3 ms·

If you can't be confident of your ownership of and access to what you buy, why do you buy it?

by pdonis 5y ago

endisneigh 5y ago
I apologize but I find this to be a silly question. I buy because I want to play. I do not have an expectation of indefinite ownership (even though I should have indefinite ownership), hence my comment.
- pdonis 5y ago
  > I do not have an expectation of indefinite ownership But you said you were nervous about buying these things. What are you nervous about? And why do you pay money anyway if you're nervous about what you're getting? > even though I should have indefinite ownership On what grounds? These are companies operating in a free market. They're offering a product whose terms are right out there in the open. If you don't like the terms, don't buy.
  - alasdair_ 5y ago
    The terms are not a negotiated contract - they are dictated by one side and even if they are read by the purchaser, the implications of the terms may not be obvious. Many/most people will not understand that after paying hundreds of dollars for games, their games could suddenly be taken away from them without recourse. For a ridiculous example, imagine there was a clause buried in the fineprint that allowed the store owner to charge you $5000 to unlock the game whenever they chose to. Even if it were in the T&C, it would be ruled invalid because it was so unexpected. Similarly, removing the right to play a game you have bought with money because you haven’t played it “enough” (according to the vendor) may also be considered unreasonavlble.
    - pdonis 5y ago
      > The terms are not a negotiated contract That doesn't mean they aren't a contract. They're simply a contract where your only options as the buyer are to buy or not to buy. That said, a unilateral contract like this can be treated somewhat differently by courts. See below. > removing the right to play a game you have bought with money because you haven’t played it “enough” (according to the vendor) may also be considered unreasonable. As I posted in response to someone else upthread, it would be an interesting case if someone actually did try to take a game store to court on these grounds. Contract law does include general rules about reasonableness, and courts are more likely to apply them for unilateral contracts like these where one party does not have the opportunity to bargain.
      - ipaddr 5y ago
        Terms are not a contract or a type of contract. Were you instructed to consult your legal team before signing the contract? What you never signed with a witness and a notary? So if they put in a term that said you agree to give them your house or 500 you would have to? Terms of service are the rules outlined by the service provider. Breaking these could get your service cut and you would have a hard time finding a legal recourse.
        EMIRELADERO 5y ago
        I agree with your whole opinion on T&C's and abuse by companies, but they are still a contract, mostly because there is no "hard standard" in how a contract can be formed between two parties. Even a verbal agreement can be seen as a "contract" as much as a signed paper.
        josephcsible 5y ago
        If I put a piece of tape across the door to your house, and I write "by breaking or removing this tape, you owe me $1000", is that a valid contract? One party shouldn't be able to just make up things that constitute agreement to a contract.
        MattPalmer1086 5y ago
        It would be a contract if you agreed to it. Without a meeting of minds and agreement there is no contract.
      - apatters 5y ago
        For anyone who wants to go down the rabbit hole and learn more about this topic, try Googling "eula unconscionability" There is a concept in contract law where if an agreement is heavily biased in favor of one party and that party has almost all of the leverage in the relationship, flat out refuses negotiation etc. - then a court can find that contract unconscionable and invalidate it. That sounds like it might apply to a lot of "take it or leave it" software/online ToS and EULAs, but there's very little case law in this area to my knowledge. Plus if your contract with Steam is invalidated, where does that leave you? It means Steam has no further obligation to you so you still can't access your games. IANAL
josephcsible 5y ago
Because people want to play the games, and there's not an alternative way to buy them that does give you that confidence.
- pdonis 5y ago
  > there's not an alternative way to buy them that does give you that confidence That doesn't sound to me like a reason for legislation. It sounds to me like a reason for competition. But for there to be competition, customers have to be willing to put their money where their mouth is. If there were a competitor that charged, say, 20% more for a product that included the confidence you want, would you pay it?
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    Don't copyrights preclude meaningful competition here? If a game is sold through Publisher X, Publisher Y can't just unilaterally decide that they want to sell it too.
    - pdonis 5y ago
      > Don't copyrights preclude meaningful competition here? No. The game developer, who owns the copyright, decides what channels it gets sold through. If game developers knew that people wouldn't buy their games through channels that didn't give good guarantees of ownership and access, they wouldn't sell through those channels.
      - jbay808 5y ago
        This sounds great on paper but I really don't think that feedback channel is effective in practice. First of all, when a game or a platform does poorly, the reason for that can be very hard to discern (unless there's some kind of coordinated vocal protest). "The customers are disagreeing with the fine print of our end-user license agreement" usually isn't high up on the list of reasons. Secondly, there are many degrees of incentive separation between the game developer and the customer. If the distributor offers the game developer a good lump-sum payment for a platform exclusive, they might not care about the EULA. The distributor might also own the developer. IP isn't fungible, so competition in the space is subject to much more inefficiency than a market for, say, wheat.
chii 5y ago
to participate in the cultural works of today's digital world.
- pdonis 5y ago
  These are games we're talking about. They're recreation. For people to be demanding legislation because a recreational activity isn't set up just the way they like it, when they knew the terms perfectly well before they paid their money, is not "participating in cultural works".
  - boondaburrah 5y ago
    how is recreation not part of culture?
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    You're entirely missing the point of the comment if you think it's about games. It's about digital goods.
    - pdonis 5y ago
      I can't think of any "digital good" where there is a risk of losing access in this way that isn't recreational in a similar way to games. So my comments would apply equally well to any such goods.
      - josephcsible 5y ago
        Two that immediately come to mind are online textbooks and Adobe Creative Cloud.
        pdonis 5y ago
        Hm. I agree online textbooks are different because you're not just paying for the textbook, you're also paying a school tuition, and the school isn't going to refund your tuition just because the textbook provider made a mistake. I asked another poster just upthread about the software (such as Creative Cloud) case.
5e92cb50239222b 5y ago
I consider it a fair game to torrent those games that the publisher screws me over. Like San Andreas, the Steam version of which was FUBAR a few years ago and then removed altogether (for new buyers). I've paid for maybe five copies in my entire life, sorry, I'm not paying for the sixth.
michaelmrose 5y ago
You are of course correct but at the same time I often buy games for $5 - $10 on sale that are a few years old and after completion they have little to no replay value. Although many may not be as frugal they might well have the same attitude towards reuse/replay/resale. Play and forget.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
It must have been around 2006 when I registered my Steam account. I was just a kid back then. Didn't understand the fact the buy button was lying to me.

If you can't be confident of your ownership of and access to what you buy, why do you buy it?

by pdonis 5y ago

If you can't be confident of your ownership of and access to what you buy, why do you buy it?

I apologize but I find this to be a silly question. I buy because I want to play. I do not have an expectation of indefinite ownership (even though I should have indefinite ownership), hence my comment.

pdonis 5y ago
> I do not have an expectation of indefinite ownership But you said you were nervous about buying these things. What are you nervous about? And why do you pay money anyway if you're nervous about what you're getting? > even though I should have indefinite ownership On what grounds? These are companies operating in a free market. They're offering a product whose terms are right out there in the open. If you don't like the terms, don't buy.
- alasdair_ 5y ago
  The terms are not a negotiated contract - they are dictated by one side and even if they are read by the purchaser, the implications of the terms may not be obvious. Many/most people will not understand that after paying hundreds of dollars for games, their games could suddenly be taken away from them without recourse. For a ridiculous example, imagine there was a clause buried in the fineprint that allowed the store owner to charge you $5000 to unlock the game whenever they chose to. Even if it were in the T&C, it would be ruled invalid because it was so unexpected. Similarly, removing the right to play a game you have bought with money because you haven’t played it “enough” (according to the vendor) may also be considered unreasonavlble.
  - pdonis 5y ago
    > The terms are not a negotiated contract That doesn't mean they aren't a contract. They're simply a contract where your only options as the buyer are to buy or not to buy. That said, a unilateral contract like this can be treated somewhat differently by courts. See below. > removing the right to play a game you have bought with money because you haven’t played it “enough” (according to the vendor) may also be considered unreasonable. As I posted in response to someone else upthread, it would be an interesting case if someone actually did try to take a game store to court on these grounds. Contract law does include general rules about reasonableness, and courts are more likely to apply them for unilateral contracts like these where one party does not have the opportunity to bargain.
    - ipaddr 5y ago
      Terms are not a contract or a type of contract. Were you instructed to consult your legal team before signing the contract? What you never signed with a witness and a notary? So if they put in a term that said you agree to give them your house or 500 you would have to? Terms of service are the rules outlined by the service provider. Breaking these could get your service cut and you would have a hard time finding a legal recourse.
      - EMIRELADERO 5y ago
        I agree with your whole opinion on T&C's and abuse by companies, but they are still a contract, mostly because there is no "hard standard" in how a contract can be formed between two parties. Even a verbal agreement can be seen as a "contract" as much as a signed paper.
        josephcsible 5y ago
        If I put a piece of tape across the door to your house, and I write "by breaking or removing this tape, you owe me $1000", is that a valid contract? One party shouldn't be able to just make up things that constitute agreement to a contract.
        MattPalmer1086 5y ago
        It would be a contract if you agreed to it. Without a meeting of minds and agreement there is no contract.
    - apatters 5y ago
      For anyone who wants to go down the rabbit hole and learn more about this topic, try Googling "eula unconscionability" There is a concept in contract law where if an agreement is heavily biased in favor of one party and that party has almost all of the leverage in the relationship, flat out refuses negotiation etc. - then a court can find that contract unconscionable and invalidate it. That sounds like it might apply to a lot of "take it or leave it" software/online ToS and EULAs, but there's very little case law in this area to my knowledge. Plus if your contract with Steam is invalidated, where does that leave you? It means Steam has no further obligation to you so you still can't access your games. IANAL

josephcsible 5y ago

Because people want to play the games, and there's not an alternative way to buy them that does give you that confidence.

pdonis 5y ago
> there's not an alternative way to buy them that does give you that confidence That doesn't sound to me like a reason for legislation. It sounds to me like a reason for competition. But for there to be competition, customers have to be willing to put their money where their mouth is. If there were a competitor that charged, say, 20% more for a product that included the confidence you want, would you pay it?
- josephcsible 5y ago
  Don't copyrights preclude meaningful competition here? If a game is sold through Publisher X, Publisher Y can't just unilaterally decide that they want to sell it too.
  - pdonis 5y ago
    > Don't copyrights preclude meaningful competition here? No. The game developer, who owns the copyright, decides what channels it gets sold through. If game developers knew that people wouldn't buy their games through channels that didn't give good guarantees of ownership and access, they wouldn't sell through those channels.
    - jbay808 5y ago
      This sounds great on paper but I really don't think that feedback channel is effective in practice. First of all, when a game or a platform does poorly, the reason for that can be very hard to discern (unless there's some kind of coordinated vocal protest). "The customers are disagreeing with the fine print of our end-user license agreement" usually isn't high up on the list of reasons. Secondly, there are many degrees of incentive separation between the game developer and the customer. If the distributor offers the game developer a good lump-sum payment for a platform exclusive, they might not care about the EULA. The distributor might also own the developer. IP isn't fungible, so competition in the space is subject to much more inefficiency than a market for, say, wheat.

chii 5y ago

to participate in the cultural works of today's digital world.

pdonis 5y ago
These are games we're talking about. They're recreation. For people to be demanding legislation because a recreational activity isn't set up just the way they like it, when they knew the terms perfectly well before they paid their money, is not "participating in cultural works".
- boondaburrah 5y ago
  how is recreation not part of culture?
- endisneigh 5y ago
  You're entirely missing the point of the comment if you think it's about games. It's about digital goods.
  - pdonis 5y ago
    I can't think of any "digital good" where there is a risk of losing access in this way that isn't recreational in a similar way to games. So my comments would apply equally well to any such goods.
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      Two that immediately come to mind are online textbooks and Adobe Creative Cloud.
      - pdonis 5y ago
        Hm. I agree online textbooks are different because you're not just paying for the textbook, you're also paying a school tuition, and the school isn't going to refund your tuition just because the textbook provider made a mistake. I asked another poster just upthread about the software (such as Creative Cloud) case.

5e92cb50239222b 5y ago

I consider it a fair game to torrent those games that the publisher screws me over. Like San Andreas, the Steam version of which was FUBAR a few years ago and then removed altogether (for new buyers). I've paid for maybe five copies in my entire life, sorry, I'm not paying for the sixth.

michaelmrose 5y ago

You are of course correct but at the same time I often buy games for $5 - $10 on sale that are a few years old and after completion they have little to no replay value. Although many may not be as frugal they might well have the same attitude towards reuse/replay/resale. Play and forget.

matheusmoreira 5y ago

It must have been around 2006 when I registered my Steam account. I was just a kid back then. Didn't understand the fact the buy button was lying to me.