EULA has changed!! IMPORTANT

[rantmallory]

Important stuff is...


"If Valve gives you 30 days notice, they can make you pay more for HL2: Valve reserves the right to change our fees or billing methods at any time and Valve will provide notice of any such change in at least thirty (30) days advance.”


and

“Valve can change the license agreement, and if you don't like the new agreement, you have to stop playing HL2 within 30 days”



In other words. Value can say after 30 days that your playtime is over and you have to pay again if you want to continue gaming.!

Valve are thiefs... I forward this now to my local authories.

 

[Steve]

No, they aren't thieves unless they take advantage of it, which they won't unless they never want to sell another product again.

 

[Mr.Wotsit]

lol don't over-react. If Valve start trying to screw you around, you can then take action. But they aren't likely to start charging everyone another £10 if they want to keep playing...

God, some people!

 

[HunterSeeker]

Valve are smart and wont do this.

This is just one of those "just in case" eula thingys.

 

[czrsink]

Important stuff is...


"If Valve gives you 30 days notice, they can make you pay more for HL2: Valve reserves the right to change our fees or billing methods at any time and Valve will provide notice of any such change in at least thirty (30) days advance.”


and

“Valve can change the license agreement, and if you don't like the new agreement, you have to stop playing HL2 within 30 days”

In other words. Value can say after 30 days that your playtime is over and you have to pay again if you want to continue gaming.!

Value are thiefs... I forward this now to my local authories.

OMFG! Valve are going to rip us all off. OH NOES!

 

[rantmallory]

aswell they say you are not allowed to resell your version of hl2.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

Important stuff is...


"If Valve gives you 30 days notice, they can make you pay more for HL2: Valve reserves the right to change our fees or billing methods at any time and Valve will provide notice of any such change in at least thirty (30) days advance.”

That doesn't at all mean that they can make you pay more for something you've already bought. It refers to future charges, or regular billing schedules (i.e. subscriptions). It's a standard disclaimer

“Valve can change the license agreement, and if you don't like the new agreement, you have to stop playing HL2 within 30 days”

That's a standard legal disclaimer - if you don't like and won't agree to the terms, then you have to stop using the product.

In other words. Value can say after 30 days that your playtime is over and you have to pay again if you want to continue gaming.!

Value are thiefs... I forward this now to my local authories.

Everybody, say hello to Mr. Overreaction!

 

[Link]

^^Thats fairly standard for license agreements...

rantmallory - Chill. First, they can't change the EULA that you signed up to, or rather they can, but the changes would not have any effect. Second, if anyone signed up after it was changed, they agreed to it, so it is not theft. And technically, you are comminting slander to say it is...

All really regardless. Valve are covering themselves. As others have said, they would never do this, but are allowing themselves to if they need to for some reason.

 

[Bad^Hat]

They all say that.

 

[we11er]

lol @ rantmallory

 

[FISKER_Q]

That doesn't at all mean that they can make you pay more for something you've already bought. It refers to future charges, or regular billing schedules (i.e. subscriptions). It's a standard disclaimer

That seriously depends on how they mean it. For me that quote sounds like they could say the retail price instead would be 60$ and you know owe us 10$

I would've expected a disclaimer like this on a MMOG and not on Steam.

I do still doubt there's actually anything to it though(i.e. they want to piss us off)

 

[Feath]

Yeah, standard things. Bit of an overreaction.

 

[Unimita]

Actually, I can't seem to find that in the text. Do you mean the Steam License Agreement or am I looking at the wrong thing?

If Valve gives you 30 days notice, they can make you pay more for HL2

Valve would write it, so why would they put 'they'?

and if you don't like the new agreement

That sort of phrasing seems to be out-of-character for a professional EULA.

Sorry to nitpick, it just seems a bit made up to me .

 

[Feath]

Actually, I can't seem to find that in the text. Do you mean the Steam License Agreement or am I looking at the wrong thing?



Valve would write it, so why would they put 'they'?



That sort of phrasing seems to be out-of-character for a professional EULA.

Sorry to nitpick, it just seems a bit made up to me .

I was assuming that he'd paraphrased it.

 

[NachoMan]

I was assuming that he'd paraphrased it.

I think the fact that he put quotes around it has thrown a few people.

 

[tacobc]

Probably worth to rehash my old post...

There is a certain trend among forum goers to raise whatever
Valve says to a Biblical (or Koranic, if you will) truth. In a weird
sort of after-hype of the "Best Game Ever (tm)", criticism of
Valve, Valve's software or Valve's games becomes a slight to
Valve itself; a slight to Valve itself becomes a personal insult
to the reader. Rational discussion is then replaced by emotional
statements which are used to discredit the original issue, or the
original poster.

The first oh... ten posts show symptoms of cognitive dissonance
(Google for that, fellas). If Microsoft would change their online
gaming EULAs this way, would you react in the same way?

 

[Feath]

Probably worth to rehash my old post...

There is a certain trend among forum goers to raise whatever
Valve says to a Biblical (or Koranic, if you will) truth. In a weird
sort of after-hype of the "Best Game Ever (tm)", criticism of
Valve, Valve's software or Valve's games becomes a slight to
Valve itself; a slight to Valve itself becomes a personal insult
to the reader. Rational discussion is then replaced by emotional
statements which are used to discredit the original issue, or the
original poster.

The first oh... ten posts show symptoms of cognitive dissonance
(Google for that, fellas). If Microsoft would change their online gaming EULAs this way, would you react in the same way?

Yes. I would. Probably.

EDIT: It's a standard thing considering that they are going to start Steam subscriptions at one point. If they didn't put the first one in then they would have to charge the same amount of money forever, despite inflation of the amount of games offered. And the second term was in there anyway. "You can't use this unless you agree to the EULA" is a part of ever EULA. I do believe the poster was overreacting

 

[pr0nking]

I think he copied it from a forum or something, 1 retard makes another retard paranoid there for we have two paranoid retards who try to make other people paranoid. </end>

 

[Alix Mcdean]

The first oh... ten posts show symptoms of cognitive dissonance
(Google for that, fellas). If Microsoft would change their online
gaming EULAs this way, would you react in the same way?

Yes indeed I probably would.

-Alix

 

[pr0nking]

Probably worth to rehash my old post...

There is a certain trend among forum goers to raise whatever
Valve says to a Biblical (or Koranic, if you will) truth. In a weird
sort of after-hype of the "Best Game Ever (tm)", criticism of
Valve, Valve's software or Valve's games becomes a slight to
Valve itself; a slight to Valve itself becomes a personal insult
to the reader. Rational discussion is then replaced by emotional
statements which are used to discredit the original issue, or the
original poster.

The first oh... ten posts show symptoms of cognitive dissonance
(Google for that, fellas). If Microsoft would change their online
gaming EULAs this way, would you react in the same way?

I personnally wouldn't, as it would be something I would expect from M$

 

[Mr.Wotsit]

I would react exactly the same way whoever added this in their EULA. It's all meaningless rubbish - companies wouldn't actually implement these things unfairly so you can stuff your cognitive dissonance up your arse and lighten up lol.

Oh and Pronking, there's no $ sign in Microsoft...

Typo... :S

 

[marksmanHL2 :)]

Bah standard stuff there. Go read some other software agreements.


If you read into them that much there are some really frightening things writen in them...


But of course the companies never ever use them. They just... exist...





So yeah, nothing to worry about people.

 

[subz-]

Proof would be nice regardless

 

[pr0nking]

I would react exactly the same way whoever added this in their EULA. It's all meaningless rubbish - companies wouldn't actually implement these things unfairly so you can stuff your cognitive dissonance up your arse and lighten up lol.

Oh and Pronking, there's no $ sign in Microsoft...

Typo... :S

Thats funny, there should be though. Seeing as its all microsoft care about

 

[Mountain Man]

In the words of Gabe Newell, "Sure, we could screw over our customers. We could also cover ourselves with gasoline and light ourselves on fire. Neither one sounds like a good idea."

 

[ImJacksAmygdala]

Well atleast legally Steam can be used as a pay per play platform now. If Valve does actually use this method I won't be purchasing another Valve product, and I will take steps to make sure I can still play HL2 which I paid $50 for EULA or not.

 

[pblse]

This was completely expected, it even says subscription when you buy it.

This is just one of the many things I have against Steam.

 

[conquistador69]

I'll have to see the actual text before passing judgement. But the fact is that since they control everything through Steam, they can do pretty much whatever they want. Hopefully, it's not as bad as the original poster makes it sound.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

Tin foil hats all round again then.

Valve are not going pay to play. They never have been.

The Valve haters have always been quick to jump on Steam's ability for subscription payments as if it heralds MMORPG-style monthly payments to play your games.

As Valve themselves stated some time ago, the subscription option was going to be for subscribed content - where you pay Valve a monthly fee and get access to all their titles. Note the important word there - option.

The sky isn't falling....

 

[Tkmaster]

the second they introduce that is the second i stop supporting valve...

i dont support a monthly subscription fee unless its for mmorpgs

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

I swear, some people have severe reading comprehension issues. Let's try it a different way.

YOU WILL NOT HAVE TO PAY TO PLAY YOUR GAMES

VALVE'S IDEA WAS AN OPTIONAL SUBSCRIPTION TO GET ACCESS TO ALL THEIR CONTENT

Anyone still not understanding? Do I have to start physically beating this into people's heads?

 

[ScRaTcH-A-HoLiC]

the second they introduce that is the second i stop supporting valve...

i dont support a monthly subscription fee unless its for mmorpgs

I never have and never will pay to play a game I already baught..

 

[epmode]

it's an idiot parade. LOOK AT POST #31.

 

[CriYam]

choo chooooo!!

Oh I thought it was a train not a parade...

 

[pblse]

I swear, some people have severe reading comprehension issues. Let's try it a different way.

YOU WILL NOT HAVE TO PAY TO PLAY YOUR GAMES

VALVE'S IDEA WAS AN OPTIONAL SUBSCRIPTION TO GET ACCESS TO ALL THEIR CONTENT

Anyone still not understanding? Do I have to start physically beating this into people's heads?

Except you have no idea what they will do in the future.

It will be very tempting when they need more money for development to just say that "well now they got one year so lets charge them again".

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

You have no idea what any developer might do in the future. However, Valve are hardly desperate for cash - they put $40 million of their own money into development of HL2. Any money they receive for HL2 is all theirs. Being the first company to attempt a pay to play model for offline games would utterly kill them, and they know that. They've even said they're not going to do it, and yet you condemn them for future actions that you believe they may take.

Well hey, let's lock you up now just so that you don't rape or murder anyone in the future. After all, we have no idea what you will do in the future.

I shall reiterate, AGAIN

Valve have said that they're not going pay to play. Why do so many of you have such difficulty understanding this most basic of concepts? I managed to explain it to my 4-year-old son earlier, so I think that speaks volumes...

 

[JimmehH]

Except you have no idea what they will do in the future.

It will be very tempting when they need more money for development to just say that "well now they got one year so lets charge them again".

They could do that. If they did I imagine the number of people buying HL3 would be considerably less than if they hadn't.

They know that not everyone wants to pay a subscription. The option to buy once and just get that game will ALWAYS be there.
The subscription option will get you all of Valve's current lineup and any future games from them and also any mods that decide to charge for their content. It's a pretty good deal IF you want it and IF Valve even decide to go ahead with it.

 

[pablovi]

Well hey, let's lock you up now just so that you don't rape or murder anyone in the future. After all, we have no idea what you will do in the future.

QUOTE]


That sound a like the US foreing policy :sniper:

 

[corkscru74]

Not quite the US foreign Policy. First of all they create the criminal then create the crime they might go on to perpetrate.

 

[Dr. Freeman]

Yeah, standard things. Bit of an overreaction.

a bit of an overreaction? aight..i see, ur downplaying things.. which is fine