Slashdot Mirror
Valve Locking Out Gamers Who Buy Orange Box Internationally
Via Opposable Thumbs, a post on the Consumerist site notes that some enterprising gamers who bought the Orange Box in a territory different than the one they lived (to save a few bucks) have now found themselves unable to play the game. "One user, Todd, explains that thousands of crafty North American gamers looking for a deal have 'bought the product (and hence, the serial numbers) at well known international game stores' at a significant markdown. Activation of the purchased titles went off without a hitch. However, Valve apparently has taken issue with the region-specificity of some international versions and has begun locking out accounts of those living in North America, but owning international serial numbers with the message that the purchased game is in the 'incorrect territory.'" Worse, folks who tried to 'make it right' by buying a local copy have found they're basically SOL. I've been a big fan of the Steam concept since it launched, but this is the sort of thing you need to communicate to your users before you sting them.
Buying what you want, where you want, when you want at the lowest price you can find is for corporations. Why do users keep thinking globalization should benefit them. It's really silly.
...is why I didn't like the idea of Steam the first time I heard of it (not this specifically, but the idea of things like this happening). If I bought the game, it's mine, jackasses. They have no right to be disabling people's games after taking their money.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Glad I wasn't swayed by all the glowing reviews.
to protect deals with distributors.
Reading some of the various "deal" forums it amazes me what people will go through to save a few dollars, yet turn around and brag about their $300 cases, water cooling, and thousand dollars worth of video cards.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
If you didn't get what you believe you paid for, ask the vendor for a refund. If the vendor refuses or ignores you, ask your credit card company to charge it back to them, and they can pick up the tab for their DRM silliness. I happen to love Steam, but not more than my rights as a consumer. Steam is working very nicely for me now, but I know my rights and if Valve take away my games (which they can certainly do if they feel like it), I am within my rights to charge back everything I've paid them in the last two years, and there's nothing they can do about it. This is the only way to tell companies that their DRM isn't working - be on your guard and don't let vendors forget their responsibilities to play fair.
Matthew @ Bytemark Hosting
In my opinion, they also have no right to deny users their right of first sale.
They also have no right to require an active Internet connection in order for users to play offline, single player games.
They also have no right to make the game "phone home" every time the user wants to play.
They also have no right to force-push updates to single player offline games every time the user wants to play.
But that hasn't stopped them.
It has just stopped me from buying their games.
Wow. You basicly have to ask permission from the company before you can use their products. It is not a matter of "if" this would happen, but more a matter of "when." If you give big companies powers like they, they WILL eventually abuse them.
I would describe myself as more of a casual gamer, but crap like this (and what happened with Bioshock) makes me want to completely avoid PC gaming entirely and stick just with consoles. My Gamecube will happily play any game I stick into it, without requiring an internet connection.
I recently re-played my old copy of Fallout (great game, BTW). I would have been completely pissed if I couldn't play it because of some sort of hare-braned activation scheme. What happens if you want to pull out your copy of Orange Box and play it ten years from now? Will you be able to?
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
It doesn't matter how evil the DRM, when Valve does it, it's OK!
More than a decade after MPAA invented region-coded DVDs explicitly to protect deals with distributors, it's still an affront to us. But when Valve does it, hey, it's "just something they put something in to protect deals with distributors".
Product activation and phone-homeware is just as bad an idea when it's called "Steam" as when it's called "Windows Genuine Advantage".
Cozy deals to fuck over the consumers in favor of artificial segregation of distribution channels are just as defective by design whether they're called "Steam" as when they were called "Region-coded DVDs".
The Steam may be delicious and moist, but it's still a lie.
Steam is no triumph.
I'm making a note here - EPIC FAIL.
It's hard to overstate dissatisfaction...
Valve's DRM scheme,
It does what it must, because it can.
For the good of none of us, (except the ones who wear suits.)
But there's no use crying over software that breaks
You just keep on paying 'till you run out of cake
And the damage gets done, and the DRM's won
For the people who are selling lies.
Good. Now if everyone would just read that post, the discussion could end. But stupid articles like that hurt companies bottom line without valid reasons. Its just fud. Funny, considering how much slashdotters bitch and moan about fud.
Steam games are sold in those countries at a tiny fraction of the US retail cost.
So the fuck what? Chinese labor costs a tiny fraction of the money that you would have to pay a US worker. That doesn't stop anyone from buying manual labor where it's cheap and selling products at insane markups at home. If you put that genie back into the bottle, we can talk about not buying your products where we want and using them somewhere else. Can't have it both ways.
I wonder what would happen if you took your laptop with you on a round the world trip?
If you connect via wifi your IP will report you being in X country and will this prevent you from playing overnight in the hotels?
This stinks, if the account is valid, why the fuck are people buying it again - I know I wouldn't.
liqbase
What the hell are you talking about? Reading comprehension (or if you are in this situation, comprehension in general) is not your strong point. People tried to rip off Valve by buying region locked keys from Russia or Thailand where they are sold extremely cheap. Valve shut them off for being the little jerks that they are. The people then went out and did the "right thing" and bought the game legitimately through places like Circuit City. But when they tried to activate it, they already had a CD key in its place and were unable to install it on that steam account.
Now, I am not sure why you can't remove the CD key. I imagine they did it for piracy regions so people couldn't try multiple cd key to see which ones worked. This seems reasonable to me. This is a story of cheap people trying to rip off a company and getting screwed over because of it. I don't feel sorry for them at all and am confused why Slashdotters defend these morons. Yeah, I understand DRM is bad and annoying. But from a corporate standpoint, this looks like Steam is a DRM success because it is able to block people who try to abuse the system. The people can still play their game on another Steam account or get their money back one way or another.
The only thing that looks bad for Valve at this point is their customer service. Should people who now rectified their wrong doing by buying a copy be able to play? I think so. But right now it may not be technically feasible with the way the software is designed. I'd give Valve a few days to analyze the problem and decide how (or if) they will fix it.
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
Strange, electrical appliances are also region locked (110/220V), but people just buy a special "hacking device" to convert the voltage. I'm surprised no authories have gone after them yet.
Well, yes, why not? Wal*Mart can buy shoes from Thailand for $5 and sell them here for $20, when American-made shoes of the same quality and materials would cost $50. That's supposed to be a good thing, at least that's what we tell the Americans when we close down all the shoe factories here because the shoes are cheaper from Thailand.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Really? The article I read said they bought the game for the price Valve asked for.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
You never addressed it at all, you just called everyone buying the gray-market games a lot of names and said they were ripping off Valve.
Valve was selling a product for a price, and a lot of people bought it for that price. If Valve wanted more money, they should have charged more money. You can't be "ripped off" if people are paying the retail price for your goods.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
The scam was that they didn't tell you that the keys were region-locked, which is stated ON THE BOX in those regions. It's possible that they didn't even bother to look at the box, but in that case they're just idiots, not scammers.
Karma: Contrapositive
I am well paid and I have lots of disposable income. Guess who lost a nice chunk of that revenue stream? They haven't had me as a customer since steam. I have the first version of Half-Life that doesn't require steam. That was where they lost me. Treat me like an equal in the transaction, we can talk. Treat me like a thief at every turn, I walk away. And they won't know how many of my friends and relatives I have convinced that way as well. Word of mouth is wonderful advertising, or a horrible fire you can't stop.
One Token Ring to Rule them All, One Search Engine to Find Them, One WAN to bring them in, and TCP/IP Bind them...
Because you can't afford a politician. That's why.
I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
"I would describe myself as more of a casual gamer, but crap like this (and what happened with Bioshock) makes me want to completely avoid PC gaming entirely and stick just with consoles. My Gamecube will happily play any game I stick into it, without requiring an internet connection."
Oh ok. Want to play an obscure RPG based on your favourite cartoon series? Nope! That's only for the Japanese market, not you, you silly overseas buyer. But it's ok, it's in Japanese anyway, so no big loss. But hey, there's a version out in the US now, and it's translated into English! Want to import it now? Nope, you can't! That's only for the US market, you silly PAL territory buyer.
That is why I can barely stand to play console games any more. You can buy a copy abroad, in English, and physically hold in your hands your legitimately purchased product, but if you put it in your machine it won't work, because you need a PAL version. But there is no PAL version, and there never will be. Why won't Sony and Nintendo let me give them money for the stuff they are selling which I want to buy?
At least with PC gaming if you get crap like this there's a cracked version of the single player games on the net within 24 hours of release.
"If you want a vision of the future, Winston, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever." - George Orwell, 1984
Never bothered to buy Half-life because of the steam thing. If at all possible (With games always possible) I will not buy software that locks to specific hardware. This, because I don't trust any company to be around long enough to issue me new license codes when I change PC hardware so if I buy software I always download a pirated copy as a backup from torrent. That is my insurance. I have had an issue with the racing game "Live for speed" . This games uses an activation server for which I bought a license and subsequently lost the license code. I emailed them, send my registration credentials transaction details but they won't even reply so $100 or so down the drain. You don't see your local supermarket come around to take back your groceries when you change your pantry door do you?
They fail some critical parts of contract law:
1) Contracts must happen before the deal. Contracts cannot be ex post facto. This is why you sign contracts before you buy a house or car, and why people talk about prenuptial agreements. If it doesn't happen before the exchange, it isn't valid. All terms must be agreed upon up front by both parties, you can't tack them on later. Since EULAs don't come up until after you bought the software, they aren't enforceable.
2) Along those lines contracts must involve an exchange. There's no such thing as a one sided contract. No exchange, it's not a contract and not legal. That's why if you do something like quit your claim to a piece of property to give it to someone else the contract will read (I, yournamehere, for the sum of ten dollars and other valuable consideration do hereby quit all claim..." and so on. Without that exchange in there, it's not legal, even if the intent is just to give it to them.
3) A contract must be open to negotiation. You are not allowed to make it a one sided thing of "Here it is, you have to accept it as is and I won't talk to you." You HAVE to negotiate. You don't have to accept what the other side wants, but you have to be available to the negotiations. You either have to be able to meet with them, or they have to be able to send you a modified contract and so on that you can then review and accept or reject. Well you can't do that with EULAs so again, they aren't contracts.
4) There are various rights you cannot give up. You cannot, for example, sign yourself in to slavery. I can draft a contract that says you'll be my slave, it can be an exchange, we can negotiate it, and you can sign it. You still aren't my slave, you can't sign away that right. EULAs often say you are giving up rights you can't sign away. That clause in unenforceable and having blatantly unenforceable clauses is a great way to have the whole contract tossed.
EULAs are just companies being stupid. Half of it is usually shit they don't have to say, like "You can't copy this." Well duh, that's copyright law, don't need a contract for that. The rest is irrelevant because you already bought the software, it's way too late for them to restrict it. They want a cotnract, they need to get one beforehand.
With some major packages, that'll happen sometimes. We've bought engineering software that required a signed contract. That one is enforceable. You sign a contract prior to the sale agreeing to terms of the sale, that's legal. However EULAs aren't. That is the reason why our lawyers, who have to be very careful since we work for the state, tell us not to worry and just click through. However real contracts we may not sign, those have to be sent over to legal and generally get torn apart.
Why the hell would I pay that much money for a game so I can get screwed by a DRM system that has done nothing to hamper piracy of the games in question?
Actually, Steam does a LOT to hamper piracy. It's far more effective than other company's solutions.
The key is that Steam requires you to connect to their online server in order to decrypt the game's files ... sure, eventually someone will crack the encryption, but it takes a lot longer to do so. What's more, a lot of Steam's games are online multiplayer only, which means that unless you have a cd-key that was validated by Valve, you can't play the game even if you get around the encryption. It's only possible (and even then, difficult) to pirate single-player versions of Steam material.
Additionally, I don't see how you're "getting screwed" by Steam. The prices are all at market price (or in some cases, slightly lower than market price), and the client itself is very unobtrusive. Now, throw in the fact that you can install Steam on any computer, log on with your username, and start downloading any of the games that you've previously paid for, and suddenly buying a game on Steam seems more attractive than buying a physical disc. After all, discs can break, and if you don't back them up, you're fucked.
I got 10% off by buying through Steam before it came out, so I don't know what your quarrels with Steam are. I had the TF2 beta just like everyone else who bought the Orange Box for 10% off. I unlocked the Orange Box the very morning the game was released, and was able to play immediately. What's so wrong with this? Instead of paying the inflated, never-dropping prices of Best Buy, I can get it ahead of time for a discount by buying software from the people who spent their years of effort and money to develop it.
The issue here isn't with Steam, it's with how the company handled the problem. Even if Steam wasn't involved, using a CDKey system, keys would have been deactivated. Everyone bashing Steam needs to realize this (the majority of bashers probably don't even use it - I actually really like it).
To re-iterate what the real problem was: the *majority* of people (sure one or two may have legit complaints) affected tried to buy the game for a discounted price, had their games de-activated, can get a refund and buy it properly now. For the few people affected, I don't think this is that big of a deal - don't be so cheap on a company that's offering 5 very awesome games for the price of one, and one that even offered a discount beforehand.
So what happens if I'm a U.K. citizen vacationing in Germany and I happen to buy Orange Box online while I'm there? What if I'm a U.S. service member stationed in Germany (yes, there are still U.S. bases there) and I buy Orange Box online with my U.S. credit card, from Germany?
We have a word for products that "don't work" out of the box. It's BROKEN. Nonrefundable doesn't apply if you sell me a retail product that is broken. I wonder what EU and German common contract law have to say about this...
And there's nothing new or novel about that. Gray market goods were being imported into the US long before "software" existed. It's never been considered immoral or "ripping off" the company to buy an American product in Hong Kong for a few hundred dollars less and bring it back to the USA.
I'm just trying to figure out why gray market goods have always been considered acceptable, DVD region encoding has always been considered a ridiculous market price discrimination tool (indeed, many countries allow circumvention of it precisely because it is used solely for price discrimination), yet for some reason Valve is considered a victim in this situation and the people trying to import the cheaper product are suddenly considered "bad" by so many otherwise rational people.
It is indeed tough shit for the customers, simply because Valve has the ability to enforce their preferences in a way that no other company does, and has the DMCA on their side to prevent their own customers from exercising their legal rights (much the same way it's perfectly legal to use clips of video, yet illegal to obtain them from a protected DVD).
It's a perfect intersection of legal and technical abuse of customers, yet it seems nobody cares because it's Valve and we like their games.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
There's something everyone should remember when following the 'vote-with-your-wallet' idea. Tell the company! And I don't mean post to /. something you hope they'll read or hear about, send an e-mail or a letter to Valve letting them know they lost a customer with their policies. When they hold meetings to determine how to sell more copies, I highly doubt this is the type of thing that comes up.
It's obvious that they make more money this way, but the question here is: do you really want a free market or not? Suppose I bake bread. One customer is rich, and can easily afford to pay $5 for my bread, another is poor and can pay only $0.5. Should I sell each for what they can afford or should I set one price for everybody?
Are free market and globalisation only for the big players, or should they be for everyone? Suppose a company is looking for labour, and they can buy it here for $50 an hour or overseas for $10 an hour. They think they can save some money by importing labour from abroad (or having their work done there), but when they import the goods, the government suddenly says: "since you didn't buy your labour in the local market, you can't sell those goods here." That's basically what's happening here. It's a kind of protectionism.