Duke Nukem STEAM Discussion Thread

[Kleetus]

So no, the previous statement i made still stands.

You obviously have no idea what you're on about.

The link I posted is from the New South Wales government, and as I've stated, I've dealt with them personally.

They informed me that software is no different to any other product, and assisted my girlfriend in receiving a refund for Vista.

There goes your theory that bugs aren't covered.

*Mod edit* Please keep insults out of the discussion

There's plenty of choice both for you as a consumer, and for 2K as a client, and no, less choice and diversity is not nessecarily a bad thing.

No, there isn't a choice. It's use Steam and that's it.

How do you even figure that's a choice? Unbelievable.

*snip* Mod Edit: insults

complain about choices that forces me to spend hundreds to thousands of dollars extra

So you only see this in dollar terms and only if it affects you? That explains everything.

Do you care to come up with any examples of why a monopoly/duopoly is bad?

Read my earlier posts. I've stated why numerous times.

*snip* Mod edit: insults

I've already addressed this issue more than once.

And if you need me to explain something so basic that a 12 year old understands, then I'm sorry, I'm not qualified enough to help you.

How about you answer some questions, which you still haven't bothered to:

1. Show me on a government consumer site, where it says software is treated differently because it's not "tangible" as you stated.

And show me this "special consumer protection".

2. Show me where a EULA has been proven to be universally accepted as being a legally binding contract.

3. What is it exactly that you have against others not using Steam?

4. Show me where, on Steam's site, their "one-time refund" policy as you suggested?
*snip* Mod edit: insults

Can't wait to see it...

[Codex]

Right, guys, this is your final warning. If the discussion cannot be civil or keep incendiary personal attacks at bay the thread will have to be closed.

[FISKER_Q]

They informed me that software is no different to any other product, and assisted my girlfriend in receiving a refund for Vista.

There goes your theory that bugs aren't covered.

I just bought a milkshake, there goes your theory that bugs are covered.

Somehow, I think they know the law better than you.......

Nothing you've said sofar has proven the law is different than i've said.

No, there isn't a choice. It's use Steam and that's it.

How do you even figure that's a choice? Unbelievable.

And if you think little diversity and competition is a good thing, you're even more deluded than what you are with consumer law.

Steam was a choice that 2K made, they had other choices as well, but chose Steam as they figured it was the best option, this is the choice they made, and your option is to either support that choice by buying the game, or don't support it, by not buying the game.

"Diversity and competition" is not saturating the market with several versions of the same product, but rather making a choice based on the options available to you. Steam is considered the best tool in that regard due to all the features it contains.

This is for the same reason i said, diversity and competition, atleast to what you think it entails, isn't nessecarily a good thing, it's actually a lot worse, not only for the consumer, but for the developer it had they had to make Steam, Impulse, GFWL, Gamespy, and more versions of the same game.

Because doing so increases not only the developement and support burden, but it also fragments the market because some customers may not know the different versions and how they work, and since none of them are compatible it will very much ruin the game for most people.

So no, in this case choice is an extremely bad option, for all of us.

So you only see this in dollar terms and only if it affects you? That explains everything.

Why are you avoiding the question? I'm not the one actually believing this, i'm merely asking why you think this discussion is only valid with Steam?

Is it because Steam only affects you and the Windows/DirectX requirements does not? I guess so.

as I've already addressed this issue more than once.

Infact you've never addressed the issue, i can understand that you might incorrectly believe that monopolies are nessecarily bad, though of course Steam may never be a "true" monopoly, but no need to get technical.

You still haven't explained anywhere why you think a "monopoly" is a bad thing.

How about you answer some questions, which you still haven't bothered to:

You've actually never asked to have them clarified.

1. Show me on a government consumer site, where it says software is treated differently because it's not "tangible" as you stated.

Well if you can read danish you can try this: https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=1843

§20.3

Stk. 3. Forudsat at forbrugeren udtrykkeligt er gjort opmærksom herpå, gælder fortrydelsesretten ikke for
1) varer, der er taget i brug, hvis det efter varens art er åbenbart, at brugen medfører en formindskelse af varens salgsværdi, og
2) forseglede lyd- eller billedoptagelser eller edb-programmer, hvis forbrugeren har brudt forseglingen.

What it says is that as long as the consumer has been made aware that sealed software cannot be returned, then it can't be returned if unsealed.

And show me this "special consumer protection".

The point was that software is not treated differently, but it is, for example as the above, because we know that software has significantly gone down in value after being opened(license key could be used), then our laws prohibit returning the product, of course given, that the return was due to regretting the purchase, not because it didn't work and so on.

2. Show me where a EULA has been proven to be universally accepted as being a legally binding contract.

It is pretty much governed by the same contract laws most/all countries have. I've already demonstrated that your belief of a lack of validity is due to the fact that there are shrinkwrap licenses. Those are licenses which you basically can't return (Atleast not by the will of the supplier/manufactorer), but of course since this practice isn't legal, you will of course retain your rights to return the product if you do not agree with the EULA

There are also EULA's that try to bypass various laws, which is also not possible, for example some EULA's have tried to bypass the first sale doctrine, but you can't sign away your rights.

That doesn't mean EULA's aren't legally binding as any other contract, which you seem to think. Feel free to read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EULA

3. What is it exactly that you have against others not using Steam?

Nothing, just because i don't agree with you, doesn't mean i have anything against you.

4. Show me where, on Steam's site, their "one-time refund" policy as you suggested?

I already told you, i'll find the link for you though: http://i.imgur.com/THnvh.png

[Scared]

About the comment with the disc check. You say that internet check is unfair because internet may be down or you dont have it at all, I say the same thing about a disc check. I haven't had a working optical drive in almost a year so forcing a game to only use a disc check means I can't play it.

[Alex1911]

And why should you? If I buy Beatles CD's, should I then be able to sell those Beatles CD's? No, the game that you buy is too play and enjoy, FOR YOU. That also gives more money to developers and publishers, who in turn can churn out quality products at a better rate.

SO IF YOU BUY A NEW CAR WOULD BE ALRIGHT IF YOU CANNOT RESELL IT ???????????????????

SO IF YOU WANT A NEW CAR YOU ARE FORCED TO BUY A NEW CAR EVERY TIME AND NOT AN USED ON

IS IT OK FOR YOU IF CAR MANUFACTERERS DO IT????????????? i MEAN IT'S ONLY FOR YOU TO DRIVE............................


IF NOT THEN WHY SHOULD GAME DEVELOPERS/PUBLISHERS BE AN EXCEPTION

NOW ANSWER THAT!!!!!!!!

[KO Gilligan]

I buy used games, and I like just having a disk key, and potentially being able to resell it. But I also face the inevitability of one-license per user, one user per game, software. It's not just games, all software is going this way, and commercial software purchased by organizations has always been this way.

Does it make them "greedy"? I don't think so. At least I can think of a lot of other things higher up the list that I'd like them to stop being profit driven about.

[FtRapture]

SO IF YOU BUY A NEW CAR WOULD BE ALRIGHT IF YOU CANNOT RESELL IT ???????????????????

SO IF YOU WANT A NEW CAR YOU ARE FORCED TO BUY A NEW CAR EVERY TIME AND NOT AN USED ON

IS IT OK FOR YOU IF CAR MANUFACTERERS DO IT????????????? i MEAN IT'S ONLY FOR YOU TO DRIVE............................


IF NOT THEN WHY SHOULD GAME DEVELOPERS/PUBLISHERS BE AN EXCEPTION

NOW ANSWER THAT

You really do need to use viable comparisons. A new Car and a Game are not on fair playing ground.

If you go see a movie you cannot then leave the theater and sell your tickets to someone to go see the same movie. So it is easy to see that we can use unfair biased comparisons both ways in your scenario.

The point is a company has the right to say "here is what we are offering." It is then up to the consumer of any product to say "Yeah, I can go with that" or "No, not my thing I will pass"

While I find it perfectly acceptable to voice your disapproval of a decision in the end it is up to you to decide if it is a value for your money.

[Blue Lightning]

You really do need to use viable comparisons. A new Car and a Game are not on fair playing ground.

If you go see a movie you cannot then leave the theater and sell your tickets to someone to go see the same movie. So it is easy to see that we can use unfair biased comparisons both ways in your scenario.

Well put.

SO IF YOU BUY A NEW CAR WOULD BE ALRIGHT IF YOU CANNOT RESELL IT ???????????????????

SO IF YOU WANT A NEW CAR YOU ARE FORCED TO BUY A NEW CAR EVERY TIME AND NOT AN USED ON

IS IT OK FOR YOU IF CAR MANUFACTERERS DO IT????????????? i MEAN IT'S ONLY FOR YOU TO DRIVE............................


IF NOT THEN WHY SHOULD GAME DEVELOPERS/PUBLISHERS BE AN EXCEPTION

NOW ANSWER THAT!!!!!!!!

The game makers, like the Beatles, are selling entertainment. Should you be able to copy somones song and sell it on your own label? Of course not. And reselling their label would be considered the same. Its called bootlegging.

A car is being bought for transportation, not artistic entertainment. Entertainment, unlike a car, is not a tangible item (other than the plastic CD). It is understood when bought that bootlegging it is illegal. But a tangible item like a car is different, your not reselling the persons artistc talent.

[Alex1911]

[QUOTE=Blue Lightning;1116520]Well put.

The game makers, like the Beatles, are selling entertainment. Should you be able to copy somones song and sell it on your own label? Of course not. And reselling their label would be considered the same. Its called bootlegging.

ERRRR

I am talking about legitimate copies , the ones you buy in the stores

SO IF YOU BUY A MOVIE ON DVD THEN YOU SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO RESELL THAT EITHER ??

A car is being bought for transportation, not artistic entertainment. Entertainment, unlike a car, is not a tangible item (other than the plastic CD). It is understood when bought that bootlegging it is illegal. But a tangible item like a car is different, your not reselling the persons artistc talent.

???

again if I buy a Game from a store without any crap DRM it's my right to resell it on

STEAM does NOT allow that, so it's limited your rights as a consumer

[Codex]

again if I buy a Game from a store without any crap DRM it's my right to resell it on

STEAM does NOT allow that, so it's limited your rights as a consumer

Actually, I was reading a "game return policy" sign in my local HMV yesterday. You are only allowed to return an opened copy of a game (be it xbox, ps3, ds, psp etc) if the disk has a proven defect. Unopened copies can be returned for a full refund, but opened ones can only be returned if there is a defect ont he disk: it was clearly stated on their policy.

Now, my local EBgames has a similar policy. They won't even take PC games back if people don't check the system reqs. But, and here's where EBgames/Gamestop get tricky on you, they will resell other games.

Why?

Because there is no DRM or activation limits on console games.

Moreover, they very, very rarely give full price for a returned game. The most I have ever seen is $20. That's 1/3 the price of a first run, non-CE game.

What's more important is not a cent of that money that they then resell the game for (normally only ten bucks less than the retail price of the game new) goes to the people who make a game.

So, say they take a first run game and give someone a $20 credit. They then Sell the game off at $50. They make money on the sales, not the people who make the game. Moreover, if you can't pay your staff to keep making games (it's a job, guys. Trust me when I say the instant you need to support yourself your view of the game industry will change), you're going to bleed them to other industries and go out of business.

Is DRM to prevent piracy, or to prevent the resale of games? The latter results in a net loss for the industry and a net game for games brokers. Steam, therefore, ensure's a profit.

You might not like the software that it puts on your computer, but to the gaming industry it's a godsend.

As for limiting your rights as a consumer, it's a part of the contract that you agree to when you download the software (Steam). The contract is there, you said "I accept." That's just the rule of contract and contract law. I could get into the whole legal side of things, but it would take more space and time than I have time to write.

[Kleetus]

I just bought a milkshake, there goes your theory that bugs are covered.

If I were you, and I found a bug in my milkshake, I'd take it back.

That doesn't mean EULA's aren't legally binding as any other contract, which you seem to think. Feel free to read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EULA

Not that Wikipedia makes the law, but from your own link:

"The enforceability of an EULA depends on several factors, one of them being the court in which the case is heard. Some courts that have addressed the validity of the shrinkwrap license agreements have found some EULAs to be invalid, characterizing them as contracts of adhesion, unconscionable, and/or unacceptable pursuant to the U.C.C."

It also says: "No court has ruled on the validity of EULAs generally"

Exactly what I said before, EULA's aren't necessarily legally binding...

Thanks for the help.

Nothing, just because i don't agree with you, doesn't mean i have anything against you.

That's fine, but you're doing more than disagreeing with me.

You want to force me to use Steam.

I should have the choice, just like you.

And you don't lose if we both have choice.

So, my point is, what's wrong with releasing it like most games, so you can use Steam, and I can buy it elsewhere.

[Kleetus]

My personal view on the matter is that Steam is an excellent digital distribution platform but it shouldn't be required to be able to play a game that I bought in a box from retail.

Steam as DRM - Stupid
Steam as Digital Distribution - Good

That's probably the best summation in this entire thread.

[Drsalvador]

I'm not clueless, I don't care to sell my games. What makes me worry about it is that is if I buy a game, I never want a company to go out of business and/or discontinue the necessary support to play that game.

Will Steam ALWAYS let you play the games in your library?
I have no faith in that, and a crapload of games I bought that either need Steam, or are DD.

... and for the person that suggested offline mode (which was given to us because they didn't get away with trying to make us be online every time we play).
- how well does that work if I need to be offline for some of my games, and online for others? - should just authenticate the key on install and be gone forever if that's all it's doing.

You realize valve has said that if they're on the verge of going bust they'll release a client that allows you to play offline forever?

[Kleetus]

You realize valve has said that if they're on the verge of going bust they'll release a client that allows you to play offline forever?

That's an Internet myth.

They've never officially said that, and it's not on their website.

If you read their SSA, you'll get a shock.

[FISKER_Q]

Not that Wikipedia makes the law, but from your own link:

"The enforceability of an EULA depends on several factors, one of them being the court in which the case is heard. Some courts that have addressed the validity of the shrinkwrap license agreements have found some EULAs to be invalid, characterizing them as contracts of adhesion, unconscionable, and/or unacceptable pursuant to the U.C.C."

As i said, Shrinkwrap licenses are usually not valid (Though in some cases they have been)

It also says: "No court has ruled on the validity of EULAs generally"

Exactly what I said before, EULA's aren't necessarily legally binding...

Again, also been over that, you cannot rule that EULA's are generally valid, just the same way you cannot rule contracts are generally valid.

The validity of a contract, and by extension, an EULA is down to the specifics of the agreement, this infact is what i've always been saying.

That's fine, but you're doing more than disagreeing with me.

You want to force me to use Steam.

No, and no.

I should have the choice, just like you.

You do have a choice.

And you don't lose if we both have choice.

As i showed you, we all lose when fragmenting the market like that

The developer is wasting time making different copies, requiring different patches, and so on.
The publisher will have a harder time tracking sales data and their support burden will increase due to all the different versions that there is out.
The consumer will be put in various pools depending on what version of the game they're playing.
The consumer may end up thinking all versions are the same, but then buying a version which he didn't actually want.

So, my point is, what's wrong with releasing it like most games, so you can use Steam, and I can buy it elsewhere.

There's a difference, those games are simply retail games made without Steamworks, the retail and Steam copy is identical in almost every way, the only real difference being that some copy-protection has to be removed.

In this case the game is made using a set of developement tools (Not unlike Windows and DirectX) which enhances the user experience for the customer, and makes the game easier to develop, support, and so forth.

So choice means they have to make several versions of the game that work with other matchmaking/publishing tools such as Impulse Reactor, GFWL, and too lesser extent matchmaking only tools such as Gamespy and so on.

They could also just make it like a "normal" retail game and then put it on Steam, Impulse, D2D, etc. but that would mean either losing a lot of neat features, or it would mean extra developement time making it themselves.

[FISKER_Q]

That's an Internet myth.

They've never officially said that, and it's not on their website.

If you read their SSA, you'll get a shock.

First of all their Offline mode is "offline forever", and i think DrSalvador is talking about Valve releasing a "deauthorization tool" of sorts that allows all steam games to be played offline in case they would ever shut down.

It's very real, though of course since the post in question is long lost due to the time passed, you will likely just go ahead and keep the claim that it's an internet myth.

However, nomatter if it's real or not, one can argue whether or not Valve will be able to, they will certainly be able to with their own games, but some publishers may not want them to release such a tool.

Additionally one could argue that Valve could be put in a position where they can't develop the tool, for example if they go bankrupt from one day to another, unlikely, but theoretically possible.

Personally my belief is that an "offline tool" like that wouldn't be realistic unless Valve was maintaining one behind the scenes(Which they do hint at), and that they contractually reserve the right to release such a tool when you publish a game over Steam.

Either way, the Statement itself is real. (And in case you're curious what remains of said statement is this post: http://forums.steampowered.com/forum...9&postcount=28 and for whatever it's worth i can confirm it's authenticity :P)

[Kleetus]

Again, also been over that, you cannot rule that EULA's are generally valid, just the same way you cannot rule contracts are generally valid.

No, you said more than once that EULA's were universally legally binding.

My earlier post: A EULA has never been definitively held up in court.

Your reply: "Another Internet myth"

The Wiki link you supplied validates what I said, and completely invalidates what you said.

From your own link: "No court has ruled on the validity of EULAs generally"

And if you said it's an Internet myth, why did you post the link as proof that says the same thing.

If it's an Internet myth, then it's not proof. You can't have it both ways.

The validity of a contract, and by extension, an EULA is down to the specifics of the agreement, this infact is what i've always been saying.

No, it's not what you've always been saying, your words are up above and are very clear.

Your own link says exactly what I've been saying all along, that the legality of EULA's is up in the air.

As i showed you, we all lose when fragmenting the market like that

You didn't show me, you merely posted a hypothetical that was based on flawed logic.

It doesn't fragment the market.

Look up why competition and diversity empowers the consumer.

The only people it's bad for are company executives, as they have to compete on price and quality.

The developer is wasting time making different copies, requiring different patches, and so on.

They don't have to make different copies or patches, that's just wrong.

It's the retail distributor, like Steam or Direct2Drive, that packages the patch/game for their client.

The developer simply makes the game and the patch.

The rest is up to the distribution companies.

And you're contracdicting yourself, because in the next post, you say verbatim "the retail and Steam copy is identical in almost every way, the only real difference being that some copy-protection has to be removed".

How can you now say they're almost identical, and yet in the post before you say the developer has to make different versions?

The publisher will have a harder time tracking sales data

That was hilarious, thanks for the larf.

How would it would be hard for them to add up how many copies Steam and others have sold?

The consumer may end up thinking all versions are the same, but then buying a version which he didn't actually want.

Wait.....What?

By that reasoning, we should only have a single supermarket, petrol station etc to avoid confusion.

It's a long established fact that competition always benefits the consumer, not only in price but by the quality of goods.

It's never good for a consumer to not have competition.

the retail and Steam copy is identical in almost every way, the only real difference being that some copy-protection has to be removed.

The "retail" copy is far more flexible for the reasons I outlined earlier.

Either way, the Statement itself is real. (And in case you're curious what remains of said statement is this post: http://forums.steampowered.com/forum...9&postcount=28 and for whatever it's worth i can confirm it's authenticity

I can't confirm it's authenticity, and the link is invalid.

I've seen that link you posted numerous times in the past used as "proof" on this issue.

But it's not an official statement from Steam, it's simply someone posting an email that they say is from Gabe Newell.

No one knows if it's real, especially now the link is dead, and if it was true, don't you think Steam would have it posted on their website?

On their forums, this issue is one of the most commonly asked topics.

Steam obviously know this troubles a lot of people, so you would think they would state it on the main page.

The only way this topic will be put to rest is if Steam gives a written guarantee.

Everything else is just hear-say and not re-assuring.

I don't know about you, but I don't want to risk my collection of games on an Internet post.

[FISKER_Q]

No, you said more than once that EULA's were universally legally binding.

My earlier post: A EULA has never been definitively held up in court.

Your reply: "Another Internet myth"

The Wiki link you supplied validates what I said, and completely invalidates what you said.

No it doesn't, you said "A(N) EULA", that is first of all not in any general sense, and second of all, not all EULA's are invalid, and have been held up in court.

From your own link: "No court has ruled on the validity of EULAs generally"

And if you said it's an Internet myth, why did you post the link as proof that says the same thing.

If it's an Internet myth, then it's not proof. You can't have it both ways.

Yes, and as i said posting "No court has ruled on the validity of EULAs generally" is a senseless statement because it's just a contract, and the validity of the contract is based on the agreement inside it, as well as how the agreement was made.

Some EULA's will be valid and legally binding, not all. Some EULA's will be invalid and not legally binding, not all. This is no different from any other contract.

No, it's not what you've always been saying, your words are up above and are very clear.

Your own link says exactly what I've been saying all along, that the legality of EULA's is up in the air.

No it isn't the legality of certain agreements are up in the air, you can't simply say "All EULA's in the world are valid regardless of the content of the agreement and how it was made", and you can't say they're all invalid either (Unless you wanna get rid of contracts completely, but that isn't the case so a pointless idea)

You didn't show me, you merely posted a hypothetical that was based on flawed logic.

It doesn't fragment the market.

Yes it does, Steam users can only see Steam users, Impulse users can only see Impulse users, Gamespy users can only see Gamespy users.

This is also true for the communities, but most adversely hits consumers who want to play multiplayer.

Look up why competition and diversity empowers the consumer.

The only people it's bad for are company executives, as they have to compete on price and quality.

You're talking gibberish again, Steam did compete on price and quality and they won the order.

They don't have to make different copies or patches, that's just wrong.

It's the retail distributor, like Steam or Direct2Drive, that packages the patch/game for their client.

They package it, but they don't create it, similarly there are vendor specific options (Steamworks, Impulse Reactor, etc.) that interact with the game therefor they will have to make versions for each version of the game as the components are not the same, they might be able to ease it up with modules and having universal patches, but the workload will still exist.

And you're contracdicting yourself, because in the next post, you say verbatim "the retail and Steam copy is identical in almost every way, the only real difference being that some copy-protection has to be removed".

How can you now say they're almost identical, and yet in the post before you say the developer has to make different versions?

Because if the game uses Steamworks, and since your post about "competition and choice" are absolutely irrelevant if the game was simply a "retail" game, then you cannot be worried about competition with selling the game, as Valve happily allows anyone to sell Steamworks titles, and since you cannot be worried about the competition of publisher toolsets, then that leaves the following option:

You want the game to come with different versions, in order to give the socalled choice and freedom to the consumer, that means that they must make several versions of the same game, for example:

Steamworks DNF
Impulse Reactor DNF
GFWL DNF
Retail(External or internal featureset) DNF
(Save for Gamespy and such as they're not fully featured publishing tools like the above choices)

A retail DNF would be almost identical to the Steam(Not steamworks) copy with the only difference being the copy protection, but a Steamworks DNF is not the same as either of those 4+ versions of the game.

Which is also why you'll fragment the market, and is also why patches and support will be a living nightmare to the developer and publisher.

That was hilarious, thanks for the larf.

How would it would be hard for them to add up how many copies Steam and others have sold?

Not all services provide the same tracking, especially not retail, since you're fragmenting the market you will have to wait for external sales data which isn't completely accurate either.

With the game only using Steamworks, every copy activated in Steam is trackable as soon as it is added.

Wait.....What?

By that reasoning, we should only have a single supermarket, petrol station etc to avoid confusion.

Nope, supermarket items doesn't have such concerns such as multiplayer matchmaking, communities, support, etc.

Most supermarket items are also consumable items, and therefor not really comparable to begin with.

As a consumer you would want the best version available, and some of that data isn't even available before you purchase the game, so even if you did know what Steamworks, Impulse Reactor, and so on was, then you could still end up getting a "bad" copy, because the community and multiplayer opportunity might be severely limited on one of the copies, exactly because one version was more popular than the other.

It's a long established fact that competition always benefits the consumer, not only in price but by the quality of goods.

It's never good for a consumer to not have competition.

Sure in cases where competition are done freely, what you're proposing is forcing 2k to release several versions of the game, that is not what monopoly or anti-competitive practices are about.

I've seen that link you posted numerous times in the past used as "proof" on this issue.

I never called it proof, so not sure what you're getting at here.

[Kleetus]

not all EULA's are invalid, and have been held up in court.

Now you're changing your story as you go.

You have posted on numerous occasions that EULA's were legal.

Again, I stated "A EULA has never been definitively held up in court."

Your reply: "Another Internet myth"

Then a day or two later, your Wiki link: "No court has ruled on the validity of EULAs generally"

It's all up there in the previous posts, verbatim........

You can try to deny it or change your stance, but I will simply draw you back to your previous posts.

"No court has ruled on the validity of EULAs generally" is a senseless statement

How can it be "senseless"? It's exactly what we were debating.

In this context, it makes perfect sense.

the validity of the contract is based on the agreement inside it

That's not the issue we were discussing.

You made a blanket statement that EULA's are legal.

Your own link that you provided says exactly what I've stated numerous times.

The legality of EULA's hasn't been definitively proven by a court.

Some EULA's will be valid and legally binding, not all.

You're changing the story. Now its "some"?

Me: "A EULA has never been definitively held up in court."

Your reply: "Another Internet myth".

Now, it's not suddenly an Internet myth when it suits you.

you can't simply say "All EULA's in the world are valid regardless"

I never said that, and again, that's not the debate.

Here's what I said earlier, verbatim:

"A EULA has never been definitively held up in court.

Some judges have ruled that they're valid, and some that they're invalid.

It also depends on the country/jurisdiction you're in."

And your reply was:

"Another internet myth".

Your Wiki link:

The legality of EULA's hasn't been definitively proven by a court.

The enforceability of an EULA depends on several factors, one of them being the court in which the case is heard.

You're talking gibberish again

No, it's not me.

You were the one who said competition and diversity is bad.

They package it, but they don't create it

You said developers make different versions for Steam and Direct2Drive etc, and that is bad because it's expensive!

But then you say ""the retail and Steam copy is identical in almost every way, the only real difference being that some copy-protection has to be removed".

It's expensive, but the "only real difference" is the copy protection.

Again, developers don't make different versions for different retailers!

They sell the same version, and the "retailers" simply package it with their installer and DRM".

A retail DNF would be almost identical to the Steam

You said that it was expensive for developers because they had to make different versions for Steam and Direct2Drive etc.

How can it be different or expensive, and yet be almost identical?

You want the game to come with different versions

It was first "identical" and now it's "different versions"?

I don't want "different versions", I just want the choice of whether to use Steam or not.

It's the same game and version, it's just a choice whether I want it to be dependant on Steam.

It's not all that difficult to understand.

Not all services provide the same tracking

It's not hard for a developer to work out how many games they sell.

Every year there's stats for the number of games sold, they don't seem to have any problems.

With the game only using Steamworks, every copy activated in Steam is trackable as soon as it is added.

So, lets have all games on Steam only so it's easy to work out how many games are sold.

That's just hilarious.

Most supermarket items are also consumable items, and therefor not really comparable to begin with.

Oh, you mean like your milkshake analogy:

Quote: "I just bought a milkshake, there goes your theory".

So, when it suits you it's entirely relevant, but otherwise it's a "consumable item".

I never called it proof, so not sure what you're getting at here

I never said you did, and I was quoting another member.

But as you decided to get involved, what's the point of providing an unsubstantiated link if it's not proof?

The issue was this myth that Steam would make available a tool in the event of closure or bankruptcy.

They've never officially stated that, and it's not in the SSA.

It's just an annoying Internet myth that's being spread by Steam fans.

I really wish these people who perpetuate this myth to either put up definitive proof, or stop spreading falsehoods.

[Codex]

Right guys, this thread is done as the argument is becoming circular. Thread closed.