Steam bans 20000 accounts.

[Blackhawk]

Actually, Meal's a bit off target. I'm not all that concerned with the future. With Half-Life 2 and CS Source, you buy into Steam's system, including its risks. I'm sure the same will be true with future games. With the earlier games, you did not buy into Steam's system, you had it forced upon you. It was something you didn't choose, and has the potential to be used against you.

I am playing Devil's Advocate here a bit. I've mentioned in other threads that my mind works a bit differently than most (a genetic defect, actually), so I sometimes look at things in an abstract way, and have trouble communicating my abstract logic to others. That comes across as thick-headedness and poor arguments sometimes, and is rather frustrating. My apologies.

If I had to underline who I'm championing - well, I'm not sure I could; I'm not arguing for, I'm arguing against. I took my stance early on in response to so many peoples' "Pirates are getting it back! WooHoo!", followed by everyone's glee at how much retribution was being inflicted on people for one single infraction. So many people were absolutely delighted that not only was a pirate's illegal game and established screen name disabled, but that their other games were as well. It seemed as if people would have cheered if Valve had responded by wiping the hard disks of everyone who had pirated a single game. It felt almost bloodthirsty.

That disturbs me. The crime was the theft of one thing, one product. The punishment was (in effect, no matter how you word it or rationalize around it) the loss of a half-dozen things. That strikes me as painfully unjust, especially when it is legitimized by masking it in legalese.

I'm afraid that that just digs into a tender spot for me.

[LawBeefaroni]

That disturbs me. The crime was the theft of one thing, one product. The punishment was (in effect, no matter how you word it or rationalize around it) the loss of a half-dozen things. That strikes me as painfully unjust, especially when it is legitimized by masking it in legalese.

I'm afraid that that just digs into a tender spot for me.

They aren't punishing theft. They are protecting the integrity of their online service by banning anyone they know stole their product. Valve doesn't have the power to "punish theft," aside from filing a complaint with some law enforcement agency or other.

And I'll mention it again, what are these half dozen things? Mods were free. What are the products that required purchase and are offered on Steam? Half Life, Opposing Force, CS: Condition Zero...anything else? The rest of the Steam back catalog was free.

I don't play CS, and so I need someone to clarify something for me. If I purchased Half-life, CS, or whatever pre-Steam, those products now only work with Steam?

You need Steam to play on Steam servers. I think you might also need Steam to patch to the most recent version. HL/CS required authentication through WON to play online. That has been replaced by Steam authentication. So to play online you need to go through Steam.

You can play LAN and SP Half Life, OpFor, Blue Shift (3rd party which isn't available on Steam) , CZ, etc without Steam. Just do the install from disc and play. You can also play SP with Steam by creating a Steam account and entering your CD key to add games you purchased to your virtual "shelf."

[Blackhawk]

And I'll mention it again, what are these half dozen things? Mods were free. What are the products that required purchase and are offered on Steam? Half Life, Opposing Force, CS: Condition Zero...anything else? The rest of the Steam back catalog was free.

I am also referring to the commercial versions of Counterstrike and Day of Defeat. They were free, yes, but there were also plenty of people who paid for the standalone boxed versions of them. Updates and online play have been dependent on registering your CD keys with Steam for quite some time now. A person could have purchased, from a store, Half-Life, Counterstrike, Opposing Force, Counterstrike: Condition Zero, and Day of Defeat, all of which now require Steam for multiplay and patching.

They aren't punishing theft. They are protecting the integrity of their online service by banning anyone they know stole their product. Valve doesn't have the power to "punish theft," aside from filing a complaint with some law enforcement agency or other.

Semantics. Valve is striking back at people who stole their product. You can refer to it by a phrase that keeps you out of court, but the essence is the same: They are punishing theft.

[Zaxxon]

I have no problem with the Steam account disablement on its own, as this was a known possibility (in fact explicitly spelled-out) before people ponied up a dime for any current Steam games, which is more than 99% of software companies can claim. The CS/HL1 deal I'm still not against, as like someone said earlier, Valve has kept these old games viable long after they otherwise may have been.

Let me ask this of those of you vehemently against Valve's actions: If Blizzard killed battle.net support for their games 5 years after release, would you be upset? The situation is analagous--the old method of playing online (apparently a required service back then in order to play online just as it is now) was killed many years after release. Valve was kind enough (and savvy enough, I'll grant; they didn't do it out of the purple panda's loviness in their heart) to allow people to keep playing these games on their new Steam network. I don't think it's fair to argue that these old games have been unfairly changed to require Steam. Gamers should be counting their blessings that the games still work online at all, given that they've relied on a single required external service all along. Despite what some people here have argued, purchasing a game does not necessarily bring you a perpetual ability to play online. Tons of online games rely on external services, and not just MMOGs.

[Edit - would an open IP-based method of online play be better? Absolutely. But given that the games have required an external service all along, I don't see a problem with transferring that service rather than simply discontinuing the online play altogether]

[Al]

Look. As LawBeefaroni pointed out, before Steam there was WON. If we look at WONs terms of use back when Half Life came out you'll see several things:

WON reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to immediately, without notice, suspend or terminate your ability to access WON.net and/or any other service provided to you by WON upon any breach by you of the Terms of Use.

and

WON reserves the right to change, modify, add or remove portions of the Terms of Use at any time, at its discretion.

In other words, WON's TOS was very similar to Steam's and the same exact thing could have happened on WON.

Second, the games were not disabled. Valve simply said that people who pirate from them can't use Steam any more. That is within their rights. You can still set up a stand alone server, advertise it and get players. You just can't use Steam to do that any more. Don't like it? Then try not stealing from the people who own the network.

[LawBeefaroni]

They aren't punishing theft. They are protecting the integrity of their online service by banning anyone they know stole their product. Valve doesn't have the power to "punish theft," aside from filing a complaint with some law enforcement agency or other.

Semantics. Valve is striking back at people who stole their product. You can refer to it by a phrase that keeps you out of court, but the essence is the same: They are punishing theft.

Their recourse for someone who stole HL2 is to not allow them to play that stolen version of HL2. In essence, they recover their stolen property. How do they do this? Ban them from Steam.

How is this possibly a problem? Like Zaxxon said, Steam is the only incentive they have for supporting their old games so long after release. Valve has made 3 games. Half-Life, CS: CS, and HL2. Half Life is what, 6 years old? CS is based on a mod made on that engine. They could easily be considered casualties of someone's stupidity for trying to steal a game that authenticates on startup (HL2). The fact that they're even actively supported should be considered a windfall. How many other pieces of software are so well supported 6+ years after release?

[Blackhawk]

Ok, they weren't disabled. Due to an intentional action, you can only play your multiplayer games alone or on an unpopulated, unpatched server.

When discussing commercial games sold on their multiplayer features, THAT IS DISABLED. The primary function doesn't function anymore.

WON is Steam. It is the same service. Valve owns both. Steam is WON 2.0. WON had no feature that tied each and every game you owned into a single account, so no, the same thing wouldn't have happened. A misdeed with one game you owned wouldn't have affected the others you owned.

[Blackhawk]

Their recourse for someone who stole HL2 is to not allow them to play that stolen version of HL2. In essence, they recover their stolen property. How do they do this? Ban them from Steam.

Easy. Disable the ability for that account to play Half-Life 2. They could probably program that option in an hour.

[LawBeefaroni]

Their recourse for someone who stole HL2 is to not allow them to play that stolen version of HL2. In essence, they recover their stolen property. How do they do this? Ban them from Steam.

Easy. Disable the ability for that account to play Half-Life 2. They could probably program that option in an hour.

Why should they? They clearly stated that any abuse of Steam outside the ToS would lead to termination of the account.

Anyway, I think their system is set up for level of service. You get HL2 Silver online? You get HL2 and all other games. You buy the Retail CD? You get HL2 and CS and CS:Source, HL: Source, HL, etc. Whatever it is you get. Bottom line, when you get HL2, you get other stuff, some of which used to be retail and some of which might be in the future. So they're going to disable one game (HL2) and let you keep the rest that you may or may not have owned? Someone who stole HL2 probably had no misgivings grabbing everything else they wanted once they were on. I don't think it would be as easy as you say to sort out the half-thieving customers from the full on thieving customers.

[Blackhawk]

That wouldn't apply if they registered CS, DoD, HL, and so on with seperate keys. I registered my copy of Half-Life on Steam months ago. I also registered my Steam Silver package. They would have no trouble seeing that they were registered under seperate CD keys.

[Al]

Again, so what? If you STEAL FROM VALVE why would you expect them to continue to support you? Valve is under no obligation to patch their software (that's what the "THIS SOFTWARE IS SOLD AS-IS" in the EULA is all about) and can patch it in any way they see fit. If they say that in order to get a patch you have to have to send in your original CD and they'll send you out a new one, then that's what you'll have to do. If they say that you can patch via Steam as long as you don't do things like STEAL FROM THEM then that is within their rights as well.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: it's their playground. If they want to kick you out, for any reason, then they have the right to.

[MeSlayer]

Out of curiousity, what do you guys think (if its inside the terms of Steams ToS - which i would imagine it would be) of valve banning people who hack in CS:S (or anyother online steam game, for that matter) from Steam all together ?

I wonder if all of you guys will go on about how it is well within their legal rights to do so, they are following their own ToS, etc etc

I think the question is - is it right to do so ?

I say no, and I will be more than happy to speak with my wallet about this issue.


Also, to the person who said that valve "saved" CS and HL's assorted mods by setting up steam because the WON support was gone - I merely ask they look at the UO community and the 'shards' that were setup. I'm not sure how much trouble it would be to emulate a master server, and slap it into ASE or something for the thousands of CS'ers out there today, but the sheer numbers playing those games when Steam "saved" their communities suggests that they would have had the technical knowhow to make that work

[IceBear]

Too bad everyone is up in arms about this Steam thing - HL2 is superb.

[Al]

Out of curiousity, what do you guys think (if its inside the terms of Steams ToS - which i would imagine it would be) of valve banning people who hack in CS:S (or anyother online steam game, for that matter) from Steam all together ?

I'm not following you. Do you mean what if someone was found cheating in CS:S or another online game that is run by steam?

If that's the case then according to Steam's TOS that person would be banned.

Valve may terminate your Account or a particular Subscription for any conduct or activity that Valve believes is illegal, Cheating or otherwise negatively affects the enjoyment of Steam by other Subscribers.

I think the question is - is it right to do so ?

I say no, and I will be more than happy to speak with my wallet about this issue.

And I say yes. Ban the cheaters. Never let them play on Steam again. Cheating makes the game less fun for other players. That effects sales, so it is in any developer's commercial interest to prevent cheating in their on-line games.

[Blackhawk]

If you STEAL FROM VALVE why would you expect them to continue to support you?

If you steal one current game from Valve, what bearing does it have on your right to use a completely different product, one that you paid for in full three or four years ago? Why should an attempted theft of Half-Life 2 have any effect on any game by Half-Life 2?

I mean, if I download an MGM movie and MGM finds out about it, should they take every MGM movie out of my DVD collection, just the one I stole?

[Blackhawk]

Too bad everyone is up in arms about this Steam thing - HL2 is superb.

Actually, if you read back, I have been one of the bigger Steam proponents. I still am.

[SuperHiro]

I say ban the cheaters. More fun threads for me to read!

I take a very dim view of cheaters. Ever since they ruined Phantasy Star Online (one of the greatest console games I've ever played BTW, right below Gunstar Heroes). I view them as the lowest of the low in the online game community. Yes lower than those people in Dawn of War who use Nazi banners/badges.

[IceBear]

Too bad everyone is up in arms about this Steam thing - HL2 is superb.

Actually, if you read back, I have been one of the bigger Steam proponents. I still am.

Oh, I wasn't talking about anyone in particular, just in general. Lots of people saying they won't buy HL2 because of Steam, etc

[MeSlayer]

And I say yes. Ban the cheaters. Never let them play on Steam again. Cheating makes the game less fun for other players. That effects sales, so it is in any developer's commercial interest to prevent cheating in their on-line games.

Fair enough

However, take a second and think on your argument

Counter Strike, perhaps the most cheated in game in existance, is quite possibly the most successful multiplayer game ever. Well, then again, you could perhaps put MMORPGS up above it, okay, limit it to FPS. Name a more successful FPS.

I dont think that cheating in any way impacts sales and / or users of said game. Id say the numbers agree.

[Al]

If you steal one current game from Valve, what bearing does it have on your right to use a completely different product, one that you paid for in full three or four years ago?

If I steal from a store that I've been a customer of for years why should the ban me from ever coming back? Why do you expect that someone you stole from is going to want to deal with you?

I mean, if I download an MGM movie and MGM finds out about it, should they take every MGM movie out of my DVD collection, just the one I stole?

Valve didn't disable every game that the pirate had. They disabled Steam support. They kicked him out of the store and said don't come back.

[Blackhawk]

Valve didn't disable every game that the pirate had. They disabled Steam support. They kicked him out of the store and said don't come back.

Semantics again. They disabled the thing that allowed a number of different games to function.

If I steal from a store that I've been a customer of for years why should the ban me from ever coming back? Why do you expect that someone you stole from is going to want to deal with you?

Valve isn't a store. Valve is a software developer (and quasi-publisher, now). I'm also not talking about future purchases. I am talking about existing property. If I steal from a store, no, I expect them to kick me out and not let me come back. I do not expect them to reposess the package of hot dogs I bought there last week.

[Zaxxon]

If I steal from a store, no, I expect them to kick me out and not let me come back. I do not expect them to reposess the package of hot dogs I bought there last week.

If you steal from a store, you expect them to prosecute you. If you steal software, you expect them to prosecute you. These people should be counting their blessings that all they lost was a couple of friggin' games.

[Al]

Semantics again. They disabled the thing that allowed a number of different games to function.

By not letting pirates, people who STOLE from THEM, use their stuff. That's perfectly legal.

I am talking about existing property. If I steal from a store, no, I expect them to kick me out and not let me come back. I do not expect them to reposess the package of hot dogs I bought there last week.

Except that's not even close to what they did. They let the pirates keep the balls they didn't steal, they just said that they can't play on Valve's playground any more.

Yeah, it's hard to find anyone else to play with that isn't playing on Valve's playground and yes, that makes it hard on the people who stole stuff from Valve. I still don't have a problem with it.

[Blackhawk]

If I steal from a store, no, I expect them to kick me out and not let me come back. I do not expect them to reposess the package of hot dogs I bought there last week.

If you steal from a store, you expect them to prosecute you. If you steal software, you expect them to prosecute you. These people should be counting their blessings that all they lost was a couple of friggin' games.

I'm sorry, Zaxxon, but that is exactly what bothers me. Excusing what I consider to be incorrect actions with "they could have done worse". If I stole from the store, I expect to have what I stole taken back, yes. I expect I might be prosecuted, yes.

If they come to my house and break out my windows, that's better than being prosecuted, right? So I shouldn't complain about them breaking out my windows because "they could have done worse?" Even worse is the idea that I am afraid to complain about my broken windows because of the risk of prosecution. That almost feels like blackmail.

Now, everything that Valve has done seems to be legal - not like my window example - but it still comes down to them taking 'draconian', over the line measures and people being unable to make any response. The most common response - from Valve and from other Valve customers - is 'If they stole, they're getting what's coming to them', even if it is way out of proportion.

[Blackhawk]

By not letting pirates, people who STOLE from THEM, use their stuff. That's perfectly legal.

This is turning into one big, repetitive, pointless fucking circle.

So what if they stole from them? So what? Recover your stolen property, prosecute them. Our hypothetical 'they' are only 'pirates' in relation to Half-Life 2. Only. They are not pirates in relation to Counterstrike, or Day of Defeat, or any of the others. They are legal owners being denied the right to use their property because of an unrelated incident.

Letting them 'Use their stuff'? Valve took away their right to use anything except their stuff.

Your arguments are rapidly dropping back into the 'They are useless pirates - anything goes' line of drivel.

[Zaxxon]

If they come to my house and break out my windows, that's better than being prosecuted, right? So I shouldn't complain about them breaking out my windows because "they could have done worse?" Even worse is the idea that I am afraid to complain about my broken windows because of the risk of prosecution. That almost feels like blackmail.

Uhh. Irrelevant. Didn't happen, not analagous to what happened.

Now, everything that Valve has done seems to be legal - not like my window example - but it still comes down to them taking 'draconian', over the line measures and people being unable to make any response. The most common response - from Valve and from other Valve customers - is 'If they stole, they're getting what's coming to them', even if it is way out of proportion.

Draconian is a rather silly word to apply here. They took what they felt to be appropriate actions to stem the piracy against their games. The actions they took were fully within their rights. End of story. 'Over the line' is for them to decide, not you. 'Way out of proportion' might look slightly different from the perspective of someone who relies on upstanding citizens purchasing their work to survive, than it does from a relatively anonymous Internet poster who regularly pirates games. (Talking in general here, not necessarily singling out BH)

[Blackhawk]

I disagree. I am not making Valve's corporate policies; I am commenting on them in a forum designed for discussion. Discussions are for opinions. I am of the opinion that their measures are draconian and over the line, therefore I stated that in my argument.

I am of the opinion that their actions were meant both to stop the crime against them and to punish those comitting the crime. It isn't their place to mete out punishment. I am of the opinion that Valve has a particular bone to pick with hackers, and that it likely influenced their decision to come down as hard as they did. I believe, therefore, that they did not take what they felt to be appropriate actions to stem piracy; they took what they felt to be vengeful actions.

Legal, yes, within their rights, yes. Just and appropriate? Not in my opinion. Like they say, "Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should." Like I said, I'm not making their policy, just discussing it.

[ImLawBoy]

Originally posted by Blackhawk:
I believe, therefore, that they did not take what they felt to be appropriate actions to stem piracy; they took what they felt to be vengeful actions.

Why can't it be both? They've sent a huge message, loud and clear about what happens when you pirate Valve games (when they can catch you, anyway) . That's a deterrent, and they're doing it not just to punish these current offenders, but also to make others think twice about pirating in the future. It won't stop everyone from trying, of course, but it will be an effective deterrent to many (especially casual) pirates.

And of course there's some vengeance here, too. Frankly, given the scope of the vengeance, and the target of the vengeance, it just doesn't trouble me too much. Obviously it troubles you much more, but let's face it - the legal system has failed Valve in this matter. They can't get anyone to prosecute the individual pirate, and it's not economically viable to go after them in civil court, so they can either go Chuck Bronson on the pirates or drop their pants and bend over.

Now, if they were doing anything similar to some of the examples mentioned here (e.g., breaking windows or something), I'd agree 100% with Blackhawk. They're not doing anything like that, though. They're taking very limited, very closely related to the crime, and (I think) very reasonable vengeance. BH, you appear to have a problem with any sort of vigilantism (or "self-help", to use a less perjorative term), and I can respect that, even if I disagree in this case. If Valve were to do something illegal, I likely would change my tune, but I think it's acceptable when people take action that isn't illegal, even if it's just to get back at somebody.

[Mr. Fed]

Say you live near Disneyland and buy a yearly pass to it, as well as yearly passes to the new adjacent California Adventure, Merchandizing Land, and Cloying Land Theme Parks. All are run by Diznee. The terms of the contract you accept in buying the passes says that breach of any Diznee rules is grounds for being kicked out from all Diznee properties.

Two days later, you are caught, say, spitting on costumed characters off of the monorail at Disneyland. This is a clear breach of Diznee rules. Diznee kicks you out of all Diznee properties.

Is that somehow unfair? Should Diznee say, "Well, he spat on people off of the monorail, but he hasn't pissed on anyone off of the Magic ATM ride at Merchandizing Land yet, so let's keep letting him go there so as not to be punitive?" Nah. Diznee has an interest not only in disabling you from your immediate wrongdoing (spitting on people) but preventing further wrongdoing that you could reasonably be expected to perpetrate on its other properties. You've established yourself as a spitter, spitting is against Diznee's rules, Diznee doesn't want spitters using any of its properties because of the security risks they pose, so OF COURSE Diznee is going to kick you out of all of its facilities. It's just good business sense.

Diznee doesn't "punish" you in any way not related to the use of its facilities. It doesn't come to your house and break your windows. Diznee simply protects its facilities by keeping you out of them.

The contrary proposition reminds me of the story of a high school classmate of mine. He totalled three of his family's cars in high school. He totalled two more in college. Then the insurance company wouldn't insure him to drive cars any more. So he got a motorcycle. And the insurance company, acting in the way that people apparently want Valve to act, said "Well, he's crashed five cars, but he's never crashed a motorcycle, so sure! Let's insure him!" Until he wiped out the motorcyle on a patch of water on Mullholland drive.

[Blackhawk]

You know, we've come up with probably fifty different examples and analogies in this thread, and none of them actually fits the situation. The Disney example is no different, nor is the insurance example. Those are companies acting against someone to prevent future infractions, something they have every right to do. Valve didn't do that. Any ban-ee can make a brand new Steam account and try a different hack, over and over. The only way the analogy would fit would be to say that Valve is assuming that every other Valve game you owned is also illegal, and acting retroactively, which is just silly. It might be a good analogy for the 'banning the cheaters' discussion, though.

Oh, and my broken window metaphor had nothing to do with Valve. It had to do with the generic concept that doing something wrong isn't excused by the availability of greater, right responses. "You should just be glad they didn't prosecute".

BH, you appear to have a problem with any sort of vigilantism (or "self-help", to use a less perjorative term), and I can respect that, even if I disagree in this case.

Actually, no I don't. If the law completely fails them, acting on their own is something that doesn't bother me. In this particular instance, I think they have acted beyond 'justice'. As I said, one game stolen, a potential half-dozen disabled in response. An eye for an eye? That is like an eye for a whole face.

Anyway, this is getting pointless. We can all go around and around for weeks and not agree. Some people get a sense of satisfaction in seeing a wrongdoer slapped down so hard they bounce. I get a sense of outrage, based on things that have happened to me in my life. I usually avoid the more heated discussions for just that reason - my opinions are usually contrary to the popular ideas, and stating them tends to start arguments (especially once you trigger my stubbornness )

I hope I didn't irk anyone too bad. I think I'll go play some Half-Life II.

[Smoove_B]

The only way the analogy would fit would be to say that Valve is assuming that every other Valve game you owned is also illegal, and acting retroactively, which is just silly.

Well...then isn't this really about Valve saying regardless of future, current or past practices, to me it would seem they're saying if we catch you using a stolen CD Key on ANY of our Steam supported games, we are going to prohibt you from participating in our service?

I don't think they're saying that if you use one stolen CD key ALL of your additional Valve titles must be suspect. They're saying they don't want ANYONE that uses a SINGLE stolen key as part of the Steam family.

It's the internet software equivalent of the "zero tolerance" policy, I guess.

[ImLawBoy]

What about the argument that Valve is making an example of these folks to try to prevent future piracy? It might not be fun for those being made examples of, but they're not exactly in a strong moral position from which to complain.

[ImLawBoy]

Originally posted by Blackhawk:
As I said, one game stolen, a potential half-dozen disabled in response. An eye for an eye? That is like an eye for a whole face.

On the other hand, Valve just finding a way to prevent those gamers from playing a game that they had no right to play in the first place isn't exactly an eye for an eye, either. If you want to stop an activity from occuring in the future, then you have to find a way not just to make that activity neutral to the actor, but to make it a negative experience. As long as that negative experience falls within the boundaries of the law, then it's OK.

Originally posted by Blackhawk:
I hope I didn't irk anyone too bad.

Quite the contrary. I enjoyed the opportunity to better explain my feelings on the situation.

[D'Arcy]

You could argue that it is unfair that old Valve multiplayer games now require Steam to work (if that's the case), but that's unfortunately an inherent risk of any online software, such as MMORPG's. If you pay your $50 for the boxed copy of Whateverquest, that's no guarantee that it will work forever -- that's a risk the consumer has to weigh for themselves.

And I don't think he should have. There is no date of expiry on the box.

The thing is that there is no technical reason to channel all customers through an authentication server. Let's take HL1. Of course Valve can drop support for that game whenever they like (i.e. produce no more patches). But I don't think they should be allowed to just disable the WON servers at an arbitrary point of time, thus precluding their customers to play MP on 3rd party MP servers. Said customers can legitimately expect to use the multiplayer component of the product they bought to function indefinitely. If the developers plans to move on, they need to remove the authentication component of their product.

So, IMHO, Valve already overstepped their contractual obligations when they made the upgrade from WON to Steam compulsory. As the expiration of mandatory online authentication facilities is a very recent problem, there is probably no law against it yet. But there should be. Software is neither a license nor a service, it's a product, and I expect it to function and continue to function like all other products.

[yossar]

I pretty much agree with Blackhawk. Losing most functionality in Valve software you bought before Steam even existed for trying to illegally obtain an unrelated product through Steam is a bit unprecedented.

But (assuming they actually did ban the correct accounts, which is my biggest issue) it's hard to get too worked up about this. It's really hard to prosecute pirates so Valve didn't have many legal options, nobody lost that much software, and maybe this will teach people to be a little more careful about what and how they pirate (ie. don't put pirated software onto an account with legitimate software).

[The Meal]

Originally posted by The Meal:
Your (unspoken) point is that if Valve pulls this with old games and Steam now, what on earth are they going to pull with Steam and HL2 in the future? Do we really want producers to have that kind of control over our future gaming with a product we've purchased today?

Slippery slope argument. Valve taking perfectly legal, logical actions now does not mean that they would be emboldened to take illegal or illogical actions in the future.

ABSOLUTELY. This comes 100% with all the slippery-slope nonsense you can muster. And yet? Even as a legitimate customer, I find myself hesitant to throw in with this distribution model for any of my future game purchases due to Valve's behavior here.

I've thought a lot about ImLawBoy's slippery-slope comment. And it strikes me that what Valve is doing doesn't *really* lead to a non-correcting slippery slope. Basically they've changed games (be it servers or the actual gameplay itself -- I don't think you can separate one from the other {for some of the games discussed here} without defining a victory for whichever side of the debate you support) for folks who've done something illegal currently. However, nothing says that they will (or even that they can) change future games for folks who *haven't* done something illegal in the future. The precedent they're establishing now doesn't necessarily impact future legitimate users of their software, as those legitimate consumers would definitely have a (legal) leg to stand on if Valve tried to do something similar down the line.

And thinking about things further, I'd imagine that the user-agreements for those previous Valve games do *not* stipulate that some sort of communal on-line server will be available for all times into the future. Such an expectation is unreasonable, in fact, given the current status of gaming and due to precedents set in the past by other communal server providers for other on-line games. The fact that Valve has turned customers away *prior* to shutting down those servers, based upon the illegal actions these customers have taken with other Valve products, no longer bothers me to the point it originally did.

I recind my statement (quoted in a post above), regarding my concerns with this distribution model and how it may affect legitimate users down the line.

~*~*~

That said, I completely empathize with Blackhawk's line of thought here. I, too, am one of those that looks for reasons not to fall boot-step into the mindset of the mob when everyone is basically throwing rocks at the woman tied up in the square. When I see post after post of people dancing on the grave of those fallen, it is my natural reaction to try and step up and support their behavior. It is my natural reaction to try and understand how those people got into the position they were in (that allowed everyone to dance on their graves and celebrate their mishaps). I'm not a big fan of seeing other people celebrate folks taking it on the chin, even when its the natural outcome of those getting smacked-down's own behavior.

Blackhawk, I know you embrace the diagnosis of thinking differently than the common person, but I, for one, not only understand how it comes about, but think (at least in this case) in a similar manner. It is only after thinking about things on my own, over the course of a few days, that I finally disentangled my thought patterns from my natural root-for-the-underdog stance.

~Neal

[hepcat]

Two days later, you are caught, say, spitting on costumed characters off of the monorail at Disneyland. This is a clear breach of Diznee rules. Diznee kicks you out of all Diznee properties.

Well, so much for that "juvenile records are sealed by the court" promise the cops made me back in '78.

[Kael]

Imagine that there was only 1 game publisher and all games required an online registration each time you played. Would you still think it was reasonable reprisal for hacking one game if you weren't allowed to play any games anymore? What if the music industry consolidated and refused to sell music to anyone who had downloaded an illegal mp3? What if the music, movie, television and video game companies agreed to operate under one contract and banned anyone from all of their products if they commited an infraction against any of them?

At what point does the punishment become to great for the crime? And who is fit to make that judgement? Is capitalism strong enough that market forces will even this sort of thing out? Are companies finding that technology may allow them to police their customers just as it has enabled their customers to steal from them? Do these effects cancel each other out, or will the corporations win this battle?

[Tareeq]

Imagine that there was only 1 game publisher and all games required an online registration each time you played. Would you still think it was reasonable reprisal for hacking one game if you weren't allowed to play any games anymore? What if the music industry consolidated and refused to sell music to anyone who had downloaded an illegal mp3? What if the music, movie, television and video game companies agreed to operate under one contract and banned anyone from all of their products if they commited an infraction against any of them?

At what point does the punishment become to great for the crime? And who is fit to make that judgement? Is capitalism strong enough that market forces will even this sort of thing out? Are companies finding that technology may allow them to police their customers just as it has enabled their customers to steal from them? Do these effects cancel each other out, or will the corporations win this battle?

And are those of you raising the alarm strong enough to decline to purchase this game?

[LawBeefaroni]

Imagine that there was only 1 game publisher and all games required an online registration each time you played. Would you still think it was reasonable reprisal for hacking one game if you weren't allowed to play any games anymore?

That's a dark thing to imagine. It would be a reasonable reprisal in an unreasonable monopoly.

What if the music industry consolidated and refused to sell music to anyone who had downloaded an illegal mp3?

Again, a dark vision. However, if they refused to sell to everyone who pirated MP3s, they would have a hard time staying in business. So let 'em.

What if the music, movie, television and video game companies agreed to operate under one contract and banned anyone from all of their products if they commited an infraction against any of them?

More of the same. Would kill their revenues. If we are stupid enough to let it happen, we deserve what we get. And if you stole one product from them, why should they allow you to continue to access their other properties.

At what point does the punishment become to great for the crime?

When it is outside the scope of the ToS that the user agreed to (and/or violates laws).

And who is fit to make that judgement?

If it's within the ToS, the company is fit to make that judgement. It's their call as to how enforcement will affect their bottom line (see the RIAA and their rounding up of old ladies for MP3 sharing).

Is capitalism strong enough that market forces will even this sort of thing out?

That's the mantra of the capitalists. If it doesn't sort it out, capitalism is broke, isn't it?

Are companies finding that technology may allow them to police their customers just as it has enabled their customers to steal from them?

The owner/thief arms race is as old as property. It will continue on. When our currency and commerce is controlled by corporations as well as their own property, that is when we have the problem. Imagine doing all your transactions through CitiBank and then Valve, their subsidiary, tells you they find no record of payment for HL5 and are going to ban you from Steam and freeze all your assets for violating the CitiBank ToS...

Do these effects cancel each other out, or will the corporations win this battle?

Depends when we stop the corporations.