Slashdot Mirror


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.'"

47 of 258 comments (clear)

  1. Consumer rights by stryyker · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    1. Re:Consumer rights by Derek+Loev · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    2. Re:Consumer rights by arth1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Consumer rights by darkitecture · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    4. Re:Consumer rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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".
    5. Re:Consumer rights by Kurous · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:Consumer rights by FoolsGold · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    7. Re:Consumer rights by rm999 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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.

    8. Re:Consumer rights by Silverlancer · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    9. Re:Consumer rights by JohnFluxx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    10. Re:Consumer rights by dougmc · · Score: 2, Informative

      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 ...

    11. Re:Consumer rights by pushing-robot · · Score: 2, Informative

      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?

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    12. Re:Consumer rights by WNight · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    13. Re:Consumer rights by fyrewulff · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      --
      "We need to get over this notion, that, for Apple to win... Microsoft must lose." - Steve Jobs, 1997
    14. Re:Consumer rights by WNight · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    15. Re:Consumer rights by roguetrick · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Thus the customer should seek action against the merchant.

      --
      -The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
    16. Re:Consumer rights by thomas.galvin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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?
  2. Re:Shitty Company by yuriks · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  3. Re:Shitty Company by alexgieg · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
    --
    Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
  4. Legal, illegal, legitimate, illegitimate by alexgieg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "'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.
    --
    Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
  5. Re:Moneygrab by Fallingcow · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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)?

  6. Remove Key? by MrSquishy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  7. Just imagine if MS did this with Windows by Dracil · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  8. Re:Moneygrab by Town+Czar · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.

  9. Re:Region Codes by deniable · · Score: 2, Informative
    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.

  10. Re:Shitty Company by p0tat03 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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*

  11. remote control disablement = stealing by JonTurner · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:remote control disablement = stealing by HBI · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      This is the reason why.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    2. Re:remote control disablement = stealing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:remote control disablement = stealing by Zeussy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:remote control disablement = stealing by WNight · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:remote control disablement = stealing by LingNoi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    6. Re:remote control disablement = stealing by arth1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.
    7. Re:remote control disablement = stealing by Cowclops · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    8. Re:remote control disablement = stealing by JonTurner · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >>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.

    9. Re:remote control disablement = stealing by WNight · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    10. Re:remote control disablement = stealing by WNight · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

  12. speaking of protected markets: pharmaceuticals by JonTurner · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

  13. Re:Language study by RupW · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  14. WTF by Ariastis · · Score: 4, Funny

    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?

  15. Problem with this is.. by JackMeyhoff · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
    1. Re:Problem with this is.. by elFarto+the+2nd · · Score: 3, Informative

      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
  16. Low value version is region locked, that's OK by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Low value version is region locked, that's OK by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    2. Re:Low value version is region locked, that's OK by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 2, Informative

      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*.

  17. WTO by brunes69 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  18. Re:stupid comparison by wjsteele · · Score: 3, Informative

    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

    --
    It's my Sig and you can't have it. Mine! All Mine!