VG247 Forum » Topic: Steam's new TOS

VG247 Forum » Topic: Steam's new TOS http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=6191 Just another bbPress community en-US Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:27:15 +0000 http://bbpress.org/?v=1.0.2 <![CDATA[Search]]> q http://www.vg247.com/forum/search.php OrbitMonkey on "Steam's new TOS" http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=6191&page=2#post-35957 Sat, 11 Aug 2012 19:08:44 +0000 OrbitMonkey 35957@http://www.vg247.com/forum/ Their a videogame company, not bankers. Your virtual toys are safe, click accept and move on. Focus all that raging paranoia on real world problems, like your work conditions, or health insurance. Phoenixblight on "Steam's new TOS" http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=6191&page=2#post-35956 Sat, 11 Aug 2012 18:29:54 +0000 Phoenixblight 35956@http://www.vg247.com/forum/ "Steam are obviously going to get away with until someone wins a case against them, that's how the system works. You have to prove them wrong." Correct which is why I said I would be curious to see what happens. I can just see the headlines "Man fights for his collection of games" DSB on "Steam's new TOS" http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=6191&page=2#post-35955 Sat, 11 Aug 2012 18:23:57 +0000 DSB 35955@http://www.vg247.com/forum/ Something being legally binding doesn't put it beyond challenge, and you're right in that the overwhelming majority of ToS agreements are considered valid legal contracts, but the merit of each and every one of them, is still subject to review in a court case. Steam are obviously going to get away with whatever they want, until someone wins a case against them, that's how the system works. You have to prove them wrong. Phoenixblight on "Steam's new TOS" http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=6191&page=2#post-35954 Sat, 11 Aug 2012 18:06:30 +0000 Phoenixblight 35954@http://www.vg247.com/forum/ @DSB Again its legally binding. Alterecho is welcome to fight it in court. I would be interested to see what happens but as most cases that have done the same thing, the corps always win because the TOS is enforced. You are welcome to disagree but there is more proof that TOS are legally binding than what you are trying to say. Phoenixblight on "Steam's new TOS" http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=6191&page=2#post-35953 Sat, 11 Aug 2012 18:02:14 +0000 Phoenixblight 35953@http://www.vg247.com/forum/ @alterecho Its been that way since Steam started you are acting like Steam just decided to enforce the TOS. It just so happens that you activated Steam and there happened to be a new TOS with the inclusion of the anti class action. Welcome to the digital age. DSB on "Steam's new TOS" http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=6191&page=2#post-35952 Sat, 11 Aug 2012 18:01:12 +0000 DSB 35952@http://www.vg247.com/forum/ Well yeah, you have me reading up on it now, and it does seem like the US has an awful lot of bad legislation. But consumers and sellers alike still have to abide by the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) which is currently ratified as state law everywhere in the US except Louisiana. It looks to me like the two paragraphs that would make it illegal for Steam to take your games away, or write a TOS agreement that enables them to, are right on top of eachother, paragraph 2-301, and paragraph 2-302: § 2-301. General Obligations of Parties. The obligation of the seller is to transfer and deliver and that of the buyer is to accept and pay in accordance with the contract. § 2-302. Unconscionable contract or Term. (1) If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any term of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable term, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable term as to avoid any unconscionable result. (2) If it is claimed or appears to the court that the contract or any term thereof may be unconscionable the parties shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence as to its commercial setting, purpose, and effect to aid the court in making the determination. - In other words, 2-301 specifically states that the obligation of the buyer is to pay, and the obligation of the seller is to provide. And if you write up a TOS agreement in bad faith, or one that makes unreasonable demands of the signee, it's void. Here's the code itself: <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/" rel="nofollow">http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/</a> alterecho on "Steam's new TOS" http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=6191&page=2#post-35951 Sat, 11 Aug 2012 17:57:11 +0000 alterecho 35951@http://www.vg247.com/forum/ @DSB Exactly my thoughts. Steam's action and such actions by other corporations simply mock the law and the people. That was my initial question: Is this action by Steam right/legal? Steam could at least allow me to use the content i purchased before this new TOS was imposed. They can impose the changed TOS for any new purchases and state it before a new purchase. I'm currently reluctant to click the "I Agree" button every time Steam starts up. I feel like an idiot/daft person if i clicked "I Agree". They're clearly treating us like one. Whats more annoying is that there are people backing Steams actions with arguments. Phoenixblight on "Steam's new TOS" http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=6191&page=2#post-35950 Sat, 11 Aug 2012 17:32:03 +0000 Phoenixblight 35950@http://www.vg247.com/forum/ @dsb Tell that to those that lost the case fighting similiar terms like these like the one I had linked with the case against ATT and its anti-Class action clause. Really what you may think it is and what it actually is are two very separate things. <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/answers/law-legal/corporate-law/contracts/LAW_COR_CON/760107-9749629" rel="nofollow">http://www.linkedin.com/answers/law-legal/corporate-law/contracts/LAW_COR_CON/760107-9749629</a> DSB on "Steam's new TOS" http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=6191#post-35949 Sat, 11 Aug 2012 17:25:58 +0000 DSB 35949@http://www.vg247.com/forum/ Again, you aren't allowed to make your own laws, no matter how you define your terms of service. There's still a code of laws and a constitution that you have to answer to, and you are not allowed to undermine either. If all you needed to have people sign away their rights was a TOS agreement, you could create your own little mini society with it's own little laws. None of which would actually be upheld in a real court. The courts still belong to society as a whole, and they still answer to the actual law. Not your TOS. Again, do try the experiment with the 5 dollar iPad. It's not legal to take peoples stuff away after a transaction, even if you attempt to reserve the right to do that. The laws of a nation > Your company's TOS. Phoenixblight on "Steam's new TOS" http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=6191#post-35948 Sat, 11 Aug 2012 17:21:03 +0000 Phoenixblight 35948@http://www.vg247.com/forum/ @DSB He signed the TOS that specifically says you sign you use their service which means the games through those services. All he had to do was read it the first time to see what he was getting into. He can't scream foul now after the fact. people are welcome to fight it but they would find they have little no rights to stand on in this case. He agreed to the TOS and said " I agree to Steam with what it provides and if I disagree with the TOS I cannot use this service. "As a Subscriber you may obtain access to certain services, software and content available to Subscribers. The Steam client software and any other software, content, and updates you download or access via Steam, including but not limited to Valve or third-party video games and in-game content, and any virtual items you trade in the Steam Trading Marketplace, are referred to in this Agreement as “Software”; the rights to access and/or use any services, software and/or content accessible through Steam are referred to in this Agreement as "Subscriptions." Each Subscription allows you to access particular services, software and/or other content. Some Subscriptions may impose additional terms specific to that Subscription ("Subscription Terms") (for example, an end user license agreement specific to a particular game, or terms of use specific to a particular product or feature of Steam). Also, additional terms (for example, payment and billing procedures) may be posted on <a href="http://www.steampowered.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.steampowered.com</a> or within the Steam service ("Rules of Use"). Rules of Use include the Steam Online Conduct Rules, which can be found at <a href="http://steampowered.com/index.php?area=online_conduct" rel="nofollow">http://steampowered.com/index.php?area=online_conduct</a>. The Subscription Terms, the Rules of Use, and the Valve Privacy Policy (which can be found at <a href="http://www.valvesoftware.com/privacy.htm)" rel="nofollow">http://www.valvesoftware.com/privacy.htm)</a> are incorporated into this Agreement, and are binding on you once you indicate your acceptance of them or of this Agreement, or otherwise become bound by them as described in Section 9 (Amendments to this Agreement)." First freaking paragraphs DSB on "Steam's new TOS" http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=6191#post-35947 Sat, 11 Aug 2012 17:07:38 +0000 DSB 35947@http://www.vg247.com/forum/ Thing is, you're not allowed to change the definition of transaction and create your own pseudo by-laws, simply through some outrageous terms of service. It's quite well understood what a transaction is. Just like it's not legal to be part of a pyramid scheme, even if it's fully transparent, it's not legal to deny people what they pay you for in a commercial transaction. Try it guys. Make a scrap of paper saying that you can do anything you want to a person if he decides to buy your iPad for 5 dollars. Then proceed to take the iPad back, referring to the note. You will still be liable for damages. You're also not allowed to make people convert to a specific religion in order to keep their games, or make them send you naked pictures to avoid losing their games. Blackmail is blackmail, a transaction is a transaction, and laws exist to protect you from blackmail, and to protect the sanctity of the transactions you make. If they did not, there'd be no market, because anyone could sell you anything without delivering, and the economy would collapse at the benefit of a couple of peoples personal enrichment. It's really quite basic stuff. The cornerstone of any open market is the sanctity of transaction. You pay. You get. alterecho on "Steam's new TOS" http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=6191#post-35946 Sat, 11 Aug 2012 16:45:08 +0000 alterecho 35946@http://www.vg247.com/forum/ @Da Man: Resistance is indeed futile. Phoenixblight on "Steam's new TOS" http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=6191#post-35945 Sat, 11 Aug 2012 16:44:15 +0000 Phoenixblight 35945@http://www.vg247.com/forum/ All I can think of is this: <a href="http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/382786/you-didnt-read-it" rel="nofollow">http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/382786/you-didnt-read-it</a> Ireland Michael on "Steam's new TOS" http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=6191#post-35944 Sat, 11 Aug 2012 16:37:41 +0000 Ireland Michael 35944@http://www.vg247.com/forum/ I was about to start talking this discussion seriously, alterecho, and then you went and posted this... "They then throw some HUGE sales and brainwash people." HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Phoenixblight on "Steam's new TOS" http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=6191#post-35943 Sat, 11 Aug 2012 16:20:05 +0000 Phoenixblight 35943@http://www.vg247.com/forum/ "n the case of individual titles on Steam, you're agreeing to the initial TOS shown to you. They do not change their TOS later on (like how Steam just did) while you're playing the game. The TOS in question is wholly formulated by the content delivery platform - Steam." THey changed the TOS like 3 weeks ago. It just so happens that steam just decided you can't post pone it anymore. And yes you do have to agree to a new TOS for the game if you decide to patch it. And the TOS specifically says that if you decline it that you won't have access to the service and the game they provide. Steam can ban you from the service which would do the same thing. I don't think you read the TOS the first time. It details all these things so if you were to go to court you would have little to no ground to stand on. DSB on "Steam's new TOS" http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=6191#post-35942 Sat, 11 Aug 2012 16:15:23 +0000 DSB 35942@http://www.vg247.com/forum/ Generally I stop paying attention when people throw themselves into weird conspiracy theories, whether it's brainwashing or space aliens, but the law is on your side if you choose to make a stand. Seems like a pretty good way to get back at them back at them, if you don't like what they're doing in general. You're not allowed to sell people a service and take it away unless they violate a prior agreement. Taking away a purchased service violates the entire the premise of a transaction, and forcing you to sign a document under threat of doing it, is obviously blackmail. I don't know what it's like anywhere else, but here in Denmark we have an ombudsman who does nothing but try cases like these to keep companies in check. If you have a similar advocate in your country, that would be a costless way of doing it. alterecho on "Steam's new TOS" http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=6191#post-35941 Sat, 11 Aug 2012 16:02:41 +0000 alterecho 35941@http://www.vg247.com/forum/ [Phoenixblight:"Its the same thing for the game's individual TOS that you have to agree to if you refuse that TOS you will be unable to play the game even though you had bought it. WHich you don't actually own the game you had just purchased a license that allows you to play it."] In the case of individual titles on Steam, you're agreeing to the initial TOS shown to you. They do not change their TOS later on (like how Steam just did) while you're playing the game. The TOS in question is wholly formulated by the content delivery platform - Steam. [Ireland Michael:You choose to depend on a DRMed service for your gaming habit. That was a personal choice. And this right here is why I buy 90% of my games DRM free.] Where do you purchase your 90% of the games which are DRM free? [Ireland Michael:"Except the boat journey is years long, the journey is free and the extras (the games) are option payments, the service is far from awful, and a tiny clause was changed that doesn't even remotely affect 99% of the passengers in any way whatsoever."] Valve invented that buzzword "Games as a service." The games are the reason why Steam exists (which they will be deviating from). They marketed it as a games delivery platform where you can buy games. Your argument is something like the boat advertised it as it can stay afloat on water and people got into it just because they wanted to stay afloat on water. [DSB:"Since Steam is a vendor supplying you with your games licenses, they're also directly responsible for providing you the use of the licenses you paid for. You're not buying the license off Steam, you're buying it through Steam, so by paying you've fulfilled your end of the deal, and Steam has to fulfil theirs."] Steam still doesn't allow me to access the licenses i paid for, since i've been clicking "I disiagree" everytime my PC boots. So Steam is not fulfilling theirs. [DSB:"You're not allowed to sell people things and take them away, because they don't agree to a change in your terms of service. They must be allowed to continue use, under the prior terms of service."] Pretty much the case here. They sold and took away since i'm not agreeing to their change in TOS. The main thing that's bothering me is that Steam can pull a fast one like that - they're change of TOS. It renders my initial agreement useless. If an agreement can be changed like that, the entire point of agreements is useless. I really wouldn't care as i would simply stop using the service. The problem bothering me is that, they're invading the retail space too, with their Steamworks DRM, where i would HAVE to use a service i don't agree with. I used to be MASSIVE proponent of Steam initially. I wanted every game to use Steam DRM so i can have huge list of games in one place. Something like Steam or no sale. I realize now this was such a bad trait i had. Steam knows they're slowly invading other forms of game sales through their DRM and start exposing new customers to their platform. They then throw some HUGE sales and brainwash people. People start supporting Steam. They then slowly start cutting off exposure to other platforms (Now i understand that incident with ORIGIN). When the OS starts to introduce a form of closed store (Windows 8) they start bad talking them (Mind you i don't like Windows 8 too). Example can be seen when you look at how Newell bad mouthed PS3 initially and then did a complete U turn when PS3 allowed Steam. When such a service takes away you're freedom of redressal, it bothers me. A lot. Phoenixblight on "Steam's new TOS" http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=6191#post-35940 Sat, 11 Aug 2012 14:45:27 +0000 Phoenixblight 35940@http://www.vg247.com/forum/ "True, but these "You can't file a class action lawsuit against us" rules wouldn't stand up in a court of law anyway, so this whole concern of the ToS change is fairly redundant anyway." Actually they can ATT had the same exact case where they had put the same clause. ATT was able to enforce it and the class action suit just didn't fly because of that in the contract. SInce it passed in that case every single corp is now putting that in their TOS. <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2011-04-27-supreme-court-class-actions_n.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2011-04-27-supreme-court-class-actions_n.htm</a> DSB on "Steam's new TOS" http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=6191#post-35939 Sat, 11 Aug 2012 14:35:36 +0000 DSB 35939@http://www.vg247.com/forum/ How sure are you of that, though? By accepting those terms of service, you're essentially signing a contract promising that you won't join a class filing against Valve. To me that sounds like it would be hard to refute in court. Surely it counts for consent? *EDIT* I think it's France who has a law saying that pressing "I accept" on a ToS window doesn't count as a signature, but I don't know if that's the case anywhere else. Ireland Michael on "Steam's new TOS" http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=6191#post-35938 Sat, 11 Aug 2012 14:31:59 +0000 Ireland Michael 35938@http://www.vg247.com/forum/ @DSB True, but these "You can't file a class action lawsuit against us" rules wouldn't stand up in a court of law anyway, so this whole concern of the ToS change is fairly redundant anyway. DSB on "Steam's new TOS" http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=6191#post-35937 Sat, 11 Aug 2012 14:28:48 +0000 DSB 35937@http://www.vg247.com/forum/ alterecho, if they're refusing you access to your games, then you have an idiotproof case against Valve. I'd bring that to the attention of their support staff. Since Steam is a vendor supplying you with your games licenses, they're also directly responsible for providing you the use of the licenses you paid for. You're not buying the license off Steam, you're buying it through Steam, so by paying you've fulfilled your end of the deal, and Steam has to fulfil theirs. As such, Steam has to provide you use of your purchased goods, or they'll be in violation of trade law. You're not allowed to sell people things and take them away, because they don't agree to a change in your terms of service. They must be allowed to continue use, under the prior terms of service. I know for a fact that that's the case in the EU, and I strongly doubt that the US would allow for a law that would make any company able to essentially yoyo your purchases away from you. It would completely undermine trade as a whole. I also think you're wrong Michael. The main argument against class action lawsuits is that they're often used for frivolous lawsuits. However, that's obviously not a problem with the law itself, but purely a problem with judges who allow those frivolous lawsuits to go ahead. They're supposed to be the stewards of those laws, ensuring their proper use, so when a corporation tries to place the fault with the law itself, it's essentially a major cop-out. Class actions are supposed to level the playing field, so several plaintiffs can band together against a corporation, which will have access to vastly greater resources, and as such a vastly better legal team, than any one person ever would. Without it, a corporation will be hiring three Harvard laywers for every one out of state college that you get. Ireland Michael on "Steam's new TOS" http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=6191#post-35936 Sat, 11 Aug 2012 14:24:26 +0000 Ireland Michael 35936@http://www.vg247.com/forum/ @alterecho You choose to depend on a DRMed service for your gaming habit. That was a personal choice. And this right here is why I buy 90% of my games DRM free. A company can change a TOS entirely as they please, yes. Contrary to popular belief, this isn't done solely to screw over the consumer. It's to stop them being sued into oblivion over every tiny little thing imaginable. And as times changes, so do the rules. The overly specific wording exists so that it can't be as easily manipulated by lawyers. "This is something like a group of people getting aboard a ship, paying the agreed amount initially, knowing that they can get redressal in case the service is awful. The Captain, midway through, says you can't complain to anyone about the service they provide and asks the people who disagree to jump off/get off the ship, without refunding the money they paid initially or atleast part of the cost." Except the boat journey is years long, the journey is free and the extras (the games) are option payments, the service is far from awful, and a tiny clause was changed that doesn't even remotely affect 99% of the passengers in any way whatsoever. Now, if it was something along the lines of being able to take games out of people's collection entirely at the whim of the publishers or Steam-, I could totally understand the complaints going on. But it's not. Phoenixblight on "Steam's new TOS" http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=6191#post-35935 Sat, 11 Aug 2012 14:15:46 +0000 Phoenixblight 35935@http://www.vg247.com/forum/ "All right then. Steam is turning into some kind of monopolistic bully." THis is not something new. If you had refused it the first time the service simply wouldn't have ran. Its the same thing for the game's individual TOS that you have to agree to if you refuse that TOS you will be unable to play the game even though you had bought it. WHich you don't actually own the game you had just purchased a license that allows you to play it. Da Man on "Steam's new TOS" http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=6191#post-35934 Sat, 11 Aug 2012 14:02:10 +0000 Da Man 35934@http://www.vg247.com/forum/ This is O'Conner. All he does is posting neurotic 'lawls' and some mundane observations. Resistance is futile. alterecho on "Steam's new TOS" http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=6191#post-35933 Sat, 11 Aug 2012 13:51:49 +0000 alterecho 35933@http://www.vg247.com/forum/ @Ireland Michael I did read the TOS. In fact this is the first time i think i read a TOS for so long. Why i read it now? Because i've come to depend on Steam for most of my gaming needs, which for me is important. I wanted to see what kind of changes they've made to a service i use the most of all. I've seen some headlines of this new TOS too. From what i read of the TOS, i'd say a proper scoundrel would have the ability to write such a TOS. My original question was, is this even legal to change a TOS midway, that is all. This is something like a group of people getting aboard a ship, paying the agreed amount initially, knowing that they can get redressal in case the service is awful. The Captain, midway through, says you can't complain to anyone about the service they provide and asks the people who disagree to jump off/get off the ship, without refunding the money they paid initially or atleast part of the cost. I love Gaming and don't want it to be monopolized and how i game dictated by any one. Again, i'm not asking anyone to change their opinion. This is how i view the situation. Remember, this is a service which is dependent on the net. We're dealing with virtual retailers and items. I've had bad experiences with my internet and Steam is dependent on the internet. And when THEY do something like this, its worth becoming alert. Its wise. You're right class action lawsuits do make the lawyers rich. A sad state of the law since its the only way to get redressals. Oh and I've not agreed to the their new TOS yet. I'm playing AOE3 collection i purchased a few days back from retail. Ireland Michael on "Steam's new TOS" http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=6191#post-35931 Sat, 11 Aug 2012 13:11:32 +0000 Ireland Michael 35931@http://www.vg247.com/forum/ Lawl. No, I'm just pointing out the nonsensical points in your argument. And you were the one who replied to me first, just sayin'. Class action lawsuits don't benefit the customer. They just make rich lawyers richer. Considering the change is *about* class action lawsuits, the relevancy of them to the customer is entirely the point. If you don't want to discuss it, don't. I'm not *forcing* you to reply. vormison on "Steam's new TOS" http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=6191#post-35930 Sat, 11 Aug 2012 13:05:51 +0000 vormison 35930@http://www.vg247.com/forum/ All you are doing is TRYING to create an argument. Throwing things out like "class action lawsuits never actually benefit the customer". Again, all you are doing is validating my point that it isn't worth talking about. Each individual will handle the situation in their own way and arguing legal matters and whatnot on a video game forum is not the best way to handle the situation. Ireland Michael on "Steam's new TOS" http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=6191#post-35928 Sat, 11 Aug 2012 12:59:30 +0000 Ireland Michael 35928@http://www.vg247.com/forum/ And how does that change affect you? Class action lawsuits never actually benefit the customer. Again, if it bothers you, simply stop using the service. You can't really argue about your rights if you throw them away. If it bothers you that much, sue them. Of course it matters what has changed. Are you actually telling me that companies shouldn't ever change their ToS's. If the change had been something else, that didn't affect you in any meaningful way, why would it matter what has changed? Please don't waste your breath on ad-hominem attacks. They add nothing to the debate. vormison on "Steam's new TOS" http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=6191#post-35927 Sat, 11 Aug 2012 12:53:00 +0000 vormison 35927@http://www.vg247.com/forum/ Valve has taken away the users' ability to file class action lawsuits against them. See? How hard was that? As a moderator, I would have thought for you to insert some helpful or semi-intelligent information...I was proven incorrect. The information has been plastered all over the internet and I am sure most individuals who follow video game news are aware of these changes. The reason I said "it doesn't matter what has changed" is because it doesn't. The reason I said "there is no reason getting into them" is because it is not...especially not with people like you. Everyone has their opinion on situations like this and there is nothing that any of us can say that will make the other person go "You know what, I think these new ToS are awesome and I couldn't hit the 'agree' button fast enough". Ireland Michael on "Steam's new TOS" http://www.vg247.com/forum/topic.php?id=6191#post-35926 Sat, 11 Aug 2012 12:41:33 +0000 Ireland Michael 35926@http://www.vg247.com/forum/ It matters entirely what has changed. If you don't even know what those changes are, you're just trying too hard. You signed a ToS the first time you registered to use the service. Why didn't it matter then? Why does it suddenly matter now? "There are so many examples and reasons as to why this is wrong but there is no use getting into them." You can't, under any real argument, state why it's wrong if you don't even know what the changes are. All your answer tells me is that you want to complain for the sake of complaining, with no actual reasons for doing. I mean, if you actually bothered to *explain* what the problem is, that would be great. "It is what it is and Valve's fans will continue to say "if you don't like it, don't use it!"" No, sensible people who live in the real world will say it. If I don't agree with a ToS, I'm not going to use a service. It's that simple. You can't really say if you like or not though since you apparently don't even know what it says or what has changed. "Imagine if google changed their TOS for your email and you had to accept them, whether you liked them or not, to check your email." If you don't like it, don't use it. It really, really is that simple. I don't *have* to check them. If you don't want to deal with this sort of thing, just simply don't use their services. If it was that big a deal, I'd change my email and just stop using the service. And if Google did change their ToS, I would at least bother to read up on the changes before deciding if I approved of them or not.