Valve Responds to Steam Territory Deactivations

An anonymous reader passed us a link to Shack News, which is reporting on official commentary from Doug Lombardi of Valve about the international Orange Box code problem we talked about yesterday. According to Lombardi, the folks who bought copies of the game from a Thai gaming store are pretty much out of luck. They'll need to buy a local copy to have a working version. That said, they should be able to replace the old code with a new one. "'Some of these users have subsequently purchased a legal copy after realizing the issue and were having difficulty removing the illegitimate keys from their Steam accounts,' added Lombardi. 'Anyone having this problem should contact Steam Support to have the Thai key removed from their Steam account.'"

Comments

Consumer rights

[stryyker]

What about those that were and are in regions of the world where importing software is allowed like Australia?

Re:Consumer rights

[Derek Loev]

Isn't Australia where they put people that import software as a punishment?

Re:Consumer rights

[arth1]

Or people who move? I would have hated it if, when I moved from Europe to the US a few years ago, all my games stopped working.

Re:Consumer rights

[dougmc]

You mean like the US? There was no law violated here (by the customers -- Valve might be another matter) that I'm aware of, just some arbitrary policy that Valve probably buried deep in some EULA or something.

In any event, this sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen. And the bad publicity is likely to cost Valve/Steam far more than any additional revenue they make from selling the game twice. Valve wants us to believe that we should like Steam, but abusing it like this is not going to help there.

Re:Consumer rights

[darkitecture]

What about those that were and are in regions of the world where importing software is allowed like Australia?

I'm assuming you still retain the right to use the Thai version whenever you find yourself in Thailand.

Fact is, the code you have is not for use in Australia - that's not Valve's problem. I would say it's either your problem for not reading the fine print when you purchased the code on a website or, more likely, it's your legitimate beef with the website from where you purchased the code for not telling you there were region restrictions. Then again, caveat emptor I guess whenever you decide to buy from sketchy online distributors.

Don't get me wrong, I understand where you're coming from - you just wanted to save a few bucks on your Orange Box. But this is the risk you run when you can't justify spending that extra twenty bucks or whatever on a legit version from a local retailer. Sometimes it comes back and bites you in the ass and you end up paying even more. Thems the breaks.

Re:Consumer rights

[darkitecture]

just some arbitrary policy that Valve probably buried deep in some EULA or something.

You know that EULA stands for End User License AGREEMENT, right?

Not their fault if you didn't read what you agreed to.

Re:Consumer rights

[Sparr0]

There were no territory restrictions when the game was purchased. The cross-territory access was blocked AFTER they bought the game, installed it, and had been playing.

Re:Consumer rights

[darkitecture]

Or people who move? I would have hated it if, when I moved from Europe to the US a few years ago, all my games stopped working.

If you'd lived in Europe and went to the US, you wouldn't have been affected. There's no regional restriction for copies sold in any of the European countries (except Russia, I think).

Then again, I could imagine it would be a reasonable compromise for Valve to check you actually played the game for an extended period of time in Russia before you legitimately moved to the US. If it showed you played it for a few weeks in Russia and now you want to play it in the US, then I would agree that they should allow it. If their records show the game was never played in its original country of purchase, then I think they'd have decent grounds to decline your request.

But we're just talking about Russia here. If you bought yours in the UK or Germany or whatever, you could play that in the US without any problems.

Re:Consumer rights

[Anonymous Coward]

You know that EULA stands for End User License AGREEMENT, right? The law still supersedes an agreement. This is why in most contracts there will be some wording along the lines of "If any part of this contract is illegal or unenforceable, the rest of the contract remains in effect".

Re:Consumer rights

[Kratisto]

In Soviet Russia, games play you. Damnit. And I promised the last time I made a Soviet Russia joke it would be the last...

Re:Consumer rights

[Kurous]

I've bought games while living overseas, and find this a bit disconcerting by Valve. Yes, most (if not all) of the purchasers were trying to save save some money, but the case where the person who is in Thailand and then returns to there home is a legitimate circumstance. However, they are going to run into these problems when moving to this distribution model. I don't know if you can keep selling boxed versions (where this would not be a problem) and distribute electronically and expect to enforce something like this.

Re:Consumer rights

[FoolsGold]

For what it's worth, the exchange rates mean virtually all games on Steam are cheaper in Australia than anywhere you could find the retail versions for. It's not that big a deal here... unless you're on dial-up.

Re:Consumer rights

[morari]

Then they're out of luck?

Steam was always a bad idea. It is obtrusive and annoying. It monitors your activity and adds a needless step in between me clicking and the game starting. The very idea that some douche bag can flip a switch and decide that I can no longer play the games that I purchased is ridiculous. I like having the actual media anyway. At least then there's a chance that I may be able to get the game working in several years once Steam no longer exists, making for a sticky situation for everyone that just "conveniently" downloads instead.

Re:Consumer rights

[rm999]

"In any event, this sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen. And the bad publicity is likely to cost Valve/Steam far more than any additional revenue they make from selling the game twice."

I know what I'm about to say is not popular on sites like this, but I think it stands to reason. Double selling is not the point from their perspective. This is a form of arbitrage, which they consider wrong. I know people disagree, but I can see the frustration on their end.

They basically have two choices - sell games for cheaper in poorer countries, or not sell them at all in these countries. I commend them for choosing the first option; people in less wealthy countries deserve entertainment too (without the Windows 3rd world crippling mentality). Arbitrage threatens to cut their main sense of revenue: American gamers who can afford American prices. Obviously they could choose the latter option I mentioned above, but this is lose-lose. The Thai can't play Valve games, and Valve loses a legitimate source of revenue.

Re:Consumer rights

[Silverlancer]

Incorrect. It said ON THE GAME BOX of all restricted versions of the game that there was territory restriction.

Re:Consumer rights

[Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS-]

This is what happens when a developer becomes a distrubor. They slowly stop caring about their gamers and making the highest quality product, and start to think primarily of profits. They even rush to market games that are not finished. They then abandon their development. It was promised that dod:S would eventually include vehicle combat (which it doesn't years after it was released). TF2 lacks basic class limit cvars, which have been in pretty much all tf games, as well as all of valves' DoD offerings, and tf2 also lacks the old %h %l %i variables from tfc).

Re:Consumer rights

[Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS-]

I smell a waiver/estoppel argument in the making for equitable relief against Valve. No, IANAL.

Re:Consumer rights

[VGPowerlord]

You mean the agreement that you can't read until you're actually installing the product because it's not printed on the box?

Re:Consumer rights

[JohnFluxx]

I do get your point, and I do indeed also see their point of view.

However, they are allowed to hire programmers from the poorest countries, in order to reduce their costs. So why aren't I allowed to buy from the poorest countries to reduce _my_ costs?

It seems like a double standard.

Re:Consumer rights

[gonebursar]

I can see your point. The thing is, though, why should I care about their bottom line, or if someone else can or can't buy a game they produce? Mine is a privileged perspective, I know, and a self-centred one, but it irks me no end that companies are allowed to make use of the benefits of globalisation by shopping around for the cheapest supplier(s) while forbidding me from doing the same just because they're a step up the production chain.

I'm in Australia, and our dollar is doing rather well against yours. It's gotten to the point now where I can buy games from the 'Sates and pay less for them, including shipping by airmail, than I could buying them from a retail outlet over here. Some of the savings are quite substantial - The Orange Box, for example, retails for $99AU here, yet I can buy it from Amazon for $52 AU. Is it wrong for me to buy these things from the US? I mean, I'm an Australian gamer who can afford to pay Australian prices, right? What about DVDs? They're cheaper from Amazon than they are here, and, what's more, many of the items for sale by Amazon have not been released here, nor do I think they will ever be. Should I not purchase seasons 3 and 4 of Teen Titans?

Re:Consumer rights

[VGPowerlord]

They basically have two choices - sell games for cheaper in poorer countries, or not sell them at all in these countries. I commend them for choosing the first option; people in less wealthy countries deserve entertainment too (without the Windows 3rd world crippling mentality). Arbitrage threatens to cut their main sense of revenue: American gamers who can afford American prices. Obviously they could choose the latter option I mentioned above, but this is lose-lose. The Thai can't play Valve games, and Valve loses a legitimate source of revenue.

"American gamers who can afford American prices."
You have that logic reversed. American gamers are the people who can afford American game prices. The US is not a single economic unit, particularly not since the Wal-mart effect began. Wal-mart has single-handedly killed the lower-middle class, bumping them down to the lower class, and the effect will most likely continue until the upper-middle class as we know it no longer exists. This means no fancy things like video game systems or computers.

Re:Consumer rights

[Anonymous Coward]

First, please consider that you have left the entertainment industries of poorer countries out of your reasoning. Valve's dumping means more dollars are leaving the local economy of poorer countries. It also means fewer companies are able to compete, which is worse for consumers, both locally and globally and represents a missed export opportunity for the local country.

Second, please consider that arbitrage is a natural consequence of dumping. If Valve is frustrated, it is only because they cannot have their cake and eat it too.

Re:Consumer rights

[urcreepyneighbor]

There's no regional restriction for copies sold in any of the European countries (except Russia, I think).

Russia isn't part of Europe.

Unless I've slipped into a parallel universe where the Reds won the Cold War?

Re:Consumer rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Incorrect. It said ON THE GAME BOX of all restricted versions of the game that there was territory restriction. ... in Thai?

Re:Consumer rights

[dougmc]

You mean the agreement that you can't read until you're actually installing the product because it's not printed on the box?

Yes, I think that's the exact agreement he's referring to.

Though my (American) Orange Box says `Please see http://www.steampowered.com/agreement to view the SSA prior to purchase'. (SSA = Steam Subscriber Agreement). Excuse me while I go home and look this URL up, then come back to the store to buy it if the EULA meets with my agreement ...

Reading through that, I see nothing that lets them cut you off just because you bought your game from the `wrong' country. But then again, it is 5165 words (titled `Welcome to Steam' no less!) so maybe I missed something. The average reader's speed is 200-250 words per minute. Assuming 250 wpm, that's 21 minutes just reading their Steam agreement -- and this is complicated reading that people generally aren't familiar with, so they probably have to slow down (and maybe look some legal terms up) if they really want to understand it.

I guess the EULA would have to be on the web -- there's not enough room for the EULA, even if we use the entire outside of the box and every piece of paper inside. (Granted, there's only one piece of paper inside ...)

Of course, if you download your game from the Internet and use a Steam crack, they can't turn it off ...

It seems to me that Valve is trying to punish their paying customers because they didn't pay *enough*. And that sounds like a mistake on their part. If they want everybody to pay the same price, don't sell the game for less in other countries ...

Re:Consumer rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it's called America, and you're a moron. Thanks for playing.

Re:Consumer rights

[pushing-robot]

I'm pretty sure Valve doesn't operate any coding sweatshops in Malaysia.

They may hire people from foreign countries on H1B visas, but they actually come to the US, live here, earn, spend, and pay taxes.

Likewise, you're free to travel to Thailand, live there, and buy discounted games.

I just don't get all the hatred for Valve. With their development costs and retailer markups, they'd go bankrupt if they sold the Orange Box here for $15. No one in Thailand could afford it for $50. Does charging poor people less and rich people more make Valve some sort of monster?

Re:Consumer rights

[WCLPeter]

Then again, I could imagine it would be a reasonable compromise for Valve to check you actually played the game for an extended period of time in Russia before you legitimately moved to the US.

I have a store bought copy of the Half Life 1: Anthology disc. I've never been able to use it. Nowhere on the box did it say, "Requires Steam to be run." So you can imagine my surprise when I tried to install the game and it tried to install Steam instead. I PURCHASED the fracking thing; I have the shiny pressed disc in my hands. Yet they have the audacity to tell me that I need *THEIR* permission to play it whenever I want to.

I tried to take it back to store, but like most places they would only do exchanges on opened software.

So now I'm stuck with this game I have never played and can't return. In effect, Valve has stolen my money while at the same time treating me like a criminal for purchasing their product.

It doesn't matter where I bought it, or what I paid for it. If I exchange my money with a company for one of their products, I own that product and have the right to use it as I deem fit. I should never need to ask for permission from the company every single time I want to use the product I have paid for.

I don't call Mercedes for permission to take my Smart out for groceries, I will not call Valve for permission every time I want to play my legally purchased game.

Re:Consumer rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because I "can" afford "American" prices doesn't mean I should be forced at gunpoint to pay it, especially if it's cheaper elsewhere.

If you disagree, then any company doing business in the US should be forced to pay American wages across the board. That would end outsourcing faster than any plague ever spread, and suits me just fine. If you want equality, that would cause it.

While we're at it, put a 100% tax on products from any country that doesn't have the minimal environmental laws as exist in the US, and we can put an end to the "Made in China" lead recalls, as "Made in China" would most likely only be stamped on the soon to be impounded chemical/heavy metal impregnated clothes of Chinese immigrants.

Re:Consumer rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Should I not purchase seasons 3 and 4 of Teen Titans?

No, you shouldn't.

Re:Consumer rights

[drcagn]

Russia spans multiple continents--it's located in both eastern Europe and Asia. It was also in North America until they sold Alaska to the US.

Re:Consumer rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Though my (American) Orange Box says `Please see http://www.steampowered.com/agreement to view the SSA prior to purchase'. (SSA = Steam Subscriber Agreement). Excuse me while I go home and look this URL up, then come back to the store to buy it if the EULA meets with my agreement ... Take it home, read the SSA, return the still-sealed box for a full refund?

Re:Consumer rights

[Skreems]

Nowhere on the box did it say, "Requires Steam to be run." So you can imagine my surprise when I tried to install the game and it tried to install Steam instead. I PURCHASED the fracking thing; I have the shiny pressed disc in my hands. Yet they have the audacity to tell me that I need *THEIR* permission to play it whenever I want to.

I tried to take it back to store, but like most places they would only do exchanges on opened software.

In this case, the law is actually on the side of the consumer. If the product is mis-represented in the store and there are aspects of it which you can't reasonably know about until after the purchase, they're required to take the product back. If they won't, it's quite easy and legal to reverse the charge on your credit card (provided you used one to make the purchase in the first place).

Re:Consumer rights

[WNight]

No. Breaking the law and sabotaging legally purchased products make Valve into some sort of monster. Telling people that they're SOL and will need to buy another whole copy, that's monstrous.

I imagine the houses of Valve developers, and their office, and filled with things that weren't made in the USA. Should we "remotely disable" (ie, break in and smash with a hammer) all of these products? It would help local industries, and it would make Valve pay what they can afford. No cheap overseas pencils, only the expensive made in the USA kind. No overseas RAM in their computers, etc...

That'd be fair. They want to disable our products to push a buy-locally message. So they should start.

And really, $15 is a lot more to a poor teenage gamer than to the owners of Valve. They'd need to lose $15,000 or more to feel empathy. Wouldn't it be funny if their cars were all disabled and they had to buy new ones. Like a joke. Except with justice attached.

Re:Consumer rights

[mrchaotica]

Fact is, the code you have is not for use in Australia - that's not Valve's problem.

WTF?! Of course it's Valve's problem -- Valve is the one that turned it off!

Fact is, Valve is stealing (by depriving of use) the product that people legitimately bought. Period, end of story. Screw civil lawsuits; Valve should be criminally prosecuted for this!

Want another fact? Importation is legal. Valve may not like it, but it's true. And although Valve has the technical ability to turn off people's legal imported property, it sure as fucking Hell doesn't have the right to do so!

Re:Consumer rights

[pyrros]

A large part of Russia is in Europe. They're just not in the EU.

Re:Consumer rights

[Opportunist]

Yes, and you know that "law" stands for "whatever you agree on, we overrule".

The average EULA is null and void where I live, because every EULA I've read so far violates at least one portion of our copyright laws (yes, we still have copyright laws that at least in part include consumer rights) and are thus in total null and void.

Re:Consumer rights

[Opportunist]

Excuse me while I go home and look this URL up, then come back to the store to buy it if the EULA meets with my agreement ...

And now for those of us that buy online and don't get to see the box before they bought it.

Re:Consumer rights

[Anonymous Coward]

The average EULA is null and void where I live, because every EULA I've read so far violates at least one portion of our copyright laws Don't most EULAs have a section "even if part of this agreement is void by local law then you agree that the rest still stands"?

Re:Consumer rights

[Atario]

And yet, somehow, oil producing countries continue to make money despite the fact that someone in a poor country pays the same for a barrel of oil as someone in a rich one. How do they do it?

Re:Consumer rights

[pushing-robot]

Valve put a warning on the box that the licenses could only be activated in their respective countries. The foreign resellers conveniently forgot to tell that to people who purchased the software. The resellers misrepresented the product, not Valve.

Imagine I pulled off "Academic Use Only", "Upgrade Version", or "Not For Resale" stickers from product boxes, and sold them as full, unrestricted products. How is that any different? Would the developer be to blame? Would they be "breaking the law" and "sabotaging legally purchased products" if they don't honor my false claims?

Re:Consumer rights

[thenextpresident]

You are allowed to buy from the poorest countries to reduce your cost. You make the assumption that the programmer they'd get in the US is the same as the programmer from the poorer country. This is not the case. Rather than hire Joe, they hire Bob for less. Bob is not Joe, but Bob can do about what Joe does who is more expensive, but does it better.

You have the same options. You can buy games like TF2 or Portal or HL2:EP2. They won't be the same games, but they will still be games like them (Fortress Forever assuming you already have HL2, Narbacular Drop, and any single player FPS that's out there). These games aren't the original, but they do about what the more expensive ones do.

Their is also the issue of the Thai version. First, the people buying the Thai version had to send in documentation that proved they were Thai. What ended up happening is that these people had to doctor that information up. They had to fake it. But even if this was not the case, they are still buying the Thai version. In this case, the Thai version is only playable from a set region. The North American/European version is more widely open. So while you are paying less, you are getting less. You are free to shop around and buy the NA or European version for the lowest price you can find, however. Valve does not prevent this, at all.

Re:Consumer rights

[fyrewulff]

Except that the boxed versions you can buy are all distributed by EA..

Re:Consumer rights

[arth1]

Incorrect. It said ON THE GAME BOX of all restricted versions of the game that there was territory restriction.

Non-sequitur. You don't get to read the game box unless you're physically present.
Most trade these days is over the Internet, where you do NOT get to see the box, and if you do, not in high enough resolution to read any small print. In other words, the customer acts in good faith.

Re:Consumer rights

[WNight]

There are two different cases, one where the software is different. Where the student version has only half the features. If you resold that as the full version you'd be guilty of fraud. That's not what happened here.

In this case though, the software is functionally identical. It will do everything the other one will, but is prevented from doing so by DRM access restrictions.

They're allowed to make a Thai version, or even to stick a sticker on the English version and call it a Thai version, but not to shut it down anywhere else in the world.

That's how they're breaking the law. Taking something I have legal right to own, to purchase, and to use, and shutting it down remotely because of DRM which was enacted specifically to bypass the right of first sale.

Yes, I know they can't enforce their fancy marketing scheme this way. Tough luck.

Re:Consumer rights

[Anonymous Coward]

"Then again, I could imagine it would be a reasonable compromise for Valve to check you actually played the game for an extended period of time in Russia before you legitimately moved to the US. If it showed you played it for a few weeks..."

Whatever.

If I were in that situation, it wouldn't change the fact that if it was an ordinary boxed product without restrictive DRM, I'd pop the CD into my machine in the new country after I had moved and it would work as usual.

DRM == hassle. Regionalized DRM == extra hassle. Regionalized and network-dependent DRM == double-plus hassle.

Why should a paying customer have to put up with such nonsense if it can be avoided? I'm not saying companies do not have a right to install whatever DRM they want, and set whatever license terms they like, but I certainly factor the potential inconvenience into my buying decisions, which is one of the reasons I've never bought a Steam-based game, even though some of them look otherwise very interesting. My home network connection isn't reliable or fast enough for me to trust the system. It's just a personal decision, but it means Valve doesn't get a customer that they otherwise could have, and I suspect I'm not alone. I also hope that not too many game vendors will go the route of increasing restrictions.

Re:Consumer rights

[roguetrick]

Thus the customer should seek action against the merchant.

Re:Consumer rights

[BinaryOpty]

Student versions don't always have half the features, and in fact I'd say that the case of student versions matching the normal versions is greater than the ones that don't. The thing that makes them cheaper is that the user cannot use the product to make something they can sell, the same reasoning behind companies that give away software for free for non-commercial use. If an uncrupulous company sold a commercial business a student version or a non-commercial version of a program without letting them know what exactly they were buying, then the company would be at fault. This matches this case almost to a T. To reword it in an analogy, let's say the game is a car. You're allowed to sell the car as long as the title for it is valid in the country you're selling it to. If it's not valid then for all intents and purposes you don't actually own that car in that country. This specific Orange "Car"'s title was valid only in Thailand and Russia, and selling it outside of the borders means the product purchased is technically not yours. Valve can treat it like a stolen good because you have no legal proof you bought it, as the only proof you have only applies in a country you don't live in.

Re:Consumer rights

[MagusSlurpy]

No, it's the other kind of pirate they put there.

Re:Consumer rights

[dougmc]

Take it home, read the SSA, return the still-sealed box for a full refund? Sure, that works. But do you think that's actually reasonable? When you buy a car, you agree to a smaller contract than this -- and thats even if you include financing!

Agreeing to 5000 words of legaleze just to play a game? And again, I saw nothing in this legaleze that said that the game was tied to a specific territory or region and they could shut it off if you left it.

This is screaming for a class action lawsuit.

Re:Consumer rights

[DeepZenPill]

It's not so much that nobody in Thailand could afford it for $50, but nobody in Thailand would be willing to pay $50 for it. It would be cracked and pirated and sold at cheap prices. The low price from Valve is an effort to combat that and at least make some money in that market.

Re:Consumer rights

[thomas.galvin]

What about those that were and are in regions of the world where importing software is allowed like Australia? The problem is that our government was set up to protect private citizens from the government. The corporation, which have powers pretty much on par with the government, wasn't really foreseen, so there's nothing in place to protect us from them.

A while ago, the RIAA and FCC held a press conference about some pending legislation. Someone from the audience asked "what about a public representative," and the RIAA guy said "I represent the public." He honestly couldn't see that there was a difference between his cadre of multi-million dollar companies and John Q Public sitting at home. Until that distinction gets made, and gets encoded into law, we're basically out of luck.

Re:Consumer rights

[thomas.galvin]

If their records show the game was never played in its original country of purchase, then I think they'd have decent grounds to decline your request. Why? If they offer you a certain service, say the ability to play a certain game or watch a movie, why does it matter to them where you make use of that service? If I buy a bottle of soda, does the store care where I drink it? If I buy a book, does the publisher care where I read it? So why is a video game any different?

Re:Consumer rights

[brkello]

That's stupid. Does Valve actually hire from the poorest countries? You aren't allowed because they said you aren't. And they have technical means of enforcing that.

Re:Consumer rights

[Kjella]

Unfortunately I've never seen it work in reverse... "Our software is remotely disabling you and you're screwed, ok so we can't sue you for breach of contract if you find a way around it but we're not going to change the way the software works or help you do that". Or hardware, if it's hardware. In short, the agreement is only as good their inability to enforce it with DRM.

Re:Consumer rights

[WNight]

If I walk up to you on the street and give you software, you obviously didn't license it and as such have no obligations. If you purchase it from me the same rules apply. An implied contract of purchase does not allow for remote disabling. That's why if you buy some things you have to sign a contract that spells out the specifics. With this software you didn't, so none of those type of rules could apply.

That means that if you had a student copy of something you could do whatever you wanted with it. Supposedly they're meant to be licensed with special restrictions and if you try to purchase student copies of MS's software through the website they might detail this, but in campus stores student editions are simply another product to be sold to anyone with a student card. The store presumably licenses this with Microsoft. The students, having purchased yet another product are under no obligation to anyone.

Microsoft might not like the idea that a person who speaks Thai could buy a cheap copy of Windows and use it in the USA but they know they couldn't disable it. That's why they simply make it use the Thai language - it's enough of a deterrent for people who are just trying to save money and yet it doesn't hurt legitimate users.

Valve on the other hand took a product that was working and disabled it. They might not like that these customers legally purchased this and shipped it internationally but it's a legal (not counterfeit) copy so they have no right to complain. The law - not just a good idea.

Re:Consumer rights

[BinaryOpty]

Except they didn't legally purchase it, as the seller wasn't supposed to sell to people from outside the country. The seller is at fault here and the people who purchased the game get burned because of it.

Re:Consumer rights

[WNight]

That doesn't matter. That's what I was trying to say. No matter how you got it, as long as it's not counterfeit, it's totally legal to have. These weren't - they had legit keys, they just weren't the ones Valve wanted these people to have because they thought they could be forced to pay more.

If something is sold outside of a specific agreement (before release date, in the wrong area, etc) that's a contract dispute with the reseller, not a reason to remotely disable the product. The consumer isn't legally at fault - they're allowed to do everything they did.

This is an interesting case, DRM is preventing legal usage which means that cracks for this should now be legal, it's handy that they'll probably also crack everything Valve's ever made. Fitting punishment for a company that would make the customer eat the cost. Willingness to screw someone over for 'only' $15 is still willingness to screw people over. If they didn't want to be thieves instead of just blocking keys they could have refunded customers. (Before this blew up into a media scandal - whatever they do now they've already shown their true colors.)

Re:Consumer rights

[BinaryOpty]

That's not true, though. If someone sells you a stolen car, the car technically isn't yours since it technically wasn't theirs to sell. As such, the police are free to confiscate the car from you. Something similar happened with this case, even though the goods themselves are legit, the means which they were procured were illegal and thus you don't own the good.

Re:Consumer rights

[WNight]

This wasn't stolen software, it merely wasn't kept within a region that Valve wished it kept within.

That's not a crime. Remotely disabling a product that is legitimate is.

Re:Consumer rights

[SsShane]

I moved from the U.S. to Europe and all of my games work fine.

Re:Consumer rights

[kevin.fowler]

The point of this was that they were selling CD keys out of a box in Thailand to circumvent the entire process of physically importing the package. The blame here falls on the Thai companies for not making it completely clear that these codes are region-locked.

To obtain the CD key, the consumer had to lie or consent to lying at some point about where they lived.

Find the best brick and mortar deal or coupon and roll with it... you can get burned buying internationally.

Re:Consumer rights

[RM6f9]

"Does charging poor people less and rich people more make Valve some sort of monster?"

For the exact same product? In a word: YES!

I am a capitalist: I believe that people who create goods deserve just compensation for their creations, whether they be durable goods or intellectual properties - granted, anyone *can* create IP, few actually do so with enough value perceived in it to earn their livings from it, they should charge whatever they wish - the sticking point for me is that they wish to charge one price in one place and another price in other places for the EXACT SAME product, then arbitrarily deny people the right to take their purchased property with them when they travel? That they explain what they're doing on the outside of their packaging does not make it right (although it does make those who purchased it seem less than bright) - whether they're actually breaking laws is irrelevant - I had some level of interest in purchasing and playing the game right up until I read about this practice. I'm voting with my dollars, so Valve/Steam gets ZERO of my entertainment dollars. Whether enough others feel the same remains to be seen, but is (in a very literal sense of the term) none of my business.

Typos

[mqduck]

"Some of these users have subsequently purchased a SECOND legal copy after realizing the issue and were STILL having difficulty" Fixed that for Doug.

Re:Typos

[mqduck]

Flamebait? What kind of flaming was I asking for? Is there a division of Slashdotters who hate nothing more than people who don't like spokespeople repeating lies till they become truth I'm not aware of? Maybe the modder thought that "flamebait" meant "flame" but that would still be just as wrong. Maybe if there was a -1 Smart-Ass mod, (s)he could have used that, but there isn't. Damnit, I want my karma back. But I'll probably just get modded down here as Offtopic.

Only news is that you can update your key

[davetpa]

So this basically confirms what we've already read: that you've lost the cash you spent on a foreign key. The only significant part is that they're providing an avenue to replace your invalid key with a valid one.

The differences between the releases of the same software in different countries will always exist... think about what Westerners would say if more knew that Korean WoW players got to keep their beta characters! So, sorry you lost your cash. Hard lesson learned.

Re:Only news is that you can update your key

[Necroman]

Things are run differently in different countries.

As fro Korea and WoW, that isn't completed unexpected. Korea got WoW 2 months after it arived in the states. I'm guessing the beta for Korea started after it went live in the US, meaning the game was basically release candidate quality already, they were just testing localization. I don't think Korean players being able to keep their WoW beta characters is that big of a deal.

Moneygrab

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, I just have to point out that if they were selling copies of the game in Thailand for cheap enough that its ultimately cheaper to import it, they should probably just offer the game for the cheaper price here.

Of course, it doesnt work that way. They know they can soak the game hungry and comparitivly rich american public for wads of cash, so they sell it here at an excessive markup, and in poorer nations at a price thats more realistic for that location. This is pretty much the only reason anyone has for regional locks such as this.

Greedy bastages.

Re:Moneygrab

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's the opposite: they're offering a lower price to people in countries that couldn't reasonably afford it at American price levels given their lower purchasing parity.

Re:Moneygrab

[Fallingcow]

How many industries outside of gaming, movies, and the like, can get away with offering products in one country at a price that is significantly different from that in others (i.e. no more difference than the cost of shipping from one country to the other)?

Re:Moneygrab

[Town Czar]

Drug companies refuse to sell low-cost HIV/AIDS medicines in Africa and other impoverished, AIDS-affected regions for fear that these products will be sold at a cheap price on the black market in the developed world. So because of the fear that drug prices in developed countries will drop, no drugs are sold at all to the people who need them the most. Drug companies "get away with" charging the same price for the same product when the ethics of the situation seem to dictate that the drugs should be sold at a discounted price in poor countries.

Of course, AIDS vaccinations and video games are two very different things, but the same principle applies. If Valve didn't protect its regional sales like this, some kid in Thailand might not be playing Portal right now, because it would cost too much. Valve's actions are undoubtedly profit-motivated, but they also protect the game's international audience. Just some food for thought.

Re:Moneygrab

[Kopiok]

It's all the science of economics, and how different people will pay different amounts for the same thing.

Re:Moneygrab

[Fallingcow]

What if companies move production to Thailand and pay $1/hr wages to get their product made, then sell them in the U.S. and Europe at rates only slightly lower than those of companies paying U.S. and European wages?

Globalization has to be for producers and consumers, or it's plutocratic bullshit.

Re:Moneygrab

[Anonymous Coward]

The automotive industry, for one. You haven't heard anything about the massive price difference in cars between the US and Canada? Two dealerships can be just miles apart but because of a national border between them, the dealer to the north has cars up to $15,000 more expensive. And the dealer in the US isn't allowed to sell to Canadians, because of an agreement with the manufacturer.

Re:Moneygrab

[Anonymous Coward]

What if companies move production to Thailand and pay $1/hr wages to get their product made, then sell them in the U.S. and Europe at rates only slightly lower than those of companies paying U.S. and European wages?

Well, if for whatever odd reason you value a product based on the hourly salary of the people working at the factory, you can simply opt not to purchase the product.

Producers are consumers. Your 2nd grade socialism is embarrassing.

Re:Moneygrab

[G Fab]

The drug thing is sad, but it's a wise move on the part of the pharma companies.

Without billions in profits, these companies will not be able to develop good drugs. The corruption in Africa is partly supported by aid that thugs steal and sell. There is little reason to send drugs that will be stolen if that means new drugs will be longer in development.

Africa needs no aid. Aid is the problem. No one is willing to let this continent try to stand on its own feet, so it's miserable.

I grant that AIDS is a terrible problem in Africa, but the problem is obviously not a lack of AIDS drugs, since those do not prevent AIDS. The problem is that the people are ignorant about sex. Anal sex is the primary contraceptive in the regions of africa suffering from AIDS. Just as in the gay community, anal sex is a very good way to spread this virus... it's bloody (to put an ugly picture on the problem).

Forget AIDS drugs. Send some pamphlets explaining this simple point. Get rid of the aid entirely, and the thugs will run out of money and the people will have an easier time making law and order. It's not as though Africans are so unlike europe that they are unable to make a good society. It's that we are fueling their oppresors to make ourselves feel charitable.

Re:Moneygrab

[Dunbal]

the ethics of the situation

      Ethics? We're talking about pharmaceutical companies. Ethics has never been part of the business model. Ever since the first swindler got rich by selling people snake oil, it has always been about the cash. Only nowadays the market demands medications that actually WORK.

      This is why the pharmaceutical companies use the Caduceus (the staff of Mercury - god of BUSINESS) while we physicians use the Asclepion. There's a fundamental split in health care that is thousands of years old.

Re:Moneygrab

[Fallingcow]

I find it odd that you call my wanting a freer market "socialism".

It's a frighteningly common mistake, for whatever reason.

This is DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

And Digital Restrictions Management will fuck you over every single time. Consumers aren't allowed to go global. Too much power. Keep the little guy down.

SO DON'T BUY SHIT WITH DRM!

Re:This is DRM

[Dunbal]

Too much power. Keep the little guy down.

      Nahh, the little guy just rips his DVD's, downloads the patch that removes the region locking, etc. All that stuff is written and made available by the little guy. They won't ever be able to stop us, because we outnumber them, and all it takes is ONE success. The internet does the rest.

Re:Shitty Company

[yuriks]

Only console companies have been doing this same game region lock-out for YEARS. I don't see you complaining about that.

Language study

[pizzach]

Region locking is the bane of my existence. I just want to study some Japanese but now I have to buy two different DVD players, two different Wiis, two different residential addresses for my Steam account...

Re:Language study

[legoman666]

pretty sure japan is Region 1. The same as the U.S. ... that is of course, assuming you live in the US.

Re:Language study

[RupW]

pretty sure japan is Region 1. The same as the U.S. No, Japan's region 2 with Europe, the middle-east and South Africa. Region 1 is just the US, Canada and surrounding islands.

Re:Language study

[legoman666]

Really? Damn, I could've swore Japan was region 1. Oh well. Just make an htpc and you won't have to deal with regions.

Re:Language study

[Zantetsuken]

But only if your HTPC uses a media player software that will circumvent the hardware region coding in newer DVD drive firmware, or you have an older DVD drive.

Computer DVD drives

Older DVD drives use RPC-1 firmware, which means the drive allows DVDs from any region to play. Newer drives use RPC-2 firmware, which enforces the DVD region coding at the hardware level. These drives can often be reflashed with hacked RPC-1 firmware, effectively making the drive region-free. However, this usually voids the warranty and can render the drive inoperable if something goes wrong.[14]

Some software can circumvent this protection by using special techniques.[15] See next section.

Software DVD players

Most freeware and open source DVD players ignore region coding. On the other hand, most commercial players are locked to a region code, but can be easily changed with software.

Other software, known as DVD region killers, transparently remove (or hide) the DVD region code from the software player. Some can also work around locked RPC-2 firmware.

Re:Language study

[metamatic]

Uh, buy a region-free DVD player.

But you probably knew that anyway.

(I suggest an Oppo. Good upscaling.)

Re:Language study

[elFarto the 2nd]

I can change the language on my Steam bought copy of Portal to Japanese no problem. And because it's bought off Steam, I would be able to play it from anywhere in the world.

You will only be region locked if you buy a copy of the Orange Box that is specifically for a country (Russia and Thailand in this case).

Regards
elFarto

Re:Language study

[GiMP]

It depends on where you're from. In Poland, it is hard to find a DVD player that is NOT region-free from the factory. The players go so far as to emblazon this on the packaging, right next to where it tells you that it will automatically load subtitles files for your DiVX and Xvid files. (there is a big scene in Poland for providing subtitles to imported and pirated films that haven't yet had a regional release)

Re:Language study

[Anonymous Coward]

Buy a PS3 ;)

(Seriously, it isn't region locked for its native games. Unfortunately, it still respects region-locking for PS2 and PS1 games.)

Re:Shitty Company

[alexgieg]

Only console companies have been doing this same game region lock-out for YEARS. I don't see you complaining about that.

What do you think mod-chip are for? Sure, most of them allow you to also play pirated games, but there are mod-chips out there that remove only the region lock-out while keeping the anti-piracy "features" intact. And yes, people pay for that. The complaining is right there. Exactly one complaint for each dollar spent on mod-chips and their installation.

Region Codes

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I have read that in Australia, "region coding" (ala DVDs) has been ruled illegal. Some people have gone so far as to claim that is illegal to sell a region-locked DVD-player there. Since this is slashdot, I'll let someone else actually dig up a citation for or against that claim. Should only be a few more minutes...

Re:Region Codes

[deniable]

I've heard the same, but most of the big shops still sell region 4 only players. It's usually not hard at all to buy one that can be unlocked. I've asked the sales droids for an unlocked player and they've given me codes for it.

The major reason to hate region locking is that we are in region 4 with the Kiwis and Central & South America. A lot of stuff will be produced for region 1 or 2 but will never be 're-coded' for region 4 because "it won't sell enough." (Although some of the smarter producers in the UK make their disks 2 and 4.) Thus, Australians have to get unlocked players to be able to see it, or they can learn Spanish and Portuguese. The ACCC sees this as an unfair restriction and has supposedly taken steps to fix it.

With all of this trouble, people wonder why we just download stuff.

To answer your original question, the ACCC says this.

Re:Region Codes

[Rip!ey]

Just so you know, Sony lost the case in the first instance, but won on appeal.

Legal, illegal, legitimate, illegitimate

[alexgieg]

"'Some of these users have subsequently purchased a legal copy after realizing the issue and were having difficulty removing the illegitimate keys from their Steam accounts,' added Lombardi. 'Anyone having this problem should contact Steam Support to have the Thai key removed from their Steam account.'"

I wonder how much time it'll take for all the people accused by Mr. Lombardi of being criminals to sue him for, well, calling them criminals. After all, if, according to Mr. Lombardi, they "subsequently purchased a legal copy", it's clear that's because they "previously hadn't purchased a legal copy", aka, they "previously purchased an illegal copy", aka, "why are all these lawyers looking funny at me?".

That, in addition to the class action suit for not being able to use the software they lawfully purchased, of course.

Re:Legal, illegal, legitimate, illegitimate

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it's entirely lawful to seek out a seller in another country and buy a product from him specifically to avoid your government's restrictions and taxes on importation. How DARE they accuse them of being criminals!

Re:Legal, illegal, legitimate, illegitimate

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only is that a lot of hogwash, but even any of that were the case, it wouldn't be Valve's business and wouldn't make the copies themselves "illegitimate" in any way, shape, or form.

Re:Legal, illegal, legitimate, illegitimate

[Animaether]

You mean the software they purchased that was clearly labeled as being region-restricted?

News flash: It's perfectly legal for you to buy DVDs from Europe or Japan. Just don't go crying "Class Action Lawsuit!" when you find it won't play back in your Region 1 DVD player, as region locking is also perfectly legal.

And to carry on the 'perfectly legal' stuff - it's perfectly legal for you to kill the region locking on your DVD player, and it's perfectly legal for you to spoof your location info to bypass Valve's region check. Doesn't mean they have to make it easy or should be forced into not region locking in the first place.

Re:Legal, illegal, legitimate, illegitimate

[Dunbal]

specifically to avoid your government's restrictions and taxes on importation.

      Bullshit. You can't have something mailed to you from abroad without it going through customs and having the appropriate duty slapped onto it. If you go overseas, buy it there and bring it back, there's no problem so long as you're within your allowed limit (not sure what it is for the US). You'll get into trouble if they open your bags and find 100 copies though.

      This isn't about avoiding government restrictions at all. This is about Valve wanting to prevent people from getting the product cheaper than in the US, and protecting their US distributors. That's not a "law" or "government regulation" and has NOTHING to do with taxes.

Re:Legal, illegal, legitimate, illegitimate

[keithjr]

That, in addition to the class action suit for not being able to use the software they lawfully purchased, of course.

The people who are getting borked are the ones who purchased the software from Thailand second-hand, who were either 1) fully aware they were circumventing the EULA not to do so or 2) were just plain stupid to begin with and didn't know any better. The above comments don't lie; it was clearly stated that Thai versions of the game were not to be used elsewhere.

We gamers simply can't complain about the PC gaming industry going down the toilet if we behave like this. Bending over backwards to, for all intents and purposes, steal a game, and then crying and raising a fuss when the game makers want us to actually pay for their products. Get ready for puddle-deep Halo clones to dominate the market if this is going to be our modus operandi.

So, let me pose a question, what would we all do if we were in Valve's position. Keep in mind, salutary neglect of piracy won't work for a PC gaming company.

Remove Key?

[MrSquishy]

Why cant you have two keys?

If you have legally purchased a Thai key, why do they want to take it away from you? What happens if you move to Thailand? Can you call Valve up and ask for your key back?

Re:Remove Key?

[dintech]

Why cant you have two keys?

Of course there is no reason why you shouldn't be allowed two keys. However, those keys are part of a license agreement distinct to each reagion. When software is sold under license (for example via Steam) the vendor can make all kinds of stupid stipulations and conditions in the EULA of that software. If you agree to those terms (and penaltes for breaking them) at purchase time or when you enter your license code then hard luck, that's what you accepted. Regardless of whether you think this is fair or not.

As an aside, I think it sucks too and it's pretty unfair that they locked people out. They made a mistake in allowing this loophole and should take some responsibility for it being exploited. The correct action would be to learn from their own mistake, lock down the loophole and prevent this happening with future products. Infuriating their user base and blemishing Steam's reputation just seems like a PR blunder.

Just imagine if MS did this with Windows

[Dracil]

Can't believe people are actually trying to justify Valve's decision

Re:Shitty Company

[p0tat03]

They do complain, but the difference is that it's made plenty clear (generally anyway) that imported games will not play on your domestic console. This is in stark contrast to the Thai copies of Orange Box, which worked JUST FINE, but were LATER deactivated by Valve. So there's the anger that something that was reasonably legitimate has been banned, and owners were affected *retroactively*

remote control disablement = stealing

[JonTurner]

Then again, I could imagine it would be a reasonable compromise for Valve to check you actually played the game for an extended period of time in Russia...

Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I imagine it's reasonable for Valve to quick fucking with products people paid good money for and breaking things via remote control just because they're greedy. So a product moved across a national border or an ocean or whatever -- big deal. Happens all the time and that's the nature of the modern world. The copy from India or Taiwan or whatever was legal and I'm sure Valve would prefer that it stay far, far away from the more profitable countries (so as to not illustrate the price disparity) but that's not reality.

Put simply: The customer bought something from an authorized vendor; there was an exchange of good for payment. Give them their game, Valve, or return them their money. Anything less makes you a common thief. End of story.

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[HBI]

I get shit from people for refusing to do business with Valve as long as they use Steam.

This is the reason why.

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[Anonymous Coward]

To do this then, maybe they should just keep the price the same in all countries, if it is worth US$50, then convert that to any other country and sell it for that price. Oh wait, now people in countries with lower average incomes see the converted price as much higher then what you see it as. Now Valve can either sell the game everywhere at the price and screw over countries whose citizens don't make as much on average, or they can region-lock those countries and offer them a lower price on the game. It seems fair to me, if you are from here, you can get it for cheaper, but can't sell our products off for more money. If you live in the US or Europe, you pay a fair amount for someone who lives there.

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[Zeussy]

I agree with the fact that they should of got a copy of the orange box they ordered, but seeing that they ordered a Thai version, they should of got the local Thai version, with all the wonder of the Thai language.

That makes sense to me, they buy a Thai copy of the game, so they get it in Thai, if they want an english version of the game, then they should of brought it from an english region.

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[WNight]

There's no law that lets you forbid importation of products. That's why it's done with DRM and illegal actions like remotely disabling software.

I'm sure you'll find that the staff of Valve is wearing imported clothes, taking advantage of cheaper things overseas. They probably shop at Walmart.

So what's the problem? We both like shopping overseas? Oh... I see. In one case they benefit, in the other I do.

They're hypocrits, willing to take advantage of globalization to increase their own profits, but they sabotage the product to prevent you from doing the same.

What's the value of having more money if everything you want to buy is proportionally more expensive?

So you're right, they should keep the price the same in all countries. Or they should at least stop their illegal actions of sabotaging products of those who import.

Anything less is criminal.

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[Opportunist]

I somehow doubt that they will create a Thai version of the game. I can see it for Windows, but can you imagine the size of the market? I doubt that the average game company would even consider making a version for every language there is.

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[CGDR2]

Did you not read the original topic? I thought it was made pretty clear that the reason Valve are doing this is because they can't afford to have everyone buy the game in Thailand for a quarter of the price, and import it over to the West.

The problem we have is that if you win, and Valve fold, allow all these Russian or Thai copies to be activated in the U.S., they're going to have to raise the prices in these poorer countries to reduce the incentive for importers, essentially locking out financially anyone who genuinely wanted a localised copy for a fair price.

I'm not going to argue here that Valve aren't greedy, and it would be just lovely if everyone paid the same price for the same game. Problem is, why would anyone buy a U.S. copy if they could get it for a quarter of the price in Thailand?

TL;dr - I gladly pay an extra £20, safe in the knowledge that some poor farmers are going to be able to enjoy Portal : )

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[LingNoi]

I have never seen a Thai version of Windows.

When I bought STALKER in Thailand for 800 baht it came with a Thai manual but that's about it. A Thai version would suck and no one would buy it. It's cool to have western stuff.

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[wjsteele]

There's no law that lets you forbid importation of products Actually, there are laws that do just that! For example, you can't import advanced weapon systems even if you own them. Otherwise, I'd be flying a Mig 29! :-)
 
Bill

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[arth1]

I agree with the fact that they should of got a copy of the orange box they ordered, but seeing that they ordered a Thai version, they should of got the local Thai version, with all the wonder of the Thai language.

That makes sense to me, they buy a Thai copy of the game, so they get it in Thai, if they want an english version of the game, then they should of brought it from an english region.

That's narrow-minded thinking. What about the million or so native English speakers who live in Thailand? Should they not be allowed to buy and play The Orange Box?

The marketplace and the population is now global, and trying to erect artificial geographical boundaries to keep Them away from Us is xenophobic, and trying to prevent free trade is both futile and in most cases illegal. Some countries and populations are slower at accepting the new reality, is all.

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[Henry V .009]

What about the million or so native English speakers who live in Thailand? Should they not be allowed to buy and play The Orange Box?

No they shouldn't. They're obviously sex maniacs, all of them.

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[SeeManRun]

It is not allowed because they price their game for the region they are in. It would be slightly unfair to make the game 45 US dollars everywhere, because in some countries people don't make that much money in a week, so they lower the price so people there could pay it. They are doing this to allow the poorer countries to play their game as well as the richer countries. If they allowed everyone to buy the game in the poor country, they would have to raise the price so they make a profit, and then those poor countries' citizen's could not afford the game. Don't be a snob, you can afford the 45 bucks, so pay for it.

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[Cowclops]

This story and the one that came from it = fail.

I suspect people are screaming bloody murder because they didn't read the article (Cue: You must be new here jokes).

Heres what it comes down to. Video games cost a shit ton of money to make. Generally games get sold around $50 in the US so it doesn't take forever for developers to recoup their costs. Hopefully we can agree that $50 is a reasonable price for a package of 3 kickass games and 2 you probably already played but can "give away" if you do already have them. After all, if you played episodes 1 and 2, chances are you wanna find out what happens in episode 3, and money doesn't grow on trees so valve has to charge you to continue development. Anyway, this point is minor but basically if you like their games, you should probably pay what they're asking instead of hunting around for cheap overseas copies.

Now to make back the money on the development, they had a few options. They could sell it for $50 everywhere, including countries that have significantly less disposable income and can't realistically afford to be spending their local equivalent of $50 on video games. They'll get all the people willing to spend $50 on it in the US, but they lose out on the people in poorer markets that either won't or can't spend more than $15 on it.

Or, they could sell it for $15 everywhere, so they sell a maximum number of copies but won't make as much money per copy. In fact they'd probably make less money overall, since there were certainly a large number of people willing to spend $50 on the "not-region-locked" US copy.

They took option #3. Sell it for a price the market will bear in all markets, but restrict the usage of the cheapest market copies to those markets. This means it gets sold for $50 in the US and anybody who pays the full price can play it anywhere, and it gets sold for $15 or whatever in the countries with lower market values for video games. You guys are screaming bloody murder over this for some reason. All this means is that in countries like Thailand people still get to buy entertainment, but they don't have to spend such a large portion of their income on it, and valve makes a little bit extra money with the long end of the tail. The boxes were (apparently) clearly labeled with a note that those cheap oversea copies will only work in their respective countries. So the problem lies with the middlemen failing to relay this note that the cheap thai copies will NOT work in the US.

If you continue to bitch about this and raise a stink, all that means is that next time, there will be no $15 overseas copy. The people screaming about getting locked out of a game advertised to not work in their territory will just have to pay $50 for the steam version or buy it in their local retail store for whatever price its going for. Or wait till they drop the price, which they always do.

I understand the problem with locking people out of a game they purchased. Except, in this case, the terms of the lockout were stated on the box's exterior and not jumbled up in legalese in a 500 page EULA. So, it was really the buyer's fault for going through unusual channels in the hopes of getting a "good deal" and instead getting a copy not intended for use outside of a certain region.

If you want game makers to continue making games that you like to play, pay the amount of money they're asking in the area you live in. By buying what practically works out to be "charity copies" of a game, you're giving them less money to develop episode 3. If you don't care about their games, obviously you don't have to pay them anything. But if you like them and want them to go on and continue adding maps to TF2 and Portal, you gotta fund that development somehow. Modern video game development, unlike modern music recording, is far too expensive to work on the "pay what you feel like" system. Pay what the game companies are asking for, or don't be disappointed when their game quality slides because they have less money to spend on talent.

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[Anonymous Coward]

all well and good except for two small details -

1. activation. the games were activated in US.
if valve wished to restrict access to the thai/russian version, they should not have allowed activation in the first place. that would have avoided the entire "game key already exists" debacle.

2. the globalization/cheap overseas labor argument.
in essence, your argument boils down to - it's ok to outsource labor, and for retailers to make a profit by importing cheap products. it is not ok for consumers to do the same.
the reasoning?

does valve guarantee in it's eula that it will never outsource it's R&D division to russia?
or that the box sets will never be assembled in thailand?

or do you assume that the thai box sets are assembled in the us and shipped to thai?
part of the reduced costs of the thai boxes already covered themselves, I would imagine, by the reduced costs of local labor and materials. I could be wrong on this, but somehow I doubt that.

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[JonTurner]

>>It would be slightly unfair to make the game 45 US dollars everywhere, because in some countries people don't make that much money in a week

So how are they affording a DX8 video card (or better) and a PC with enough RAM and a CPU powerful enough to run this game? That argument doesn't add up.

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[brkello]

The orange box was a good deal at the regular price. I don't feel ripped off in the least.

A company is allowed to charge you what they want for a product. The list price of many things can be negotiated down. They sold a region locked version for cheaper in one area and a non-region locked game in another country. There is nothing illegal about it. Everyone is hypocritical in some way. But I don't see how Valve trying to maximize their profits is hypocritical though. That is what a business is supposed to do. Maybe you should look up the definition of hypocrite. It is saying one thing and doing another. They never said they weren't going to region lock. Taking advantage of globalization while making a product that you can't import isn't hypocritical at all. It is what everyone would do if they could. Steam allows Valve to do this.

Don't like it, don't buy it. I don't think they will notice or care. They make a good game and sell it at a very reasonable price.

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[Fastolfe]

if valve wished to restrict access to the thai/russian version, they should not have allowed activation in the first place.

I agree, but this is completely irrelevant to the parent poster's point. It's still a Thai-only license key, so why expect it to keep working? It's like moving into a new apartment and signing up for basic cable, seeing that you have HBO for a few days, and then bitching when they turn it off. WTF?

in essence, your argument boils down to - it's ok to outsource labor, and for retailers to make a profit by importing cheap products. it is not ok for consumers to do the same.

It's impossible for consumers to do the same. If consumers could do the same, then the $50 copies would never get sold. If they decided not to region-lock the game, or were barred from doing so, their choices would be limited to those presented by the parent poster: either sell it for $50 everywhere, which means nobody in poorer markets would buy it, or sell it for $15 everywhere, which means a few more people in your rich market would buy it, plus some people in your poorer markets. If you'd make more money selling it at $50 than you would selling it at $15 (likely in this situation), it would be stupid to sell it at $15, wouldn't it? Freedom of choice indeed!

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[Goldberg's Pants]

I never had a problem with Steam. I liked it. Found it very useful when I wanted to reinstall the original Half-Life. Just enter the key and it downloads etc...

But there's more and more crap like this happening. I know folk who have been falsely accused of cheating and had their accounts locked out. Now this nonsense with the Orange Box. I would recommend to anyone who bought the Orange Box and got screwed by Valve to look around online, as there are Steam free cracked versions of everything in the package out there. Obviously TFC2 is largely pointless, but Portal etc... Go forth and download the cracked version. You've already paid for it.

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[WNight]

That is the definition of hypocrite. Doing something to others you don't want done to yourself.

As for them caring, of course they won't. Until we DDoS Steam, or torch their cars or something. Otherwise you're right, why would they care when they're making money and the people they rip off live so far away?

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[WNight]

Pay what the game companies are asking for

Provide what the law requires you to.

We know why they're selling overseas, it's to reach a larger market. And we get why they want to have different prices. But none of that requires anyone else to play along. It's like razor companies with their famous loss-leader marketing model of overcharging for refills. Nothing stops a consumer from buying the cheap kit with handle every time. You take your chances in business, making products appeal to various people.

I run a computer consulting company and it'd be really handy if everyone would agree not to hire any overseas competitors. That'd keep me from having to compete on prices. Does this obligate you to please me? If not, why am I obligated to put up with their actually illegal actions to enforce their cushier profits?

The product as sold would run perfectly without Steam's DRM. It's perfectly legal to buy and to own the product, so Steam's DRM is preventing the use of something which is legal to own and use.

This is all too common. Someone gets an idea for how to make money that isn't supported by the law, but they expect everyone else to bend over backwards to protect them, usually while they do something underhanded like disable keys and force people to buy new copies. This is the idea that wanting to make a profit entitles you to pass your own laws, break existing ones, and defraud people.

How about them pursuing this in the proper fashion? If they think that importing the games is actionable (and they'll be sorely mistaken, but it's their dime) they should sue people who do it. Put the question to the courts. Get a court order before they try to remotely disable the software.

As is, they're simply refusing to provide the product they've advertised. It might be a 'for Thailand' version, but the law doesn't allow them to keep it there. They can't do this. They're breaking the law.

Do you understand?

This is simple. It's not about liking Valve, giving a shit about how long they spent working on the game or anything else. It's *all* about them illegally terminating a legal product.

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[KDR_11k]

Or they could wait until the price in the US has dropped to a level acceptable to those countries? Oh, wait, right, then people just warez it. Apparently Valve doesn't like their US sales being offshored. Guess it's a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[KDR_11k]

However if it was developed in the US and fell under US trade restrictions it wouldn't have made it out of the country in first place.

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[blahplusplus]

"Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I imagine it's reasonable for Valve to quick fucking with products people paid good money for and breaking things via remote control just because they're greedy."

This is exactly why intellectual property and internet activation is so Orwellian and tyrannical, modern propertarian ideology and greed that markets give birth to is pretty frightening as it stomps on our civil rights.

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[AlexMax2742]

They're hypocrits, willing to take advantage of globalization to increase their own profits, but they sabotage the product to prevent you from doing the same. What's the value of having more money if everything you want to buy is proportionally more expensive?

That's actually the reason that they sell it for cheaper in different companies. They know that not as many people can afford such things in the russian bloc, so they make the prices lower to get what sales they can. If you're from one of those countries, I doubt you think it's an unfair situation, because they're being charged what they can afford instead of something prohibitively expensive.

So you're right, they should keep the price the same in all countries. Or they should at least stop their illegal actions of sabotaging products of those who import. Anything less is criminal.

Except it's not actually illegal. It's called price discrimination, and it's been used to give us senior citizen discounts and airline fares that go up the closer you get to departure time for as long as an economy has existed.

It's easy to feel empowered on an internet forum and wave a damning finger at a company. But really, what Valve is doing is perfectly legal, if you don't like it, vote with your wallet. Not that your singular wallet or any protest or petition that you and 10 other people adhere to is going to make a dent in the tens of thousands of sales they're getting already, but it's worth it for your piece of mind, right? Right?

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[TeraCo]

Illegally? You keep doing that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. (That is to say, Valve would have spoken to their lawyers before doing this). The fact that they've started to roll it back is due to consumer backlash, not any perceived law breaking.

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[Cowclops]

Way to quote (and then respond) out of context.

I said if you like valve games you should pay what they're asking. That way they can fund the development of future games, instead of going out of business. There is no legal requirement to do so, its called financially supporting businesses that provide you with entertainment you enjoy. In short, "Being a cheapskate only puts you ahead in the short term."

Would you go to a museum with a suggested donation of $10 per person and then laugh at them and say "haha, suckers, we don't have to pay ANYTHING if we don't feel like it." (Note: Homer Simpson already tried this. Yes he looked like an ass.) I mean, maybe YOU WOULD and thats within your legal right if its a "suggested" donation, but suggestions don't pay the bills.

The issue is, if Valve can't be allowed to technologically enforce multiple market-specific pricing, then they're not going to sell it in the markets that can't afford to pay American-market prices. Bitching about it merely means that the people in Thailand don't get to buy an affordable version.

Demanding the right to buy and play a "for export only" copy just means that there won't be any "for export only" version next time. Short sightedness FTW!

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[WNight]

If it means 'SUGGESTED DONATION' then you're okay with people walking past and paying less. You made a suggestion, they decided otherwise. Maybe someone would look cheap, but that's not a crime. If you *need* money, don't use the word suggested.

I know what Valve is doing. (But I find it disingenious the Fanbois keep saying they're doing this to help the poor Thais and how everyone else understands that like every other company since the beginning of time they're simply trying to reach a larger market.) That doesn't mean that I have support them breaking the law to do it.

Once I buy something, for the full price or not, from an authorized reseller or not, I have full legal title to it. You don't have the right to disable the product simply because you don't like how I got it.

Valve broke the law when they tried to enforce their scheme.

If they really want to help the poor they wouldn't try a region locking system - what about the rich Thais and the poor North Americans. They'd introduce the 'welfare version' and simple put 'Welfare Version - PlayerName' in the player name field. Nobody would want to be seen using the welfare version (not donating the $10) unless they were poor. That would actually give poor people the ability to buy a poor copy, the rich the ability to buy the regular (even if they were in Thailand) and wouldn't do anything but apply a little social pressure to the cheapskates. That would achieve the goals they tell you they're going for. But they won't do that - a non-fanboy might wonder if that's because they're lying about their goals.

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[WNight]

Microsoft would have spoken to their lawyers before writing an EULA - obviously the poor enforceability didn't stop them. They realized that some people could be bullied regardless of the legality.

As for illegality, if I buy a legit product and it's disable remotely, that's illegal.

The Thai version is a legit product. Valve sold it, the reseller resold it. Maybe the reseller violated a contract - Valve might choose not to deal with them again, but the customers have non-counterfeit copies of a game which they paid for. Disabling these remotely is criminal.

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[WNight]

Sigh. Selling something for different prices isn't illegal. Terminating those products because the wrong person ended up with them is.

If you sold a car for %20 less to a senior citizen he could turn around and sell it to me for %10 less. If you then sabotaged the car to prevent the sale, you'd have broken the law.

That's what Valve did. They made identical versions of the software and sold some for a high price, and some for a low. When the people who'd bought a low-price copy resold theirs Valve terminated it.

Oops. That's illegal - they don't own the rights to it anymore.

I will vote with my wallet. I haven't bought a Valve game in years and now I certainly won't. DRM is the kiss of death - those who use DRM are all scum.

That might not matter, but hopefully someone will realize for what I'm saying that Valve actions seem scummy because they're exactly what the MPAA would do. That these people are thieves. They might have fancy justifications about how their theft is supposed to support cheaper copies, but they're still remotely disabling legitimate products.

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[TeraCo]

As for illegality, if I buy a legit product and it's disable remotely, that's illegal.

Under the 'disabling shit remotely' act of 2006 no doubt.

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[WNight]

Under the not selling shit that doesn't do anything act.

They sold a full working copy of the Orange Box. They're trying to say that you can't use it because your serial number isn't authorized to. That's nonsense. You own it, you're authorized to use it.

They're trying to tack on a post-sale restriction which is 'this must be used in Thailand'. We get it. But there's no legal support for that. Their DRM is interference with the legal use of a legally owned product which Valve knowingly sold and thus gave up all rights to.

That's where it gets illegal. They can say whatever they want on the box, but when they include a remote-disable trigger then they didn't really sell the game. That would be fine if they had licensed it to the users, but they didn't. They sold it to someone who sold it to users. In a legal sense, the user hasn't dealt with Valve. Valve has no legal right to go disabling the user's property.

Many authors are unhappy with the use made of their works, but copyright only lets them stop counterfeiting not purchase or use by people they simply dislike or economically discriminate against.

Why does Valve deserve special legal protection that Coke and Nike don't get? When they sell products in the developing world they have to lower their prices to compete, as does Valve, but they have to do it carefully so as not to ruin their expensive markets. Nike can't just forbid the importation of a legitimately made shoe, so they have different styles and put localized text on them to make foreign versions unattractive. Sure, they'd love to get the government to mandate a bunch of special rules on who was allowed to import them to where and such, but that's corporate welfare. They get to play in the global pool, so they have to deal with middle-men whose entire goal in life is to minimize the difference in price between markets.

Valve deserves no special breaks just because Portal is a cool concept. Should we let id Software break a few laws just because Quake rocked?

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[TeraCo]

Under the not selling shit that doesn't do anything act.

Can you actually quote a specific law that they're breaking? Plenty of products can be disabled at the will of the vendor.

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[Anonymous Coward]

Heres what it comes down to. Video games cost a shit ton of money to make.

No one is forcing Valve throw shit ton of money to make a game. No one is required help Valve profit from such a game despite how much money they pumped at it. If other companies do it, it isn't an excuse for Valve to do the same.

Who is going to stand up in Valve and say: "Wait, aren't we spending too much money on this game?" Not until they must price games so high people won't buy them anymore. Upper boundary is set by Valve marketing team's ability to tweak and bend rules to make maximum profits. That amount of money certainly isn't required to make a good game.

I say they have too much room in their budgets. They need to ask themselves: "What kind of budget we would have for a game if we were forced to sell it with same price worldwide?". Now, does that question sound too horrible? I don't think so.

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[WNight]

If I answer you, will you just ask yet another nitpicking question? It's obvious that if you remotely disable something I own that it would be actionable. This should be obvious to almost anyone. All I can figure is that you're trolling.

If the action is legal (such as Valve's running a key server) but injurious as it deprives someone of their product unlawfully, it would be 'Conversion'.

It could be fraud. They did sell something that is substantially different than what you'd expect. They purport to sell a game, you get the potential ability to install a game instead of a game itself. Very different things.

Look around for yourself. If you're not trolling you should be able to understand what they're doing here. They simply don't have a legal right to do these things - they sold those rights.

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[AlexMax2742]

Sigh. Selling something for different prices isn't illegal. Terminating those products because the wrong person ended up with them is.

Oops. That's illegal - they don't own the rights to it anymore.

Software is still a legal grey area. These days, you are not sold software, but are sold a licence to use said software that can be revolked. The thing is, with disk and CD-based media, there was no way that software houses could actually enforce their EULA's. Now they can. Despite how you might try to spin it, however, it's not illegal unless there is some legal precedent saying it is. You can say it is all day long, but that doesn't actually mean it is until a court of law actually figures it out. Currently, EULA's themselves don't have that much legal precident.

To be honest, I don't know what's so evil about EULA's. They're just a set of agreements that you implicitly agree to adhere to upon use. If you don't like it, then don't use it. And what really tickles me is why people were expecting a legitimate product from a seller in thailand/russia who was specificly targeting western customers. Anyone who has spent five minutes on ebay knows that damn near anything that comes out of that part of the world is probably pirated or at the very least shady.

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[Cowclops]

I'm not sure if I actually mentioned the idea of the cheap version being a "welfare version" in my post, but it has crossed my mind and other people have definitely suggested it. If I DID explain it like that, I'd like to update what I've said and point out that the cheap version is mostly to compete with piracy, which is far more rampant in some countries. Its not REALLY charity though I did have that thought in my head for a little while.

The most important point though, is that what Valve is doing is ACTUALLY NOT ILLEGAL AT THE MOMENT. If you wish to write your congressman so that they do make it illegal, you are welcome to and I understand the basis for your complaint. The end result of legislating this to be illegal is that Valve simply will not offer an export only option and there will be no cheap version for you to export->import. Everybody will pay full price because Valve has no legitimate way to price local and export copies differently.

If you're worried about the right to buy a cheap overseas copy, that opportunity will vanish if you complain loudly enough to the right people.

If you're worried that people got locked out of "something they paid for" then your anger is not misplaced, but the only solution is that the opportunity to pay less for a copy that goes US->Thailand->US will disappear. If this is ok with you, its ok with me.

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[brkello]

No, I don't understand. Please give me the law that they are breaking. I don't think Valve is thinking of the poor Thai's. I think they are trying to maximize profit (as any company that wants to stay in business does). The only difference in this case than any other is that Valve actually has the ability to enforce the region through steam.

Unfortunately for you, you can't region lock your consulting. But if you could, I am sure you would.

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[Dan667]

I have to agree here. If you want the benefits of a global marketplace, you have to accept the parts of it you don't like as well. People in Thailand can't afford $50 per game, but people in the US can? Well tough. You won't get any sympathy from me for people that get hosed for being resourceful (or living in both countries) with a perfectly legally purchased game and then resort to pirating it. When some mom and pop shop is driven out of business by international competition, you hear about global competition. Pricing pressure on these big corporations should not be exempt just because they are some big corporation. They need to suck it up. Dan

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[Cowclops]

"No one is forcing Valve throw shit ton of money to make a game. No one is required help Valve profit from such a game despite how much money they pumped at it. If other companies do it, it isn't an excuse for Valve to do the same."

If you appreciate good quality video games, you won't be a cheapskate when contributing to the salaries of the people who make games you enjoy.

You don't HAVE TO appreciate complicated video games with high production values and high production costs, but don't complain when the video game market starts seeing a lot fewer "Half Lifes" and a lot more "Peggles." Personally, I would not look forward to a world where people are so cheap that they wouldn't dare fund the production of any game with more depth than a simple puzzle game.

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[WNight]

But it was sold. That's the point. Software companies would like to license their software but they don't. It's too expensive because one of the parts of licensing is having a reasonable belief that the person you're contracting with understands the contract. Sales all work alike so it's much easier to just go with the generic sale model.

And that's what's so evil about EULAs. They're hidden contracts, often 20+ pages ones written for lawyers, that claim to dramatically change the nature of what appears to be a sale. Nobody reads them, it would take hours to do one justice as a legal document, and yet we pretend that putting this document in a box changes the legal nature of the transaction? Hah. The only parts of EULAs that have been held up are the most basic ones that people have ended up knowing about through other means (ProCD).

In most ways this is a normal sale. What elements are there that you think justify the seller remotely disabling the product? Just the EULA? That's far from untested actually. They used to have them in books to control resale - so as not to cut into new sales. You may have noticed that we don't have these anymore. And not out of a sense of goodness in the publishers. They were ruled unenforceable and the doctrine of first sale arouse out of this. The seller gives up all rights to the product at the point of first sale. If they don't like this they don't sell things, they license them. If you've ever been through a corporate software licensing you'd know that it's an event that's impossible to forget - you can be very sure than one is not going on in the checkout line at Best Buy. If you don't know you're licensing something then by the fundamental principles of contracts, you can not be a capable signer.

EULAs are a shaky principle, one worthy perhaps of steering something into arbitration before court, or limiting your privacy rights towards character data, etc. They certainly do not override fundamentals of ownership.

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[WNight]

You bought a car with a system like OnStar. The dealer is trying to extort another $5000 out of you or they'll remotely disable your car and claim it was your fault for some clause in the manual about ISO-3818.45r3 sparkplugs. Which law are they breaking. Go! This is a test.

I don't know why you'd assume I'd region lock my consulting. That implies that I'd want the benefits I provide to go away when they move. Perhaps you mean like fingerprint their systems and make it break when they change something, like Microsoft does?

I actually provide the opposite service. You make the changes and break things, I come in and fix them. I have a hard time seeing how I'd make the ethical leap from there to sabotaging these clients in order for some captive sales. Even if this would pay off for me, I wouldn't do it to others.

I also provide software, both custom installs and whole custom applications. If I'd wanted to lock anything in any way I could have. I gave the clients full source code and unlimited usage rights. Why would I want to waste time writing legal restrictions, code to check for violations, and DRM to enforce these restrictions, when I could just charge as much as I want to make and be done with it?

I might be able to eke a little bit more money out of clients, but I'm proud of how I'm reducing the financial friction in society. Systems run smoother, cheaper, longer. I wouldn't crap on that with DRM (or I'd be just like you.)

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[WNight]

How do you think that this isn't already governed by commerce laws?

Do you honestly think the question of selling something and them screwing with it has never come up?

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[AlexMax2742]

EULAs are a shaky principle, one worthy perhaps of steering something into arbitration before court, or limiting your privacy rights towards character data, etc. They certainly do not override fundamentals of ownership.

If you're so damn sure about it, then take part in a class action lawsuit and get some clear legal precident so companies like Valve will understand that they can't do that sort of thing. If Valve agreed with your assesment, then they wouldn't have had the balls to remotely disable hundreds of supposedly "legally purchased" copies of Orange Box. Companies are not in the business of getting sued, and clearly your armchair lawyering assesment is incomplete in some fashion if they took this tremendous risk.

Me? I'll simply avoid buying things from Thailand in an attempt to try and beat the system.

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[WNight]

There's hundreds of years of precedent. It's obvious. Do you think we need new precedent anytime the box color changes?

Copyright law specifically gives you the right to use software without licensing it, even if the software purports to work differently.

If you think companies aren't in the business of getting sued you'd better look again. They'll do anything they can as long as the court case would be cheaper than not doing it. When it looks like they'll lose, they settle.

It's foolproof unless the customers have millions to fight back with.

That's why I suggested hucking a flaming brick through the windows of their foreign cars. Nobody at the company is going to notice a lawsuit, but if you revoked their foreign products something might happen. Fighting them in court is one way, but personally I think justice would be handled better if everyone who got screwed by them screwed them back - the court system doesn't penalize companies effectively.

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[AlexMax2742]

If you think companies aren't in the business of getting sued you'd better look again. They'll do anything they can as long as the court case would be cheaper than not doing it. When it looks like they'll lose, they settle. It's foolproof unless the customers have millions to fight back with.

Class action. One person being screwed may not be able to fight back, but hundreds, if not thousands, can. The lawyers still get most of the money, but Valve is no Microsoft, they don't have all the money in the world to play around with.

That's why I suggested hucking a flaming brick through the windows of their foreign cars. Nobody at the company is going to notice a lawsuit, but if you revoked their foreign products something might happen. Fighting them in court is one way, but personally I think justice would be handled better if everyone who got screwed by them screwed them back - the court system doesn't penalize companies effectively.

And this statement shows you where your true colors are. Anyone with an ounce of moral integrity knows that two wrongs don't make a right, but when you are percieved to be wronged by a company, you have no second thoughts about reacting violently through vandalism. It really undermines your position, and has sociopathic undertones, so I'm expecting you'll reply with "Oh come on, I didn't really mean that." which places you squarely with the rest of the internet tough-guy population.

Either way, you seem to be living a sheltered life, not realizing that the world of business is cutthroat and not a nice place, and that any sufficently large business sometimes screws the little guy or the clever guy, and there's nothing anybody can do about it. Think about it, for all of the supposed consumer activism going on, there are only sweeping policy changes when a proportionally large enough part of the population becomes screwed by it. If DRM is so bad, then why are we still dealing with it (because it works fine in the large majority of cases, only raising a fuss when you have situations like Sony's rootkit, and if you really want to copy it you can always download it). If Comcast loves to screw its customers with torrent blocking, then why isn't it out of business yet from the customer complaints? (because 90% of the people who use their service don't use it to download Transformers the Movie, and there are alternatives like usenet for people who really want it).

Your only escape from the corporate machine is threefold:

1. Start a small business which promises not to screw their customers (which runs the chance of the big guys changing their business model to run you out of business. Don't worry though, if you survive long enough, you can grow to the point where you can start screwing people too)
2. Join it, and work your ass off to be in a position where you can do a little screwing yourself.
3. Move somewhere else where instead of large businesses screwing you, the government screws you instead.

In the end, you're still occationally getting screwed somewhere. Welcome to reality, which 99% of the world seems to adjust around and still live a happy life. The advent of the internet, however, seems to have given rise to an persecution complex, where people feel oppressed when their ISP blocks their downloading of Transformers the Movie, who have no idea what it's like to live in South Africa or Iraq or any number of other shitholes where people actually DO have something to worry about, like if they're going to live long enough to see the sun rise tomorrow.

*whew* Did I really write that entire wall of text. I'm done.

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[WNight]

And this statement shows you where your true colors are. Anyone with an ounce of moral integrity knows that two wrongs don't make a right, but when you are percieved to be wronged by a company, you have no second thoughts about reacting violently through vandalism. It really undermines your position, and has sociopathic undertones, so I'm expecting you'll reply with "Oh come on, I didn't really mean that." which places you squarely with the rest of the internet tough-guy population.

Not at all. My only real problem with the flaming brick is logistics. There are a lot of gamers, few developers, fewer still cars, it's hard to tell which car belong to which person, etc. But over all, no. They had to intend to take $15 per gamer. They knew their actions would terminate a legal product and they didn't care about the results of that. No consequence to them, and even if they did get sued they'd just pay later. The only really fair thing for a thief is to lose their possessions.

If anything it's sociopathic to live in a society where offenses aren't punished, where people can behave anti-socially and not be corrected. You get a society of people who hate everyone around them because it feels that everyone is trying to screw them over.

Instead witness subtle correction. I've seen people shove their way onto transit to get a seat, I've also seen people become aware of this and stand like perfect walls blocking the offender from their seat. Technically it's probably assault or some crime to stand where someone wants to be and not let them through, but there's nothing funnier than seeing someone try to shove between an intentionally clueless wall of people who don't notice their discomfort. Especially as someone from the other end walks up and calmly takes the seat they've been shoving people to get to. Watching this makes everyone feel better because they know that there's a society of other people who expect polite behavior - they don't feel like they're suckers, being nice to everyone as they get shit on. So in the end it makes everyone nicer and only costs the villain their goal for the day.

I've seen people use the breaking your property tactic and it seems to work really well, but it's only legal on children because they don't own their things. But nothing says 'No' like grabbing the toy someone stole from someone else, returning it, and penalizing the offender a toy of their own.

If it was worth them stealing over, it seems that it must be important enough to punish them for. It's not like this was an accident, where unknown to them thousands of products started malfunctioning. This was a calculated business decision. This is the corporate version of someone shoving everyone away in their mad rush for a seat. Shooting them or beating them up seems beyond reasonable, but merely taking things equal in value to what they stole and breaking them to take away the benefits of their actions seems of a similar scope.

That a company can get together and plan something that should be illegal and then act on it, paying restitution only years later if everyone manages to band together... Sorry, not enough. People in the companies are shielded from the consequences of their actions and thus can be as unreasonable as they wish. Nobody has their home number, nobody knows where they live and can refuse to deal with them in their neighborhood. Like with a squad of executioners, some with blanks, nobody has to take real responsibility for what they're doing.

Sure, losing your game via Steam isn't a big deal, but letting you play wouldn't have been a big deal either. It was only $15, but if that wasn't a big deal, why did Valve have to step in and profit on it? (I notice they pocketed the money from the Thai copies they disabled.) Having their stuff be revoked would be the only punishment that fit the crime.

In theory I support the death penalty. No need for a murderer to live. But in practice I do not, because it's too hard judging that murderer properly and identifying them accura

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[mgiuca]

Furthermore I think it should be investigated as to the legality of _all_ product terminations. Valve can terminate your game remotely for any reason they like. (As can Blizzard with WoW, or any other online game provider - I think Valve cops it worse because they're doing completely unnecessary online validation of a single player game).

But Valve commonly deactivate games (or at least the multiplayer parts) for online cheating. Leaving aside the discussion of the morality of cheating, who are Valve to terminate your game? Isn't this illegal, denying you the game you paid for?

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[WNight]

Likely. They could deny you access to servers they run, but disabling your software for any reason seems illegal.

Re:remote control disablement = stealing

[mgiuca]

They're half-way in between - they don't disable your software completely. They don't just deny access to servers _they_ run. They activate a flag which denies access to _all_ servers around the world with "anti-cheat" turned on. Which is most of them.

So while this probably isn't illegal in itself, it does make your product useless (if you bought it to play online games). The sad thing is these bastards just get more sales out of it, as desperate gamers buy new copies (and I don't blame them).

qotd

[coaxial]

From Valve: "'Some of these users have subsequently purchased a legal copy"

Of course the original copy was also legally purchased as well. It's just that some consumers balk at differential pricing.

Re:qotd

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course the original copy was also legally purchased as well. It's just that some consumers balk at differential pricing. No, it's just the original copy was only licensed for use in a specific territory. As it apparently said on the box.

Re:qotd

[coaxial]

The software is the same. This different licenses (and price points) for different territories is bullshit.

Re:qotd

[Dunbal]

It's just that some consumers balk at differential pricing.

      Valve's accountants certainly did...

speaking of protected markets: pharmaceuticals

[JonTurner]

Just curious. Are you also against reimportation of 'cheap' medicines from foreign markets back to the US?

You have said that Americans should pay more because they can. What about wealthy foreigners in otherwise poor countries. Are they taking advantage of the local market forces? Should poor Americans get a price break because they are penalized by being in an expensive market?

Now (and here's where it gets interesting...) what if the product isn't software? Pharmaceutical companies make most their profits in the US, to subsidize the socialized ("free") medicine in the rest of the world. But notice they get mighty pissed off if someone reimports their medicines from somewhere "cheap" back to the States. You see, they're still getting paid, but not as much as they want and the business plan depends on these artificial boundaries, even though the world is becoming less divided and more accessable thanks to technology. IOW, their business model is becoming antiquated. So they must either fight for more artificial boundary enforcement, or raise the prices elsewhere+lower them in USA.

Your thoughts?

Re:speaking of protected markets: pharmaceuticals

[Anonymous Coward]

Pharmaceutical companies make most their profits in the US, to subsidize the socialized ("free") medicine in the rest of the world.

That's funny, I thought the rest of the world paid indirectly for their own drugs plus a shitload of red tape via their socialized governments' ass-raping taxes, but apparently the drugs companies just give their products away in other countries? Wow! France here I come!

Re:speaking of protected markets: pharmaceuticals

[rm999]

Funny, I was actually going to mention drugs, but decided not to because it's slightly off topic. It actually is a very good point, though. Creating different prices for drugs in different countries has the same purpose as software (there are slight differences -for one thing, if you don't provide cheap AIDS drugs to Africans, people will die).

But, yes, I am against Americans arbitraging drugs prices. What a lot of people don't know is that First World drug prices - especially in America - are high because we subsidize drugs for the rest of the world. Developing those AIDS cocktails that a lot of Africans use cost tens of billions of dollars in the USA. When an American pays for health insurance, he is indirectly paying for this R&D. There was an Economist article recently criticizing moderately wealthy countries, like Brazil, who were ignoring patents on drugs by offering generics. They made a good point - someone has to pay for the drugs that continues to increase the standard of living through the world. The drug industry has sort of become communist - the rich pay for the poor. This is a great thing IMO.

Re:speaking of protected markets: pharmaceuticals

[Dr_Barnowl]

This may be true, in the loosest of senses, but don't underestimate the buying power of a customer that literally represents the population of an entire country. An organisation representing 80M people can cut a pretty sweet deal, relatively speaking, with Big Pharma.

Yes, I would be glad to see a great deal of the red tape evaporate. But the thought of being seriously ill in America would fill me with dread, because unless you are loaded, it's a one-way ticket to poverty.

America spends more per capita on it's healthcare than any other nation, yet doesn't even have coverage for everyone. Something tells me that you are getting a much heavier "ass-raping" than other nations.

How naive

[MMaestro]

Then again, I could imagine it would be a reasonable compromise for Valve to check you actually played the game for an extended period of time in Russia before you legitimately moved to the US. If it showed you played it for a few weeks in Russia and now you want to play it in the US, then I would agree that they should allow it. If their records show the game was never played in its original country of purchase, then I think they'd have decent grounds to decline your request.

You've never worked in the service industry have you? If you seriously think that a corporation will take the time and effort to check the account logs of where, when and for long you've used their service, you're woefully naive. Internet connections from U.S. military bases in foreign countries run through a labyrinth of routers, proxies and firewalls, you think Joe Average working the phones at Valve is going to make the distinction? Simply raising that issue alone would raise hell in the media. "U.S. soldier fighting overseas robbed by U.S. corporation!"

I would've really liked to play Portal too.

[bigtangringo]

But the move on Valve's part is just f-ing crooked, if you ask me.

Penalty boycott box for Valve, for me.

WTF

[Ariastis]

Its like : "Thailand gets lower prices because there is a piracy problem there." So in order to get better prices, you say we need to go to Pirate Bay a bit more?

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it's probably the quickest solution to this deactivation problem...

Re:WTF

[node159]

This is what really fucks me off... why on earth should I have to grab a pirated copy of a game, just to be able to play a game that I purchased because the DRM is so fucked up, and were not just talking about Steam here.

Re:WTF

[G-funk]

Because you're a sucker and keep giving money to companies that are fucking you.

College textbooks

[RichPowers]

"International editions" can be purchased brand new for less than half of the price you'd pay at the college bookstore.

Nonsense!

[Lost Found]

Nonsense! An EULA can be called an "Agreement" all day long and that doesn't make it hold water. There are two big things at play here - one, the need for a meeting of the minds, and two, the assumed rights of a consumer who buys something. EULAs don't have the force of binding contracts because you don't sign them before you fork over the money, and you don't sign them before the store hands you the box.

Problem with this is..

[JackMeyhoff]

I live in a country that is not my native language, I wish to purchase products in MY NATIVE LANGUAGE. I have to import a lot of stuff for this reason. I may have no other choice than to no longer purchase their product if they block this. Good luck doing this in Europe also where free trade is REQUIRED.

Re:Problem with this is..

[elFarto the 2nd]

The only restriction with the Orange Box is if you buy the physical box from Thailand or Russia, then the key can only be used in Thailand or Russia, it states this on the box itself. If you buy it on Steam it'll work any where in the world.

The reason for the Thai and Russian keys being restricted is because Valve sells them cheaper in those markets to help combat piracy. The online retailers who sold the boxes to places outside Thailand did not specify what was on the box to the people buying them.

Regards
elFarto

Re:Problem with this is..

[JackMeyhoff]

Usually they are localised to those regions and thus the issue I raised with language is perfectly valid. Not every game has downloadable language packs or is multi language.

Re:Problem with this is..

[Ash-Fox]

I live in a country that is not my native language, I wish to purchase products in MY NATIVE LANGUAGE. I have to import a lot of stuff for this reason.

I currently live in the UK, I bought the orange box off Steam (in American dollars), so I assume I got the American version. I noticed that I get language options in the preferences of the game.

If your native language is one of these, I don't think there will be a problem.

I may have no other choice than to no longer purchase their product if they block this.

More power to you.

Good luck doing this in Europe also where free trade is REQUIRED.

European Union actually, which doesn't cover the countries "Russia" and "Thai", they are the only countries currently which have region restricted games with Steam.

Re:Problem with this is..

[JackMeyhoff]

Some regions of Europe have laws that means all products sold must be in the native language, thus products are in these localised langauges, if I am lucky I can get my language, if not then Im screwed. I usually order from Play.com, I really don't care where they get them from as long as it is in my language and a good price. DVD region market restrictions failed, doing this with software will also fail.

Re:Problem with this is..

[Ash-Fox]

Some regions of Europe have laws that means all products sold must be in the native language

Really? Which 'regions'?

Even if they do, I doubt they put these restrictions on products you bought from other nations and imported or products bought online from sites in other nations.

I usually order from Play.com

Never heard of it, but looking at it briefly, it's a UK site.

I really don't care where they get them from as long as it is in my language and a good price.

What is your language?

DVD region market restrictions failed, doing this with software will also fail.DVD region market restrictions failed, doing this with software will also fail.

I don't buy region locked DVDs and I don't buy region locked games (all my games including the orange box aren't locked to a region).

Re:Problem with this is..

[JackMeyhoff]

Play.com is a pan european site actually, its a merchant portal and a store. Doesnt matter what language I want to get, the problem exists today. Many regions within europe, Germany, various members of the Nordic Union and others require products and TV shows etc are available in their language. Europe has a free trade law, if you restrict trade, expect HARSH penalties.

Re:Problem with this is..

[elFarto the 2nd]

I just did a quick test with my Steam bought copy of Portal. I can change the language from English to Japanese and all works fine (except the voice over which is only in a few languages). These are clearly stated on the page where you buy it from:

Languages : English*, French*, German*, Russian*, Danish, Dutch, Finnish, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Simplified Chinese, Spanish, Swedish, Traditional Chinese
* languages with full audio support

Thai isn't there which probably means it isn't available at all.

Regards
elFarto

Re:Problem with this is..

[JackMeyhoff]

If this is true, nice thanks, but in my experience this availability of languages has not been a good Experience on games. I do not purchase over Steam I buy from an online retailer and activate on steam. If multilangauge on this game is good then this is a rare example. Most do not

Re:Problem with this is..

[elFarto the 2nd]

I agree, most games just get the European languages but a quick browse through the Steam site shows Valve are very good with the localisation:

For Half Life 2 and HL2: Episode 1:
Languages : English*, French*, German*, Italian*, Korean*, Spanish*, Russian*, Simplified Chinese*, Traditional Chinese*, Dutch, Danish, Finnish, Japanese, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Swedish, Thai
* languages with full audio support

It appears most of their games are like this or have a list like Portal's.

Regards
elFarto

Re:Problem with this is..

[JackMeyhoff]

Yes however localisation is good, but , if that is only released to specifiec market regions then I get fcuked. If it is available in ALL releases then GREAT NEWS! I have had too much bad experience with only having 4 languages in this region and not the one I want. Its a classic case of market targeting and ignoring that it is a global world. Bullfrog games used to have downloadable language packs then for the sequal they stopped this for some reason or made it difficult to find. I just hate the stereotyping of everybody in on market region speaks lagnauge N and ignore all those that travel the world, especially in the Europe and indeed global world we have today.

Re:Shitty Company

[Anonymous Coward]

Importing a console from the game's origin country (usually Japan) allows you to play said game. Importing a PC from Thailand does not allow you to play Thai Orange Box.

Not criminal...

[Per Abrahamsen]

Illegal is not the same as criminal, so he doesn't accuse them of being criminals. Merely lawbreakers. It is unlikely but possible that the people who bought and installed the Thai versions thereby broke the law. The law in question would then be contract law, and it would depend on the interpretation and binding power of the EULA.

Re:Not criminal...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Illegal is not the same as criminal, so he doesn't accuse them of being criminals. Merely lawbreakers.

Please explain the difference between a lawbreaker and a criminal.

Criminal = someone who commits a crime
Crime = violation of law

Re:Not criminal...

[Breakfast Pants]

If I make a contract with you to mow your lawn tomorrow, but it takes me an extra day, I'm open to civil action, but I'm not a criminal.

Re:Not criminal...

[Dunbal]

Please explain the difference between a lawbreaker and a criminal.

      It's the difference between breaking the civil code and breaking the criminal code. Break the civil code and you risk a lawsuit. Break the criminal code and the STATE will come after you.

Re:Shitty Company

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, a PS3 fanboy, obviously. Congratulations - you're an idiot.

That said, you have a point about HL2's story.

Low value version is region locked, that's OK

[AHumbleOpinion]

So a product moved across a national border or an ocean or whatever -- big deal. Happens all the time and that's the nature of the modern world. The copy from India or Taiwan or whatever was legal and I'm sure Valve would prefer that it stay far, far away from the more profitable countries (so as to not illustrate the price disparity) but that's not reality.

No. Valve sold lower value products at lower prices. Why were they lower valued? Because they were region locked to Thailand and Russia. Higher valued products that work in the US and EU are sold at higher prices.

Put simply: The customer bought something from an authorized vendor; there was an exchange of good for payment. Give them their game, Valve, or return them their money. Anything less makes you a common thief. End of story.

No. The deal finders mistook a lower valued version for a higher valued version. Or perhaps the deal finders were scammed by middlemen who misrepresented the products. These deal finders now understand the phrase "a deal that is too good to be true". When you engage in such deals you should not be surprised to find that you have bought stolen or counterfeit goods. Yes, counterfeit. If the locked Russian/Thai version was sold to US/EU customers then it is counterfeit, a misrepresentation, much like a 2.4 GHz CPU that is remarked as a 3.0 GHz CPU.

Re:Low value version is region locked, that's OK

[bigstrat2003]

No. The deal finders mistook a lower valued version for a higher valued version. Or perhaps the deal finders were scammed by middlemen who misrepresented the products. These deal finders now understand the phrase "a deal that is too good to be true". When you engage in such deals you should not be surprised to find that you have bought stolen or counterfeit goods. Yes, counterfeit. If the locked Russian/Thai version was sold to US/EU customers then it is counterfeit, a misrepresentation, much like a 2.4 GHz CPU that is remarked as a 3.0 GHz CPU. No. Valve is screwing over paying customers, plain and simple. They may not like it that people are buying from another market, but that's tough shit. I agree with what the other poster said, if they didn't want it to cross national borders, just make the local copies only in that language. If the servers (for TF2) are segregated by languages (say, like WoW does for their different markets), certainly it shouldn't play on the US servers. But not letting people play the game that they paid for is completely asinine, even if it goes against the intent Valve had. I guess they should do a better job of making sure that the games aren't appealing to people in other countries if they don't want those people to buy it.

I was a reasonably happy Valve customer. I had some misgivings about Steam, but nonetheless, I own copies of CS:S and Portal, and enjoy the hell out of both of them. Now, though, I swear before every deity and authority figure in existence that Valve isn't going to get another cent out of me, because of how they've chosen to treat customers. In fact, I intend to do my best to pirate all their games from now on out of spite. Valve deserves to crash and burn spectacularly.

Re:Low value version is region locked, that's OK

[Opportunist]

Can you explain to me what makes the product cheaper in Russia or Thailand? Does it have fewer levels, or worse graphics, or what is the big deal that causes the game to be cheaper there?

Re:Low value version is region locked, that's OK

[AHumbleOpinion]

I rhetorically asked and answered that question in the original post. The lost value *is* the region portability, which is clearly stated *on the box*.

Re:Low value version is region locked, that's OK

[vertinox]

I rhetorically asked and answered that question in the original post. The lost value *is* the region portability, which is clearly stated *on the box*.

But that is willful disabling rather than regional issues. A software program runs on any Intel/AMD cpu the same regardless of where it runs in the world. Its not like we are dealing with different voltage or FCC (or any other countries equivalent) regulations that make the software not run any better.

It would be like selling someone a car in Thailand with a window smashed out on the side so you could sell it to them cheaper.

Re:Low value version is region locked, that's OK

[magictiger]

Actually, it's more like selling a car in Thailand that only runs on Thai fuel. All Valve did was say something like "We're going to sell this product to you guys at a price you can afford, but you'll only be able to play it from Poorland. 'Cause you're poor. But hey, you'll have Team Fortress 2 and Portal without the guilt of rampant piracy." ISN'T THIS WHAT WE'VE BEEN WANTING ALL ALONG? A game company that "gets it" that not all places can pay the same prices for a given product. So they take the necessary steps to prevent people from buying the cheap version and playing it in LessPoorland. This protects their revenue stream and allows them to bring the game to places where it otherwise would be pirated. And hey, the Thai people get to play on legit servers. Valve makes back development costs from us, makes a little extra change from Thailand and Russia, and hey, just maybe they will have made enough to justify a Portal 2.

And for those whining about us not getting it for the cheap price, SUCK IT UP! We're Americans! We're USED to this kind of treatment. I'm looking at you, Wal-Mart.

Re:Low value version is region locked, that's OK

[vertinox]

Actually, it's more like selling a car in Thailand that only runs on Thai fuel

What? There is no such thing in this scenario. Computers in Thailand don't run on anything different than American or Russian computers if they run 32bit Windows. AFAIK, there is no such thing as Thai fuel for cars either and if it were it wouldn't be cheaper to make a car run on Thai fuel because it would cost more because of the two production lines instead of a one.

In a global economy where there is no scarcity, products should not be regionized in order to make it so that there are no artificial monopolies which drives down the prices for everyone.

Actually, regionalization restrictions makes it more expensive for the Thais in the end.

Re:Low value version is region locked, that's OK

[Fastolfe]

But not letting people play the game that they paid for is completely asinine,

They're perfectly able to play the game they paid for. They just have to be in Thailand to do it. Like it says on the box.

This is a different product than what was sold to people in the US. Valve decided to separate the markets because the supply-and-demand model works differently there than it does here, partly because of higher rates of piracy. They made a business decision to sell essentially two variants of the same game. People walking into the store buying these things, or buying from reputable online vendors, would have understood the difference and purchased the proper variant, or, if they were in Thailand at the time and knew they would be playing it back in the US, they would have decided not to purchase and wait until they got home.

Valve didn't do anything evil here, unless you consider locking licenses to specific geographies evil (a separate discussion). They're certainly not responsible for "screwing" these "paying customers" out of their money. The Thai businesses that sold them these license keys did that. Don't punish Valve for something a retailer did.

Re:Low value version is region locked, that's OK

[AHumbleOpinion]

Willful disabling is a common method of creating different versions. There is no difference between artificially removing a level and artificially limiting to a region. Being able to play from any region is a feature, one that *few* will use, and is a good candidate for versioning.

Re:Low value version is region locked, that's OK

[Anonymous Coward]

Valve sold lower value products at lower prices. Why were they lower valued? Because they were region locked to Thailand and Russia. This is exactly what the doctrine of first sale is supposed to prevent. If I sell you something, you should be able to sell it on to anyone else - and if I try to prevent you from doing so, I should be fined.

Re:Low value version is region locked, that's OK

[paintballer1087]

Actually, it's more like selling a car in Thailand that only runs on Thai fuel

What? There is no such thing in this scenario. Computers in Thailand don't run on anything different than American or Russian computers if they run 32bit Windows. AFAIK, there is no such thing as Thai fuel for cars either and if it were it wouldn't be cheaper to make a car run on Thai fuel because it would cost more because of the two production lines instead of a one. I really doubt he was really talking about "Thai only fuel" or the price of manufacturing that fuel. Try fuel that only works in Thailand. Valve released a game that only was licensed for use in Thailand, it wasn't released region free.

Re:Low value version is region locked, that's OK

[AHumbleOpinion]

Valve sold lower value products at lower prices. Why were they lower valued? Because they were region locked to Thailand and Russia.

This is exactly what the doctrine of first sale is supposed to prevent. If I sell you something, you should be able to sell it on to anyone else - and if I try to prevent you from doing so, I should be fined.

"First doctrine" is being misapplied here. You are free to sell the game under the same terms that you bought it under, region locked. If you buy a region locked version and attempt to sell it as an unlocked version I suggest you do not consult the authorities. You are engaging in fraud, you will be fined, not the original publisher.

Why is it illegal?

[WeirdCat]

I don't know the international laws, but in the EU it is absolutely legal to buy a new car in another country and reimport it (and sometimes save a lot of money in the process). Why should software from Valve be an exception?

Re:Why is it illegal?

[TeraCo]

Because laws in the EU don't apply to Valve until they setup a shop over there. World Government, where are you when we need you?

Re:Why is it illegal?

[Luthair]

If they sell the product in the EU, then the laws do apply to them (or their publisher).

Re:Why is it illegal?

[Fastolfe]

Buying a car is a purchase of a tangible item. Buying a game like this is the purchase of a license. You can import both items into whatever country you want, but you don't fundamentally change the item itself when you import it. Your car doesn't magically get a bigger engine. The license doesn't magically change its terms to allow the game to be played outside of the region it was intended for.

Re:Why is it illegal?

[Dunbal]

World Government, where are you when we need you?

      Be careful what you wish for. (shudder)

Re:Why is it illegal?

[TeraCo]

Maybe.. maybe.

But here is the kicker.. Valve is the publisher, they're publishing via Steam. They don't have anyone over in the EU for them to prosecute. The EU writes up their fancy summons to EU court and delivers it to who? They could send some dude over on a boat to the US to give it to gaben, and when he doesn't show up they can.. send another fancy summons?

Re:Why is it illegal?

[Pofy]

>Valve is the publisher, they're publishing via Steam.

I thought these games were bought from shops (in Thailand) and also in other countries. Those were the type of games discussed above. In such a case, even iv Valve doesn't "exist" here, someone selling their products do and will thus take the blame/whatever and can in turn sort it out with Valve, ultimately not doing buissiness if it makes them end up in troubble. So even if one can escape going directly to court, one can end up losing the business.

Re:Why is it illegal?

[Pofy]

>Buying a car is a purchase of a tangible item.
>Buying a game like this is the purchase of a license.

A copy of a game is also a tangible item. One might need some sort of licens in ADDITION in some countries to use a copy of the game, in others one don't. In any case, one need a copy of the game in one way or another as a license in it self is quite pointless and useless.

Re:Why is it illegal?

[TeraCo]

That's what Valve -want- though. They've already told these people to seek refunds through their suppliers, who in turn will get money back from Valve. They can't make it any more clear than this.

Re:Shitty Company

[mrchaotica]

Only console companies have been doing this same game region lock-out for YEARS. I don't see you complaining about that.

Then you're not looking hard enough, because some of us, at least, are complaining. Hell, I haven't owned a console since the SNES, mostly for this reason (along with the persecution of modchip makers, licensing requirements for games, and Nintendo's infamous historic censorship). And if I'd been old enough to understand these issues back then, I probably wouldn't even have an SNES either.

Re:Shitty Company

[Opportunist]

No complaining there. People just get modchips to play region locked games, then realize that they can use those mod chips to play copies, then stop buying games altogether.

Without region locks, a lot of people wouldn't have gone out of their way to get modchips. They got modchips because they wanted to play some ultrasuperspecialawesome game that isn't available in their region yet, that they could play a copy of it instead of importing it is a benefit. Then they learned just how easy it is to get access to the copies and then the end for buying games came.

I'm fairly sure that a lot of console game copying is due to region locks.

Re:Shitty Company

[rgo]

It doesn't matter if Valve deactivated the games later, it was stated on the box that the game is region locked, so Valve has the right to enforce the lock whenever they want to.

Also Valve has no responsibility to refund those people, they didn't get ripped off by Valve, they got ripped off by the shoddy sellers on eBay. IMO, the latter ones should be sued and ... stoned.

Anyway, you are right that Valve shouldn't ban those people, but as Doug said, if you've any problem contact Valve support.

Still pretty appalled

[Eternal Annoyance]

So, I don't get to buy my software where I want to buy it? Ok, I'll just download a cracked version of the valve software I want from somewhere and valve can forget about any of my money heading their way... ever.

"subsequently purchased a legal copy"

[Petrushka]

Some of these users have subsequently purchased a legal copy

... Ah, so if you buy a copy in Russia or Thailand, you're buying an "illegal" copy? Well, that clears that up, then.

Re:Valve & SteamStucks

[Gigiya]

my, what drama

So is this going to cost them more money to

[Shivetya]

enforce than it makes them? I understand they are protecting the rights of distributors and their rights across borders. Hell there could be some stupid trade laws that actually cause fines to be applied to sales across certain borders. Still I wonder if the enforcement costs outweigh the profit per sale, not counting lost customers.

Still, as before, I am amazed at how much people will go out of their way to save twenty bucks or so while sporting 2K gaming machines.

Re:So is this going to cost them more money to

[magictiger]

Still I wonder if the enforcement costs outweigh the profit per sale, not counting lost customers.

It doesn't. It just checks the IP range you're connecting from for what country it belongs to. Nice little function added to the authentication process, and your enforcement is automated. Might not be 100% reliable, but meh, that's what customer support staff are for. Give them a way to verify someone's range was blocked improperly, and a way to fix it, and you're done.

About the lost customers, not sure what you mean here. Valve made their money from the distributor selling the Thai copies, and some of the people have also bought copies playable from their country of residence. Valve has made more money at the cost of a little bad press. With how just about everyone's been going nuts over the Orange Box, I'd say they'll come out ok and have learned a lesson or two. Sure, they might piss off some people who won't buy Peggle or some other game now... but chances are when Episode 3 comes out someday, the crack addicts will be back waiting for their fix.

WTO

[brunes69]

This whole thing smacks of a blatant WTO violation to me.

You are not allowed to restrict products to sale in a given region. This is the whole purpose of WTO treaties. It is what allows the US to sell it's food internationally and to import international goods.

The WTO are who brought down the MPAA region codes. They could do the same to Valve.

Re:WTO

[Ash-Fox]

You are not allowed to restrict products to sale in a given region. This is the whole purpose of WTO treaties. It is what allows the US to sell it's food internationally and to import international goods.

Sale was not restricted, activation was.

If you activate the game in Thai or Russia (where you bought it), you can then play it anywhere.

Re:WTO

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but in that case they're selling something that doesn't work (as advertised), which is a sort of scam.

i m curious ...

[koutkeu]

what happens if you live in thai or russia, buy the game there, play there, then move to US

Re:i m curious ...

[Ash-Fox]

what happens if you live in thai or russia, buy the game there, play there, then move to US

Since you activated the game in Russia or Thai, there isn't a problem.

Re:i m curious ...

[neminem]

So you could buy it, use a Russian proxy to activate it, then use it normally?

Re:i m curious ...

[Ash-Fox]

So you could buy it, use a Russian proxy to activate it, then use it normally?

Steam supports proxies?

Re:i m curious ...

[koutkeu]

i guess then, activate the product thru a proxy

Re:Valve & SteamStucks

[Anonymous Coward]

I love Steam. It allows me to buy software directly from the low-cost country in which it's produced and "import" into mine, where costs are significantly more expensive. I paid $45 for the orange box, the retail price is $70 here.

Before going into a rant about Steam screwing people over, it's best to consider all angles. For us here in Europe, Steam is one of the best publishers, as they don't enforce the outrageous price markups that everyone else does. Sony for example, sell an inferior version of the PS3 (most PS2 games don't work) for over $700 here.

It is not a legitimate concern...

[Animaether]

...because it states the limitation right there on the friggin' box. If it didn't, you'd have a point.

You are a hypocrite

[uuxququex]

You are flying the moral flag over a business decision (sell a lower value item for a lower price in some locale) that Valve made. You make them seem like immoral bastards over this.

Regardless if that's right (it isn't by the way) you spout off your big mouth.

Well fine, if you don't like the company, or the product, just don't buy it.

But nooooo, you are going to copy the game and play it anyway. That makes you a hypocrite. That's morally detestable.

Re:You are a hypocrite

[bigstrat2003]

But nooooo, you are going to copy the game and play it anyway. That makes you a hypocrite. I didn't necessarily say play. I don't like the vast majority of their games (HL, ugh), I just want to hurt a company in any way I can. Since the best way to hurt them I can think of is to copy their games, whether I play it or not, that's what I'm doing. I quite honestly fail to see what's so hypocritical about this. I believe in buying games/software/music/movies I like, to support the developer. I legally own most of my stuff. But when a company treats their customers like Valve has, the gloves come off, and it's time to try to hurt, rather than help, them.

Re:You are a hypocrite

[badasscat]

You are flying the moral flag over a business decision (sell a lower value item for a lower price in some locale) that Valve made. You make them seem like immoral bastards over this.

Way to sugarcoat the real issue!

Valve is perfectly free to sell whatever version of whatever game in whatever region they like. What they're *not* perfectly free to do is then *disable* those products in other regions. That is in most cases illegal - they now have your money, and you have no working product.

You see no moral problem with this? I see our schools have gotten away from teaching basic right and wrong lately.

Well fine, if you don't like the company, or the product, just don't buy it.

Ok, how about next time you take your laptop with you on a plane to another country, I'm going to have the manufacturer remotely disable it. Hey, if you didn't want that to happen, you shouldn't have bought it.

Re:You are a hypocrite

[uuxququex]

You say that they disabled the product. I say it never was intended to work outside the locale where it was marketed and sold.

As I see it there are two products: a high-value product, for a higher price that works everywhere. And a lower-value product (because is it regional) for a lower price.

Some people bought the lower-value product, thinking they could use it like the higher-valued product. Maybe they where misled by the seller. That is where they should complain, not at Valve.

Valve sold a product that works exactly as advertised by them.

Re:You are a hypocrite

[uuxququex]

So you are going to copy a game, which you then intend to not play, am I correct?

I think that is irrational behaviour, but that just my opinion, you can just ignore that.

But I can't grasp why you are convinced that customers have been wronged by Valve. I really don't. Valve marketed a certain product with certain features in some locale. The product works exactly as advertised. However, it seems that some middle men, some dealer, misrepresented the product for being something else. Specifically, that the regional version was the non-regional version.

The customers that where misled should take this up with the ones that sold it to them. Not with Valve.

But, sure, it's better to hurt a company that did nothing wrong than to apply rational thought to the matter.

Re:You are a hypocrite

[bigstrat2003]

But Valve didn't do nothing wrong. They turned off the games of customers who had legal, paid-for versions of their game. These people bought the game, it worked, and then Valve retroactively turned off the game which they had already paid for. If the copies were misrepresented, sure, the buyers have a beef with the middlemen, but they also have a valid complaint with Valve, who is crooked enough to deny them the game that they paid for. That's wrong, and the fact that Valve did so after the fact makes it also tantamount to stealing from them. Valve's suggestion, furthermore, that they go out and buy US copies of the game, is laughable.

Valve is whining about the fact that someone imported goods, then punishing them for it, then having the audacity to tell them that they should give Valve MORE money. I could have some sympathy for Valve if they were offering to reimburse customers for the cost of the already paid-for game, and saying that if they want to play Orange Box, they need to get a US copy, but taking the game away and giving nothing is completely asinine, and crooked.

Re:You are a hypocrite

[p0tat03]

That makes no sense whatsoever. If you copy a game and don't play it, what kind of "damage" does that do to Valve exactly. If you *actually* cause any damage to them via copyright infringement, that makes you in the wrong also. So really you are quite powerless in this situation except not to buy/play Valve products, in which case copying it would be rather moot.

stupid comparison

[The Rizz]

Your comparison is a horrible one; the Mig 29 would not be legal for you to buy here, either, due to weapons restrictions. You could just as well say that you weren't allowed to import all that pot you bought in Amsterdam to the US.

Your example has nothing to do with it being from a foreign country. It is all about legality of the product in this country.

Re:stupid comparison

[wjsteele]

Actually, you're incorrect. It is perfectly legal to own a US Figther Jet. Getting a hold of them is the trick. Actually anything prior to the F-14 is pretty easy to get, aircraft since then is a lot harder, because most of them are still in service and the government hasn't released them. Owning a jet simply takes one step... having the government officially "demilitarize" it. Once that is done, they can be sold to private individuals. Demilitarizing them simply ensures that no advanced equipment works, like Weapons, Radar, Radar Jamming equipment, etc. They don't want it to fall into the wrong hands. (Think about the F-14s and Iran.)

In fact, owning Soviet based aircraft is legal as well, you just can't import it, just like you said, because of it's classification as a weapon. The ATF doesn't like it. If someone was able to produce a copy of the MiG from the ground up in the US then it would be perfectly legal to own and fly it under the Experimental Aircraft category.

Bill

Or, a better idea...

[The Rizz]

The problem we have is that if you win, and Valve fold, allow all these Russian or Thai copies to be activated in the U.S., they're going to have to raise the prices in these poorer countries to reduce the incentive for importers, essentially locking out financially anyone who genuinely wanted a localised copy for a fair price. Or, they could do what they do in the US: Release the game at price X, then slowly lower the price over the course of time. They could even offer it in Thailand or wherever at a discount if they really wanted - just make that discount be about the same price as the shipping on it would be.

If you only save $4-5 buying something from overseas, 99.9% of people will just pay the couple of extra bucks to get it without having to worry about international shipments, customs, etc. It's when the price becomes $15+ difference that you really see people start considering this.

If Valve really wants to limit cheap-ass copies to particular regions, then they shouldn't put boxes into stores there; they should sell to those regions exclusively via direct-sale through Steam or their website - that way, they can check IPs as the purchases are made, and not have to worry about pissing people off like this.

Re:Or, a better idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

I would think an even easier solution - different length codes. 'Global' copies (not limited) should have a 16 digit code (or whatever it is) and 'limited' cheap localized copies should have a 12 digit code.

Buy a 12 digit code and get a message 'you IP says you don't live here... please contact the person you bought this game from - read THIS as to why we do this and contact support if you feel there is an issue' (THIS would be a link as to reasoning behind supplying 'poor peoples' versions or whatever)

I mean... it just adds confusion to have different versions with similar codes.

17 USC 602

[tepples]

There's no law that lets you forbid importation of products. Then what's Title 17, United States Code, section 602, and foreign counterparts?

I'm sure you'll find that the staff of Valve is wearing imported clothes, taking advantage of cheaper things overseas. Imported clothes that the copyright, patent, and/or trademark owner has specifically authorized for importation.

They probably shop at Walmart. Wal-Mart stores carry products that the copyright, patent, and/or trademark owner has specifically authorized for importation.

They're hypocrits, willing to take advantage of globalization to increase their own profits, but they sabotage the product to prevent you from doing the same. They're not hypocrites. They're copyright owners.

Re:17 USC 602

[WNight]

In a case where the copies or phonorecords were lawfully made, the United States Customs Service has no authority to prevent their importation unless

Do you read your links?

Besides, who cares? Hypocrit is a hypocrit does. If globalization is good enough for them, it's good enough for us. If they hide behind some technicality to evade their responsibilities it's not our obligation to play along.

Rather, it's the obligation of those who live near them to apply subtle extra-legal corrective actions, such as disabling their cars and foreign products. If they want they car to work it's easy, they merely have to purchase another one and transfer the plates...

Importation is equal to piracy in the U.S.

[Myria]

17 USC 602

602. Infringing importation of copies or phonorecords

(a) Importation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of copies or phonorecords of a work that have been acquired outside the United States is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute copies or phonorecords under section 106, actionable under section 501.

The "infringement of the exclusive right" is the exact same wording as what makes piracy illegal. It is no better to import without permission than to download it illegally. The listed exemptions only apply in cases where you have it in your baggage when returning from another country.

The law sucks, but it is definitely illegal and those who import are criminals.

Re:Importation is equal to piracy in the U.S.

[Dunbal]

but it is definitely illegal and those who import are criminals.

      since when does violating the CIVIL code make you a criminal?

It's a case of wanting to have it both ways

[Sycraft-fu]

They want to pretend like software is a good, something that is sold up front, whine it is convenient to them, but a service when it's not. If it is a good, and they seem to treat it as such, then there should be nothing preventing any importing, resale, or anything like that. Globalization has pluses and minuses for not just consumers but businesses as well. One of those is that if you sell something cheaper in one part of the world, someone can import it to another part. If they don't like that I'm sorry, but that it how it works. You can see the effects of it on a site like uexcell.com.com where you can extremely cheap goods from China.

  be able to say "Well you can't export OUR product." Sorry, globalization is good and bad for everyone, you need to deal with that.

Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Perfect analogy. Insightful indeed.

It doesn't make it morally correct though!

may I be the first to say...

[fdisk3hs]

May I be the first to say, "What the fuck are you all talking about? You can't use an orange box that you bought to use on your steam valve? What The Fuck?!

Screwed by Steam, won't do business with it again

[Stormie]

I bought Half-life 2 via Steam, and at the time, I was really happy with the experience. Buying a hot new-release game from the comfort of my chair, and the conversion from $US to Australian dollars meant that it was actually quite cheap.

But then a year or so later, I suffered a prolonged internet outage. At the time I was well addicted to World of Warcraft and thus was jonesing for a gaming fix. "I know! I'll bust out Half-life 2, get some single-player action!". No. While I gather that it is possible to configure it to run offline (although I never succeeded, neither then nor since), it is NOT possible to set it up that way without connecting to the Steam servers. i.e., if you have an unexpected internet outage, it is NOT possible to play the single-player game you spent a bunch of money on.

So screw you Valve. You took my money and gave me a broken product. I bought Half-life, I bought Opposing Force, I bought Blue Shift, I bought Half-life 2. And that's it. You'll never see another cent from me as long as you continue these acts of hostility towards your paying customers in the name of fighting piracy.

Math is hard

[Guignol]

Ok, this is very hard math now so I hope you can follow.
Assume you, as a (not in thailand nor russia)er make enough a year to spend each year the monney on
- a DX8 capable PC
- 20 50$ games
You will probably spend this monney differently anyway, but this is what you can do
Well, for this market, it will be like this:
- a DX8 capable PC every three or four years
- about 3 50$ games a year
There... is the argument adding up already ?

New Zealand

[Akaihiryuu]

In NZ it's illegal to sell region-locked devices. Anything sold in the country by law has to be region free.

Re:Screwed by Steam, won't do business with it aga

[keithjr]

I'm not trying to harangue you about it, but what other solution is there to the problem of intangible ownership? You can theoretically download HL2 onto any number of your friends' machines, take them offline, and then go to town. Fighting piracy becomes a much bigger beast when people can legally download the game already.

Either way, not long ago (sorry I don't know exactly when it was enabled) Steam started allowing Offline Mode. At least, it did the last time I tried to play without an internet connection, although I think it does a check to make sure that your PC was the last one to connect to that steam account.

Re:Screwed by Steam, won't do business with it aga

[Stormie]

Obviously Valve will do whatever they feel they must to fight piracy, but come on, relative "ease" or "difficulty" ceased to be an issue when anyone in the world could type "Half-life episode 2 torrent" into Google and instantly find a source for a pirated copy. Being able to legally download the game has no bearing.

And yeah, like I said, I know Steam does allegedly have an Offline Mode. But it involves being Online to switch to that mode (so it's only useful for planned outages, like for taking laptops away from the network), and also, frankly, I tried it again after posting in this thread, and I just could not make it work. Followed Valve's instructions to the letter but attempting to start Half-life 2 without a network connection still gave a "This operation cannot be completed when Steam is in offline mode" error.

I'm sure it could be coaxed into working with some assistance from Valve's tech support. But sorry, it's a broken product which they have deliberately broken in the name of fighting piracy (hmm I wonder how the 7000 people connected to the first torrent Google revealed are getting on right now?) and my dollars have voted by staying in my wallet. I look forward to seeing more stories like this one regarding more miseries Valve have brought upon themselves with Steam.

I'll do you one better

[patio11]

Lets say you have 100,000 units of either Half Life 2 or Extend Life Double to distribute in Thailand or Africa. You sell them at the local market clearing price (i.e. the highest price at which all will be sold) or, if you're feeling exceptionally generous and haven't taken econ 101, you sell them below the market clearing price. Who bought them?

Scalpers bought them.

Its obvious -- they have the organization and financial incentive to buy as many units as they can get their hands on and sell them to (relatively speaking) rich Western clients who are looking to exploit the price differential. A scalper who lives next door to a clinic selling AIDS drugs at 10% of the price in New York might as well be living next to a a field full of high-quality pre-processed heroin, EXCEPT he won't get jailed for purchasing or selling it and the price-per-ounce is probably higher. He should get every scrap of money he can get his hands on, buy as much as possible, sell it, and then repeat the process until the source is exhausted. And he will.

If you institute a one-per-customer rule, he will use straw buyers. (Like the Japanese PS3 launch had many scalpers using Chinese foreign exchange students -- now imagine that in a country where a Chinese foreign exchange student's salary for one day would feed a family for a year.) He'll bribe the doctor, the warehouse staff, the govermental authorities, the WHO volunteers, anyone he needs to. If push comes to shove, he'll link up with the local criminal element and take the legal heroin by force. (Not a joke -- if you distribute AIDS drugs in Africa, you need more armed guards than a bank. Who cares about the paper in the bank, you are holding something that actually has market value.)