately. Carry on :).

[gundato]

No, but all I want is to be able to click a button that says 'mute this player and never pair me up with him again'. If everyone does that, eventually those people just end up playing with each, which if they've paid for the game, they should be able to do.

Which means new users are still at the mercy of the asshats. And they are the ones who are less likely to care.

Take me for example. I have been gaming online since the good UT came out (so '99?) and I have heard it all. But when my first exposure to NS2 was a server full of hate speech and vitriol and NOBODY saying anything was wrong with it (aside from me), I lost all interest. Maybe not all the servers are like that and I just got unlucky, but it was sure as hell enough to make me decide to spend my limited free time with other games.

The reason I feel that way is because I don't always know if my opinion is going to match the opinion of the people running the place on what constitutes offensive. Sure, right now it's just racism and hate speech, but what if the next game is run by a fundamentalist Christian and I get into an argument with someone over religion while playing the game, and he reports me and I get banned? Or the other way around?

And maybe the next game will give us an excuse to drop some godwin-bombs.

Seriously, I hate the slippery slope argument.

"Well, this My Little Pony game wasn't all that violent, but what if the next game Little Timmy buys has him raping and murdering hookers with a fishhook! BAN ALL GAMES!!!"

So how about this: When we have a popular and mainstream game that bans people for not believing in curing leukemia with the power of prayer, you have an argument. Right now, you need to be a pretty god damned big asshat to get banned (aforementioned BF3 case of quoting not withstanding, and I am still not convinced we heard everything in that story based on every other example being rapidly debunked).
And before anyone says anything: Look at how crappy the BF3 and Bioware forums are. Those are the two games (both run by EA :p) that have been mega-banning for being an asshole. CLEARLY you need to do something beyond flaming, trolling, and complaining about the game to be banned. So outside of POSSIBLY that one previously mentioned scenario, it is safe to say that you need to go out of your way to get smacked with the banhammer.

[Kadayi]

I pretty distinctly remember you arguing that online DRM was not an issue due to the prevalance and reliability of online drm at that time - at which point several people pointed out it wasn't - see also steam.
Just a side note which you now have explained adequately. Carry on :).

I don't think it is. But that's a different subject entirely to the proposition put forward by Shooop that an actual perm ban from Steam would be no biggie. Still feel free to noodle on that some more though.

but what if the next game is run by a fundamentalist Christian and I get into an argument with someone over religion while playing the game, and he reports me and I get banned? Or the other way around?

But that's not how people were banned Dean. It wasn't a case of someone banning you from their server and that somehow cascading out to your EA account, it was a case of people being temp banned on the EA forums by an EA moderator and that temporarily impacting their Origin accounts (no doubt a programming resultant of EA getting their ducks in order to unify everything) AFAIK the issues since been addressed and a ban on their forums doesn't impact a persons ability to play MP games through Origin.

As regards Valve. A few years back Valve VAC banned a mass of people from MW or some such all at once for some 'exploit' which ended up turning out to a screw up at their end and subsequently they ended up back pedaling and gave everyone involved a free game or two to keep them happy. It was only the actual volume of complaints in that case that prompted Valve to look into the matter further and realise their mistake. Generally if you get VAC banned the onus is on you to 'prove' it was unjust, even though they apparently don't tell you what you were banned for: -

http://forums.steampowered.com/forum....php?t=1385172

Danish guy I used to play Arma 2 with got a VAC ban a while back and still hasn't found out what exactly caused it. At the very least they should say 'you were detected using 'X exploit' or some such so you can establish the facts yourself.

[deano2099]

How are Valve moving in the right direction? ...They can suspend without warning or notice. Do you classify that as "moving in the correct direction"? See, I can pull out scary EULA clauses too.

Because 'suspend' is moving in the right direction from 'close'. It's still not good enough, but it's better. I'll give you that the class action clause was a step back though.

Seriously, I hate the slippery slope argument.

It's not slippery slope. We shouldn't have to rely on companies to reserve the right to do something being nice enough to not do something. Sure, we generally can, but that's not how the world works.

Apply this to a different service, say I was buying a graphics card online from a store. That store isn't allowed to say "by the way, we reserve the right to keep your money and not send you the goods". Now, if they did, it wouldn't be the end of the world. Because no company would do that on even a semi-regular basis because it would be commercial suicide. But the government doesn't go "well that's good enough then". There are laws that stop them doing that. We don't allow them to do it, because they could get away with just doing it occasionally, or new companies could set up with the intention of making as much money as possible before people stopped buying from them.

I'm in agreement with most people - this stuff doesn't stop me using Steam. I think I'm over the 500 games mark now. I should probably be classed as a fan boy. And I know that they're highly unlikely to screw me over as it makes no business sense for them to do so.

But that doesn't mean I'm happy with the system that allows the companies to retain whatever rights they want and me to have none.

Okay maybe I'm wrong, maybe this is a slippery slope argument. But it's one we've slid down before. And when that happened, that's where consumer protection laws came from.

Or to put it another way: there are people out there that think I'm an asshat. There are people out there that think you are an asshat. No-one is universally loved. And one day one of those people might be a community manager for a game. And that's why I have issues with people being banned for being an asshat.

[And you can still do that, but you need a transparent process with a visible independent appeals system.]

[deano2099]

But that's not how people were banned Dean. It wasn't a case of someone banning you from their server and that somehow cascading out to your EA account, it was a case of people being temp banned on the EA forums by an EA moderator and that temporarily impacting their Origin accounts (no doubt a programming resultant of EA getting their ducks in order to unify everything) AFAIK the issues since been addressed and a ban on their forums doesn't impact a persons ability to play MP games through Origin.

I don't know. It strikes me that it's more effort to set that link up between bans than it does not to, so why create it if you don't intend to use it? Is this MP gaming's nuclear deterrent?

Also I only bought it up 'cause Gundato said it was a good thing those people were banned because who would want to play with them, which is fair enough.

[gundato]

It's not slippery slope. We shouldn't have to rely on companies to reserve the right to do something being nice enough to not do something. Sure, we generally can, but that's not how the world works.

Nah, what you posted was pretty much the slippery slope argument.
"Well, okay, but what if the next time it is worse!"

And it has nothing to do with "being nice enough". It has to do with common sense. No intelligent company is going to alienate EVERYONE. At least, not without making money on the deal.

Let's go over the "stupid" stuff EA has done in recent years:

Closing old servers: Encourage people to buy new games
"Killing" Bioware: Bioware did that themselves, but the goal was to be more accessible to the current generation of gamers. And they did a pretty damned good job of it
Banning people for being asshats: Being an asshat is bad. It would be nice if the forums weren't linked to the games, but I still argue it is the same as banning someone for being a cheater: The goal is to make the game more approachable and to make more sales.

Apply this to a different service, say I was buying a graphics card online from a store. That store isn't allowed to say "by the way, we reserve the right to keep your money and not send you the goods".

But that isn't what they have said. At all.
If we must go with a metaphor (rather than what they actually said): It is like your ISP reserving the right to terminate your contract at any time.

But the government doesn't go "well that's good enough then". There are laws that stop them doing that. We don't allow them to do it, because they could get away with just doing it occasionally, or new companies could set up with the intention of making as much money as possible before people stopped buying from them.

Except that your ISP DOES have the power to cancel your service contract at any time...

You keep mentioning "We as consumers have rights!". Well, companies as producers have rights too. They don't have to service anyone they don't want to. Fortunately, they are the village bicycle and want to service everybody. But even the village bicycle will think twice about giving Stinky Pete The AIDS Freak a quicky.
Finding the balance between consumer rights and producer rights is definitely a sticky subject.

Or to put it another way: there are people out there that think I'm an asshat. There are people out there that think you are an asshat. No-one is universally loved. And one day one of those people might be a community manager for a game. And that's why I have issues with people being banned for being an asshat.

And you aren't special. The people who think you or I are big enough asshats to risk their livelihood probably would never make it to such a position in the first place.



But this specific scenario was pretty obvious from the start: It was an awkwardly worded attempt at ensuring they can stop people who exploit stuff.
And if this should teach us ANYTHING, it is that we need lawyers who are actually knowledgeable of technology and digital media. Because RPS's newest article might be trying to further sensationalize it to "They are idiots and we shouldn't have EULAs", which might be true.

But it is pretty clear that someone said "Add in a clause to not let them exploit bugs. And guilds might try to do a workaround by having one player exploit the bugs with an inevitable banning, and the rest stay squeaky clean but take the merchandise. So add in a clause so that we can ban anyone who we think knew about a bug being exploited and didn't tell us so that they could benefit from it"
Which, is a PERFECTLY reasonable rule. I dare anyone to, with a straight face, say they think there is something wrong with that paragraph. Obviously there are some grey areas in there (what constitutes "exploiting", for one). So you need lawyers to make it as legit as an EULA can get.

So you send it to legal who run it through the legaleselator into something like
"If you take advantage of a bug, you will be banned. If you know about a bug and don't report it, you will be banned."
Which is basically what started this fiasco.

Seriously, rather than always fighting the system and saying the entire thing is evil, people need to start finding ways to work with it.

[deano2099]

Banning people for being asshats: Being an asshat is bad. It would be nice if the forums weren't linked to the games, but I still argue it is the same as banning someone for being a cheater: The goal is to make the game more approachable and to make more sales.

But being an asshat is relative. And down to the person judging. If being an asshat was objective we'd just make it illegal and the world would be a far better place. But there are people here that think you are an asshat. Are you totally convinced that none of them will ever be a game community manager?

It is like your ISP reserving the right to terminate your contract at any time.
Except that your ISP DOES have the power to cancel your service contract at any time...

Which I also think is a violation of consumer rights to be honest (they can terminate any time, you can't, it's close to unfair contracts territory). Although an ISP can't terminate without refunding your money. If that's what you're proposing for games then I'm totally behind you on that. I think that'd be the ideal scenario to be honest.

Finding the balance between consumer rights and producer rights is definitely a sticky subject.

Yup, quite right. It took a long time to get consumer protection laws for physical goods where they are now. Digital distribution is new. The law-makers barely understand it. But believe me, it will happen. Scenarios where digital content providers can just take away access to all your games with no compensation will be illegal in 30 years' time. But getting there will take effort. And lobbying. The consumer rights groups are only just getting their heads around this stuff, but they are getting there. And if the laws for physical goods are any indication, things will improve, at least in Europe anyways. Unless...

Seriously, rather than always fighting the system and saying the entire thing is evil, people need to start finding ways to work with it.

...consumers just don't bother standing up for better rights and just give up, and aggressively argue that other people should shut up and live with it too.

Have you ever returned something to a shop or online store because it didn't work?

Did you know you didn't always have that right? Did you know that right had to be argued for and fought for in law by people like me? And that there were people like you going "oh companies won't sell faulty goods or no-one will buy from them, it's fine, shut up and live with it." And we ignored you, and pushed on anyway. And once we were done, you happily benefited from it.

[Nalano]

Fighting the system is how we get a better system. It's not my responsibility to make EA happy.

[gundato]

But being an asshat is relative. And down to the person judging. If being an asshat was objective we'd just make it illegal and the world would be a far better place. But there are people here that think you are an asshat. Are you totally convinced that none of them will ever be a game community manager?

Actually, a lot of nations do have laws against obscenity and the like. But, in the US, people tend to argue "Freedom of speech". And honestly, I am glad for that.

But so far, in the cases of banning, it seems to be fairly well defined. People can bitch and say they hate a game, no problem. People start dropping profanity and hatespeech, they go bye bye.

And I can only think of maybe two users here who dislike me enough to want to act on it if given power, and they dislike a LOT of people enough that they would never be able to GET a community manager gig.

Which I also think is a violation of consumer rights to be honest (they can terminate any time, you can't, it's close to unfair contracts territory). Although an ISP can't terminate without refunding your money. If that's what you're proposing for games then I'm totally behind you on that. I think that'd be the ideal scenario to be honest.

Well, the problem is that a Steam or Origin ban is banning you from using their servers, which is perfectly reasonable. Unfortunately, that also bans you from accessing your games. But considering that we generally only "lease" software anyway, it probably works.

Essentially, Valve/EA aren't stealing your games. They are saying "We don't want to let you on our matchmaking servers, so no multiplayer. We also don't want to let you use our download servers, so good luck with that. And those are tied to our activation servers".

Yup, quite right. It took a long time to get consumer protection laws for physical goods where they are now. Digital distribution is new. The law-makers barely understand it. But believe me, it will happen. Scenarios where digital content providers can just take away access to all your games with no compensation will be illegal in 30 years' time. But getting there will take effort. And lobbying. The consumer rights groups are only just getting their heads around this stuff, but they are getting there. And if the laws for physical goods are any indication, things will improve, at least in Europe anyways. Unless...

I doubt it, actually. Because to let you keep "all your games" will mean that they have to let you keep using their service. Their content servers. So it almost falls into a "No tresspassing" law area.

...consumers just don't bother standing up for better rights and just give up, and aggressively argue that other people should shut up and live with it too.

What does screaming "No no no, I don't want any of this, you suck!" accomplish? Nothing
People have been screaming that about DRM for the past decade. Let's just think about what happened:

People screamed how they hated disc-based activation: So an emphasis was put on key-based activation
People screamed that online activation was pure evil. So the publishers scaled back on Securom... and shifted to Steam and Origin :p

Like it or not, the publishers are smart and understand PR. They WILL bend us over a table and give Brando some butter. We need to work with them to try and find a middle ground.

Have you ever returned something to a shop or online store because it didn't work?

Yes. In fact, I got a refund from Gamersgate a year or two back

Did you know you didn't always have that right? Did you know that right had to be argued for and fought for in law by people like me? And that there were people like you going "oh companies won't sell faulty goods or no-one will buy from them, it's fine, shut up and live with it." And we ignored you, and pushed on anyway. And once we were done, you happily benefited from it.

Ah, so I am an enemy of all mankind now :p. Sweet.

But you are running into the same problem we both think the legal system has: You are pretending there is no distinction. Let's compare the situations a bit more

Returning a faulty product for a refund is good. It is a much greyer area when you have already eaten half of it/opened and accessed the serial. In fact, many stores have a policy to not accept open/used goods in many cases or to only allow for exchanges/store credit. Why? Because the stores shouldn't be reamed up the ass by the consumers either. And, in the case of a game or software, the next customer gets screwed if the serial doesn't work.

Being refunded for your theatre ticket if you are thrown out of the theatre is good. Except that a lot of theatres (or, at least, my friend's girlfriend's former place of employment) won't give you a refund if the movie is already half over. By the argument you are proposing, either you should get a refund no matter what (meaning that throwing a chair during the credits is a great way to save money) or that the theatre shouldn't be able to throw you out (which affects everyone else's experience).

Same with DD. Let's say that Steam were obligated to give you a refund on EVERYTHING if you started talking about exterminating the Canadians everywhere they went and hacked everything. That is a LOT of money out of Steam's pocket, and it just encourages people to act like assholes if they need some quick cash (because IP bans don't really work and everyone has a spare email address).

That's the problem. Focusing only on the consumers is just as bad as only the producers. People will take advantage of a 30-day return policy to essentially turn Walmart into an electronics rental store (I've seen it...). People will try to claim that their big mac was unsatisfactory and that they want a refund... after they have eaten most of it.
But focusing only on the producer is also bad. They'll intentionally sell shoddy merchandise and hope that no competitors show up. They'll not bother to cook the big mac to save money on using a griddle.

Fighting the system is how we get a better system. It's not my responsibility to make EA happy.

You are right, fighting the system IS how we make it better. Refusing to work with it and just saying "Fuck you system" is not.

[Nalano]

You are right, fighting the system IS how we make it better. Refusing to work with it and just saying "Fuck you system" is not.

You've clearly never heard of a strike or boycott. There's a time for a soft hand, and there's a time for a big stick. You can't categorically deny the use of all tools available.

[gundato]

You've clearly never heard of a strike or boycott. There's a time for a soft hand, and there's a time for a big stick. You can't categorically deny the use of all tools available.

And, when done properly, those are a case of last resort. It isn't "You guys might get rid of the chocolate pudding in the break room? STRIKE!!!" it is "We have been negotiating with you for almost a year now and the deadline is coming up. We have no choice but to force your hand"

And when done improperly, it is just a strong-arming technique that is the equivalent of "Waa waaa waaa, we want pudding, fuck you guys"

Believe it or not, all problems with multiple parties are best solved by the parties working together and compromising. Only use ultimatums and strong-arming when that is no longer an option.

[Faldrath]

And, when done properly, those are a case of last resort. It isn't "You guys might get rid of the chocolate pudding in the break room? STRIKE!!!" it is "We have been negotiating with you for almost a year now and the deadline is coming up. We have no choice but to force your hand"

And when done improperly, it is just a strong-arming technique that is the equivalent of "Waa waaa waaa, we want pudding, fuck you guys"

Believe it or not, all problems with multiple parties are best solved by the parties working together and compromising. Only use ultimatums and strong-arming when that is no longer an option.

Sorry, Gundato, but that just flies in the face of, well, pretty much the whole history of labor rights. If the relationship is completely asymmetrical to begin with, there can be no compromise nor "working together". Strikes and boycotts are necessary to assert the power of the "weaker" side in the conflict.

(I'm not saying that this necessarily applies to *this* case regarding EULAs, but I just wanted to make the general comment)

[gundato]

Sorry, Gundato, but that just flies in the face of, well, pretty much the whole history of labor rights. If the relationship is completely asymmetrical to begin with, there can be no compromise nor "working together". Strikes and boycotts are necessary to assert the power of the "weaker" side in the conflict.

(I'm not saying that this necessarily applies to *this* case regarding EULAs, but I just wanted to make the general comment)

Strikes are a tool. THey are used to increase the strength of the workers side so as to lessen the asymmetry. They should NOT be the first choice.

But yes, you are definitely right that this has little to nothing to do with the EULA argument.

But please, tell me where in "the history of labor rights" striking is the first thing to do and resolves every single problem. Because it isn't, and it doesn't. What it does is strengthen the "argument" of the workers. If you want to argue that the "threat" of a strike should be the first action: I still disagree, but sadly that is believed by many of the unions out there. And that is one of the big problems that has led to the "us against them" mentality.

[Nalano]

And, when done properly, those are a case of last resort.

Technically, the last resort is dynamite. But all power on labor's side stems from the strike. All power from the consumer side stems from the boycott. Everything else is just leveraging that power.

Without that threat, explicit or implied, there is no leverage. To take that threat off the table is to declaw our side of the fight. It is not about whether we are coming to the table, because the only reason there is anybody else at that table is because we can take our ball and go home otherwise.

Piracy, in this case, is our tool of choice. Piracy is our means of saying "we don't need you," allowing us the twin benefits of boycotting a product and playing our games anyway. It shifts the power to us, to the point where companies have to give us a very good reason to come back to the table.

Valve has largely worked to do so. EA has not. Hence.

[Faldrath]

I can't find a decent link now and I'm not at home to search my books, but let me just note that I never said striking "resolves every single problem". It can fail, and often does. But if you think that the rights to work 8 hours a day, of having paid vacations, sick leaves, maternity/paternity leaves, etc., were achieved peacefully, well, all I can say now is that you're incredibly wrong.

(another side note, but I'm a Brazilian sociologist with plenty of American friends, and one thing that always strikes me is how ignorant most Americans I know are regarding workers' history and struggles - possibly because of the stigma the Cold War attached to anything that might even faintly be connected to Marxism. Anedoctal evidence, certainly, but there it is.)

(I swear the pun was unintended)

[Kadayi]

You've clearly never heard of a strike or boycott. There's a time for a soft hand, and there's a time for a big stick. You can't categorically deny the use of all tools available.

Boycotts only work if someone is there to note it and measure the loss.

[Nalano]

Boycotts only work if someone is there to note it and measure the loss.

All those statistics published on how much piracy is hurting the industry are exactly those noted losses.

[deano2099]

Actually, a lot of nations do have laws against obscenity and the like. But, in the US, people tend to argue "Freedom of speech". And honestly, I am glad for that.

That's the key though isn't it? They get to make that argument, because they get a trial. And a jury of peers. With most online services there isn't even an appeals process, and the ones that have them aren't exactly transparent about it.

But so far, in the cases of banning, it seems to be fairly well defined. People can bitch and say they hate a game, no problem. People start dropping profanity and hatespeech, they go bye bye.

But what of a joke about hate speech? Or what if I quote the guy before to point out how awful he's being? Or I'm doing it ironically? Or my hate speech is just directed at women which apparently is fine on gaming forums but then the rules change and I get banned? Or my hate speech is directed at 'casuals' which apparently is fine on gaming forums but then the rules change and I get banned?

If you think that's all me being silly, google Twitter Joke Trial to see how stupid this can get even with an entire justice system rather than a single mod behind it.

Well, the problem is that a Steam or Origin ban is banning you from using their servers, which is perfectly reasonable. Unfortunately, that also bans you from accessing your games. But considering that we generally only "lease" software anyway, it probably works.

But the games aren't explicitly sold as a lease. Go to the Steam store page of a game you've bought "You already own this game". Except you don't technically own the game, but you do when it's convenient that you do and you don't when it's convenient that you don't. Were the fact that it was a lease made clear, Steam would have a problem as people would understand that the value proposition was not as good as it was out-right buying the game from a shop (yeah I know, but average Joe doesn't) so feel aggrieved at having to pay the same amount.

I doubt it, actually. Because to let you keep "all your games" will mean that they have to let you keep using their service. Their content servers. So it almost falls into a "No tresspassing" law area.

Indeed, so we have a problem that Steam are essentially selling hot air at the moment. They're not actually selling permanent access to their servers whenever you want, but nor are they setting a time limit. See I'm aware my shop buying analogy doesn't work, but nor does your broadband contract one either, as that's an ongoing fee where you buy the service for discreet amounts of time.

It's something entirely new: it's a single one-off payment for an assumed perpetual service. No-one envisaged Steam when drawing up consumer protection laws (or software licensing laws for that matter). So attempts to apply them always end up in a complete mess. New laws are needed. They don't exist yet. Historically consumer protection laws have had a heavy bias towards the consumer, but things do change. I think Europe will get this sorted, I'm not so convinced about the US.

Like it or not, the publishers are smart and understand PR. They WILL bend us over a table and give Brando some butter. We need to work with them to try and find a middle ground.

Do you really think they're open and ready to discuss and co-operate on this though? Do you really think they are not already lobbying their law-makers to ensure that they get their way and we don't get a look-in? Because they are. These EULAs might not have been tested in court but don't think for a second the big firms don't have people lobbying governments to explicitly make the current provisions legal so that, when they are, they win. That's happening. They're doing shit. They're not sitting around going 'hey gamers, what would you like us to do?' [albeit at the moment this is more with the movie companies and stuff but it will affect us].

Having these sorts of things covered in a bad light on sites like this is helpful. This is fighting the system. The more publicity, the more it will seem to matter, the more likely it is to get national press and consumer organisations interested.

Obviously we need to find a middle-ground, but the thing is, me, Bobby Consumer here, I'm at the far right side of the ground wanting all my rights and fuck the companies yeah. And the current EULAs are at the far left of the field saying I can get to fuck and I'll eat the shit I'm given. And then EA manage to put out something that somehow manages to be even further on the left of the field, somewhere up in the seats. They're moving away from the middle ground, so yes the response should just be a straight-forward 'fuck off'. And y'know what? It worked.

Ah, so I am an enemy of all mankind now :p. Sweet.

But you're our enemy of mankind.