# Watch out! Crysis 2 on Steam has 3rd party DRM, NOT disclosed on store page



## qubit (Mar 27, 2011)

*UPDATE 07APR11: Steam store page now finally shows "3rd-party DRM: TAGES Solidshield ". Of course, I've heard nothing about my refund.* 

Look, 3rd party DRM _not_ disclosed on store page: http://store.steampowered.com/app/99830/

Doesn't say, does it?

Yet it has a 5 machine activation limit. So f* epic fail of Steam. :shadedshu

I discovered this DRM when I ran Crysis for the first time, as it reported "activation successful". Also, adding Crysis to the Windows 7 Games Explorer and right clicking the icon gave two menu entries:

- de-authorize game. This is supposed to be done when moving the game from one PC to another
- EU EULA. This described the SolidShield DRM built into it

There's also this Steam forum thread on it: http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1808447

Steam have broken the UK Sale of Goods Act and the Distance Selling Regulations and the equivalent laws in other countries by leaving out significant info like this. Therefore, I've now raised a support ticket with Steam for a full refund and I'll let you know how I get on. I've also uninstalled the game from my PC. And I liked it, too. Such a shame about this. 

_*Mods: I know there's the main Crysis thread, but I feel that this issue needs greater prominence rather than have it disappear into general Crysis chat, so please don't merge it with the other one. Perhaps it's a good idea to make this a sticky for a little while?*_

The SolidShield DRM described in the EULA:



Spoiler



3. Technical Protection Measures.
This Software uses Solidshield digital rights management technology. This Solidshield technology does not require a separate installation. For more information about Solidshield, visit http://www.solidshield.com. An Internet connection is required to authenticate the Software and verify your license (“Online Authentication”) using the serial code enclosed with the Software. CRYTEK reserves the right to validate your license through subsequent Online Authentications. If CRYTEK determines your license is not valid, you may not be able to use the Software. CRYTEK does not recommend that you attempt to disable Solidshield. If you disable or otherwise tamper with the technical protection measures, the Software may not function properly and you will have materially breached this License.

Each computer must be authorized before you can play the game. Authorization automatically occurs after authentication and license validation by CRYTEK (i.e., Online Authentication), described above. The first end user of this License may authorize up to five machines on which s/he may play the offline features of this game at any one time. Access to online features and/or services is addressed in Section 1.C, below. When you install the Software on a machine, the machine is automatically authorized (provided you have authorizations available). When you uninstall the Software from a machine, that machine is automatically de-authorized. You may manage your authorizations yourself by following the de-authorization instructions found at http://activate.ea.com/deauthorize. An Internet connection is required for de-authorization. Upon uninstallation of the Software and successful machine deauthorization, the Solidshield technology associated with this Software will be removed from your machine.


----------



## LifeOnMars (Mar 27, 2011)

Cheeky bar stewards. Luckily, I'm yet to buy the game but thanks for bringing this to our attention Qubit.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 27, 2011)

qubit said:


> Look, 3rd party DRM _not_ disclosed on store page: http://store.steampowered.com/app/99830/
> 
> Doesn't say, does it?
> 
> ...



Up to five activations at one time. Not in total. Seems to be more then fair to me. Also Steam didn't do anything wrong. They are just the platform of delivery. Your beef is with Crytek. I doubt Steam will refund your money.


----------



## qubit (Mar 27, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Up to five activations at one time. Not in total. Seems to be more then fair to me. Also Steam didn't do anything wrong. They are just the platform of delivery. Your beef is with Crytek. I doubt Steam will refund your money.



No, my beef is with Steam, for missing such a crucial detail, as they're the seller, that is UK law.

Look up another game such as the original Crysis here and you'll see that the 3rd party DRM is disclosed.

It's irrelevant whether you personally think this DRM is fair or not, it should be disclosed so people can make an informed choice. I would have stayed away.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 27, 2011)

qubit said:


> No, my beef is with Steam, for missing such a crucial detail, as they're the seller, that is UK law.
> 
> Look up another game such as the original Crysis here and you'll see that the 3rd party DRM is disclosed.
> 
> It's irrelevant whether you personally think this DRM is fair or not, it should be disclosed so people can make an informed choice. I would have stayed away.



No worries I ain't going to argue DRM relevance  Its just 5 computer simultaneously installed is more then fair.


----------



## qubit (Mar 27, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> No worries I ain't going to argue DRM relevance  Its just 5 computer simultaneously installed is more then fair.



Sure, it is 5 machines, I've already stated that. 

If you think that's fair, then good for you and I honestly don't have a problem with it.  I don't think any DRM is fair however, as you know.

This isn't the place to discuss the rights and wrongs of DRM though, just the fact that the DRM is not disclosed. Tell ya what, why not click that link in my sig and we can have at it over at NRNL!


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 27, 2011)

qubit said:


> Sure, it is 5 machines, I've already stated that.
> 
> If you think that's fair, then good for you and I honestly don't have a problem with it.  I don't think any DRM is fair however, as you know.
> 
> This isn't the place to discuss the rights and wrongs of DRM though, just the fact that the DRM is not disclosed. Tell ya what, why not click that link in my sig and we can have at it over at NRNL!



Na no need man. I agree with you on the whole discloser thing on steam. They should have said something. However I just looked at their "system specs" and they are not even up to date. Strange.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Mar 27, 2011)

http://steamdrm.flibitijibibo.com/the-big-drm-list/
(via this thread)

It appears Steam is upset about the bad press from 3rd party DRM so they've closed down all the old DRM list threads.  Fortunately someone is hosting a list on an external server now.

Crysis 2 DRM summary from steamdrm.flibitijibibo.com


> Account Based DRM:
> -Crysis 2; Online play requires a MyCrysis account
> Solidshield is Tages’ new DRM technology. It is presumed that this is their replacement for TAGES:
> -Crysis 2; 5 machine limit


----------



## 2DividedbyZero (Mar 27, 2011)

do you know if the retail version has any limitation? I ask because I installed the game on Friday, authorised it yet when I played it again on Saturday the game asked me to authorise again - and again today, so had it 3 days and had to authorise 3 times, Fri Sat and Sun.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 27, 2011)

I am willing to bet Steam covered their ass in the EULA. on third part DRM. You might want to look into that before you waste your time.


----------



## qubit (Mar 27, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I am willing to bet Steam covered their ass in the EULA. on third part DRM. You might want to look into that before you waste your time.



hmmm... possibly. I've already submitted my ticket hours ago though, so I'm gonna see what happens. Also, I don't think this is something that they can waive away with Ts & Cs, but don't quote me, lol.


----------



## erocker (Mar 27, 2011)

Steam EULA said:
			
		

> A. EXCLUSIVE REMEDY -- STEAM AND THE SOFTWARE.
> 
> YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT YOUR SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR ANY DISPUTE WITH VALVE WITH REGARD TO STEAM OR THE SOFTWARE IS TO DISCONTINUE USE OF STEAM AND CANCEL YOUR ACCOUNT. BECAUSE SOME STATES OR JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, IN SUCH STATES OR JURISDICTIONS, VALVE, ITS LICENSORS, AND THEIR AFFILIATES LIABILITY SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW.



qubit, you must uninstall Steam. The End User Licsense Agreement you ticked the box for says it must be so. They even print in in CAPS to let you know they are yelling it to you.


----------



## scaminatrix (Mar 28, 2011)

no way qubit, to follow legal procedure you must cease all use of steam


----------



## qubit (Mar 28, 2011)

erocker said:


> qubit, you must uninstall Steam. The End User Licsense Agreement you ticked the box for says it must be so. They even print in in CAPS to let you know they are yelling it to you.



Even if it's something significant that they omitted to do? This little clause gives them carte blanche to do whatever the hell they like, even illegal stuff. And this is against UK law, as well as the DRM omission. As I'm paying in pounds and am based in the UK, I do believe that UK law applies. Again, don't quote me on this!

I'll bet that even though the law is on my said, the buggers will make me fight to get my money back, but we'll just have to wait and see.

EDIT: erocker, scammy: by forcing me to uninstall Steam, I would lose access to hundreds of pounds worth of games I have on the account, that they won't refund. Nah, how can that be right? Sounds like an extortion racket, doesn't it?


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Mar 28, 2011)

erocker said:


> qubit, you must uninstall Steam. The End User Licsense Agreement you ticked the box for says it must be so. They even print in in CAPS to let you know they are yelling it to you.


Actually, this'd be more of a consumer protection issue that could [potentially] void the license if it became litigious (in the USA).

Furthermore with competition on the rise for Steam it would be an incredibly poor decision on their behalf to neglect existing customers (RE: doctrine of keeping a customer).  Also I have a hard time seeing how hiding the inclusion of DRM hinders pirates and benefits customers;  it appears to be the exact opposite.


----------



## Frick (Mar 28, 2011)

When I was at Microsoft support people sometimes called and complained about stuff thats in the EULA. My constant response was: "Did you read it before agreeing?"

So did you read it before agreeing? You didn't, so you really have yourself to blame and do not deserve a refund.


----------



## erocker (Mar 28, 2011)

streetfighter 2 said:


> Actually, this'd be more of a consumer protection issue that could [potentially] void the license if it became litigious (in the USA).
> 
> Furthermore with competition on the rise for Steam it would be an incredibly poor decision on their behalf to neglect existing customers (RE: doctrine of keeping a customer).  Also I have a hard time seeing how hiding the inclusion of DRM hinders pirates and benefits customers;  it appears to be the exact opposite.



No. No Steam for YOU! 


It's a joke.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 28, 2011)

qubit said:


> Sure, it is 5 machines, I've already stated that.
> 
> If you think that's fair, then good for you and I honestly don't have a problem with it.  I don't think any DRM is fair however, as you know.
> 
> This isn't the place to discuss the rights and wrongs of DRM though, just the fact that the DRM is not disclosed. Tell ya what, why not click that link in my sig and we can have at it over at NRNL!



Isn't that SabreWulf forum? The one where he emo'd out to when we called him a pedophile?  Ill pass.


----------



## qubit (Mar 28, 2011)

Frick said:


> When I was at Microsoft support people sometimes called and complained about stuff thats in the EULA. My constant response was: "Did you read it before agreeing?"
> 
> So did you read it before agreeing? You didn't, so you really have yourself to blame and do not deserve a refund.



Actually, I did, back in 2004 

There's such a thing as unfair contract terms, which this appears to be. Also, contract terms cannot breach the law, such as the UK Sale of Goods Act and the Distance Selling Regulations which apply to this sale.


----------



## ctrain (Mar 28, 2011)

qubit said:


> Look, 3rd party DRM _not_ disclosed on store page: http://store.steampowered.com/app/99830/
> 
> Doesn't say, does it?
> 
> Yet it has a 5 machine activation limit. So f* epic fail of Steam. :shadedshu



not Steam's fault.

also afaik the 5 machine limit magically replenishes once a month.


----------



## qubit (Mar 28, 2011)

ctrain said:


> not Steam's fault.
> 
> also afaik the 5 machine limit magically replenishes once a month.



It _is_ their fault for not disclosing it, as they're the seller.

Well, that reset is good to know should I get stuck with it.


----------



## ctrain (Mar 28, 2011)

steam isn't the publisher, EA is.

edit: EA not fucking activison, durr

you don't blame ebay because you didn't get what was listed.


----------



## qubit (Mar 28, 2011)

But they're the _seller_. In UK law, the seller is responsible. So, even if EA didn't tell Steam and Steam didn't know (bloody unlikely) then Steam are still responsible.


----------



## Mr McC (Mar 28, 2011)

Irrespective of whether or not the DRM is fair, the consumer should be informed of any third-party DRM prior to purchase, whereby Valve probably have infringed both the law and their customers' trust.


----------



## qubit (Mar 28, 2011)

Mr McC said:


> Irrespective of whether or not the DRM is fair, the consumer should be informed of any third-party DRM prior to purchase, whereby Valve probably have infringed both the law and their customers' trust.



Exactly!


----------



## erocker (Mar 28, 2011)

I can't find this listed on EA's site either.


----------



## qubit (Mar 28, 2011)

erocker said:


> I can't find this listed on EA's site either.



That's interesting. You know what I wonder?

If I remember correctly, the activation DRM for Assassin's Creed or its sequel was "removed" not by turning off the activation system, but by always allowing an activation. I wonder if that's what's happened here? If so, I don't consider it properly removed, because what happens when the activation servers are down or taken offline permanently, if say, the company goes bust?

It also makes you wonder about their motives to keep it running in this passive mode. Is it to collect stats perhaps? Is it so they can enforce it again at a moment's notice? Something else? Whichever, option it is, none of them will be consumer friendly.


----------



## garyinhere (Mar 28, 2011)

Take whining and conspiracy theories to GN
The fact is you "Tic'd" agree and continue so it's on you fair or not


----------



## qubit (Mar 28, 2011)

garyinhere said:


> Take whining and conspiracy theories to GN
> The fact is you "Tic'd" agree and continue so it's on you fair or not
> http://img.techpowerup.org/110327/98.jpg



I think you need to read the whole thread first before making an asinine post like that.  Especially my posts explaining where Steam/Valve have gone wrong with the law.


----------



## garyinhere (Mar 28, 2011)

qubit said:


> I think you need to read the whole thread first before making an asinine post like that.  Especially my posts explaining where Steam/Valve have gone wrong with the law.



ohh i read it and saw you say "it's not fair" too many times to care...
your point was to address the issue and you stated that you didn't want to argue or discuss it so lock the thread no more to talk about right? You let us know what was going on.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 28, 2011)

I honestly don't see the big deal in this other then you wanted to do something illegal with your copy.


----------



## HammerON (Mar 28, 2011)

I don't find this to be that big of a deal, and have a hard time understanding why you are making such a fuss over this. But that is just me. I don't plan on having Crysis 2 installed on more than maybe 2 machines (main rig and lappy).


----------



## qubit (Mar 28, 2011)

garyinhere said:


> ohh i read it and saw you say "it's not fair" too many times to care...
> your point was to address the issue and you stated that you didn't want to argue or discuss it so lock the thread no more to talk about right? You let us know what was going on.



You appear to be here just to troll my thread and get it closed down. That's really not very nice, now is it? 

If you don't like the subject, just move along and don't post here. There's plenty of other threads on TPU to vent your opinion on.


----------



## garyinhere (Mar 28, 2011)

qubit said:


> You appear to be here just to troll my thread and get it closed down. That's really not very nice, now is it?
> 
> If you don't like the subject, just move along and don't post here. There's plenty of other threads on TPU to vent your opinion on.



you assume to much... the subject is fine and thanks for giving a heads up, but you stated you don't want to discuss it? So how many times can you say the same thing, it is illegal in the UK and that it is not fair? IMO the next and only post should be what steam tells you to do and by the looks of it they will say if you don't like it don't use it



qubit said:


> This isn't the place to discuss the rights and wrongs of DRM



I mean you made your point and have no questions, you filed actions so what is the point of this?


----------



## qubit (Mar 28, 2011)

garyinhere said:


> you assume to much... the subject is fine and thanks for giving a heads up, but you stated you don't want to discuss it? So how many times can you say the same thing, it is illegal in the UK and that it is not fair? IMO the next and only post should be what steam tells you to do and by the looks of it they will say if you don't like it don't use it



Where did I say I don't want to discuss it? And you're welcome on the heads up. 

It's a no-brainer that Valve* screwed up over this , so I'm surprised that there are so many people coming on here with a "tough shit" attitude to this. I guess that's why the thread keeps rumbling on in a negative tone.

*I kept saying "Steam" before didn't I? lol


----------



## ShiBDiB (Mar 28, 2011)

This thread is pointless.. theirs a DRM that 99.9% of people wont even notice and the only reason to bitch is for epeen glory. 

You didnt read the long ass EULA just like everyone else.. and just like everyone else this wont effect your gameplaying experience.. now stfu and play your game.


----------



## garyinhere (Mar 28, 2011)

qubit said:


> Where did I say I don't want to discuss it? And you're welcome on the heads up.
> 
> It's a no-brainer that Valve* screwed up over this , so I'm surprised that there are so many people coming on here with a "tough shit" attitude to this. I guess that's why the thread keeps rumbling on in a negative tone.
> 
> *I kept saying "Steam" before didn't I? lol



the tough sh*t attitude probably comes from failure to read the initial agreement, which like it or not IS on you. They are long and boring on purpose to cover the sellers butt and hand you yours when you make a claim


----------



## qubit (Mar 28, 2011)

ShiBDiB said:


> This thread is pointless.. theirs a DRM that 99.9% of people wont even notice and the only reason to bitch is for epeen glory.
> 
> You didnt read the long ass EULA just like everyone else.. and just like everyone else this wont effect your gameplaying experience.. now stfu and play your game.



Another post that's out of line. :shadedshu Read and understand what I've said and you won't be making such a silly and unpleasant post. I will not stfu to please you, ok?



garyinhere said:


> the tough sh*t attitude probably comes from failure to read the initial agreement, which like it or not IS on you. They are long and boring on purpose to cover the sellers butt and hand you yours when you make a claim



They can't go above the law though and I believe this tries to.


----------



## ShiBDiB (Mar 28, 2011)

qubit said:


> They can't go above the law though and I believe this tries to.



but why do you care... this affects no1 besides the yarr pirates..


----------



## garyinhere (Mar 28, 2011)

qubit said:


> They can't go above the law though and I believe this tries to.



which is when a normal person would ask... How would doing this benifit Steam? NOT asking themselves, Is Steam out to get us? There best interest is happy customers not shady practices.

So anything more is really just a Rant isn't it?


----------



## Mr McC (Mar 28, 2011)

ShiBDiB said:


> but why do you care... this affects no1 besides the yarr pirates..
> http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gawker/2009/12/johnny-depp-pirates.jpg



Why don't you care? Do you honestly believe that the customer is at fault where the company fails to disclose DRM information, or are you intent on convincing us that such information is really of no interest or use to the customer. Incidentally. contrary to what you have stated, DRM affects everybody except the pirates.



garyinhere said:


> which is when a normal person would ask... How would doing this benifit Steam? NOT asking themselves, Is Steam out to get us? There best interest is happy customers not shady practices.



Steam benefits by ensuring that customers who would be deterred by the DRM buy the game.


----------



## garyinhere (Mar 28, 2011)

Mr McC said:


> Why don't you care? Do you honestly believe that the customer is at fault where the company fails to disclose DRM information, or are you intent on convincing us that such information is really of no interest or use to the customer. Incidentally. contrary to what you have stated, DRM affects everybody except the pirates.



I think that a seller shouldn't have to hold your hand during a purchase and if something was missing that you are passionate about you shouldn't have bought it in the first place


----------



## scaminatrix (Mar 28, 2011)

Mr McC said:


> DRM affects everybody except the pirates.



Well said.
We certainly should be made aware of 3rd party DRM. It's our *right.*


----------



## Mr McC (Mar 28, 2011)

garyinhere said:


> I think that a seller shouldn't have to hold your hand during a purchase and if something was missing that you are passionate about you shouldn't have bought it in the first place



I think placing the onus of awareness on the customer where the company fails to disclose is ludicrous.


----------



## ShiBDiB (Mar 28, 2011)

scaminatrix said:


> Well said.
> We certainly should be made aware of 3rd party DRM. It's our *right.*



You are.. read the EULA.. 

/Thread


----------



## garyinhere (Mar 28, 2011)

scaminatrix said:


> We certainly should be made aware of 3rd party DRM. It's our *right.*


It's simple, don't make the purchase


Mr McC said:


> I think placing the onus of awareness on the customer where the company fails to disclose is ludicrous.


Are they out to get me too?

What negative effect does this have at all?


----------



## qubit (Mar 28, 2011)

Oh come on shib & gary.  My answer is pretty much what Mr McC said.


----------



## erocker (Mar 28, 2011)

qubit said:


> That's interesting. You know what I wonder?
> 
> If I remember correctly, the activation DRM for Assassin's Creed or its sequel was "removed" not by turning off the activation system, but by always allowing an activation. I wonder if that's what's happened here? If so, I don't consider it properly removed, because what happens when the activation servers are down or taken offline permanently, if say, the company goes bust?
> 
> It also makes you wonder about their motives to keep it running in this passive mode. Is it to collect stats perhaps? Is it so they can enforce it again at a moment's notice? Something else? Whichever, option it is, none of them will be consumer friendly.



It's not listed with EA, there is nothing on the Crysis 2 site that has any information on it at all. Why would you blame Steam for that? If you don't like Steam, there are other sources for games such as directly from the publisher, other online services, and of course the hard copy. I say this because you either have something out for steam, or are just blaming them for personal thread advertising. That being said, in regards with Crysis 2 and DRM, I personally don't care, it doesn't affect me. Firstly, I would never buy this game and secondly, if I did, there would be ways around this DRM if I even ever would run into an issue with it. Which I would not.


----------



## garyinhere (Mar 28, 2011)

qubit said:


> Oh come on shib & gary.  My answer is pretty much what Mr McC said.



The answer to what? You don't have a question, you gave us a heads up and a rant



erocker said:


> Firstly, I would never buy this game


Most didn't but still have it


----------



## qubit (Mar 28, 2011)

erocker said:


> It's not listed with EA. Why would you blame Steam for that? If you don't like Steam, there are other sources for games such as directly from the publisher, other online services, and of course the hard copy. I say this because you either have something out for steam, or are just blaming them for personal thread advertising. That being said, in regards with Crysis 2 and DRM, I personally don't care, it doesn't affect me. Firstly, I would never buy this game and secondly, if I did, there would be ways around this DRM if I even ever would run into an issue with it. Which I would not.



I don't see what's so hard to understand here. Valve are the seller and therefore it's their fault for not disclosing it under UK law. It's nothing to do with whether I like them or not. The imposition of DRM on the customer is a significant product issue they must consider when buying. I've been bitten by this, since I was mislead by their store page, so I posted about this to warn others and post an update when I hear from Valve. Unfortunately, some people are really not being very nice to me about this, which is making the thread somewhat less pleasant. :shadedshu

The only DRM I find acceptable is the Steam DRM, therefore being mislead into purchasing a third party one is a big deal to me and I'm gonna get that refund if I can. If Valve become difficult I'll try a chargeback on the credit card.

Think about this in a general sense: every time a company "makes a mistake" it's always in their favour, isn't it? Obviously makes them more profit, doesn't it?

EDIT: It may not be on the EA website, but I think one would have be a bit naive to think they didn't know about it?



garyinhere said:


> The answer to what? You don't have a question, you gave us a heads up and a rant



I didn't rant.


----------



## Mr McC (Mar 28, 2011)

I'm bowing out of this thread, but I find it hard to believe that so many people are criticising quibit for drawing this to our attention. It is not a question of whether or not the DRM is fair, intrusive or functional, the customer should be informed about this beforehand. It appears that Valve omitted this information and there is absolutely no need for "out to get us" theories to explain why it would be in their interests to do so. 

quibit has not engaged in any ranting, nor has he fallen foul to needless provocation, he is simply providing an information service that should have been provided by Steam as the vendors in this case. If anybody feels that this information isn't important, they are entirely within their rights; however, some of us are interested in the existence of undisclosed DRM on Steam games.

Thanks quibit.


----------



## erocker (Mar 28, 2011)

qubit said:


> I don't see what's so hard to understand here. Valve are the seller and therefore it's their fault for not disclosing it under UK law. It's nothing to do with whether I like them or not. The imposition of DRM on the customer is a significant product issue they must consider when buying. I've been bitten by this, since I was mislead by their store page, so I posted about this to warn others and post an update when I hear from Valve. Unfortunately, some people are really not being very nice to me about this, which is making the thread somewhat less pleasant. :shadedshu
> 
> The only DRM I find acceptable is the Steam DRM, therefore being mislead into purchasing a third party one is a big deal to me and I'm gonna get that refund if I can. If Valve become difficult I'll try a chargeback on the credit card.
> 
> Think about this in a general sense: every time a company "makes a mistake" it's always in their favour, isn't it? Obviously makes them more profit, doesn't it?



From what I see, they didn't know. EA doesn't list it anywhere, how would Steam know? Do you have any kind of proof where Steam would know these details and if or if not they were given to them?


----------



## Mr McC (Mar 28, 2011)

erocker said:


> From what I see, they didn't know. EA doesn't list it anywhere, how would Steam know? Do you have any kind of proof where Steam would know these details if or if not they were given to them?



As the vendor, ignorance probably would not free them of the responsibility to inform the customer of exactly what they are purchasing, I don't think the fact that they were unaware of what they were selling would hold much water in a court. Valve may consider that if they enforced a "no third-party DRM" approach, these situations would never arise.


----------



## garyinhere (Mar 28, 2011)

qubit said:


> I don't see what's so hard to understand here. Valve are the seller and therefore it's their fault for not disclosing it under UK law. It's nothing to do with whether I like them or not. The imposition of DRM on the customer is a significant product issue they must consider when buying. I've been bitten by this, since I was mislead by their store page, so I posted about this to warn others and post an update when I hear from Valve. Unfortunately, some people are really not being very nice to me about this, which is making the thread somewhat less pleasant. :shadedshu
> 
> The only DRM I find acceptable is the Steam DRM, therefore being mislead into purchasing a third party one is a big deal to me and I'm gonna get that refund if I can. If Valve become difficult I'll try a chargeback on the credit card.
> 
> ...





A rant is a speech or text that does not present a calm argument; rather, it is typically an enthusiastic speech or talk or lecture on an idea, a person or an institution. Compare with a dialectic. Rants can be based on partial fact or may be entirely factual.

^^rant^^
You stated the problem, you failed to read your user agreement, you are passionate about DRM's but not enough to see if they are on the games you buy...You have no question or problem anyone can help you with (which is what these forums are for) You took the steps to try to get reimbursed.  You sir are ranting


----------



## qubit (Mar 28, 2011)

erocker said:


> From what I see, they didn't know. EA doesn't list it anywhere, how would Steam know? Do you have any kind of proof where Steam would know these details if or if not they were given to them?



I just made a little edit while you were posting, to say one has to be naive to think that Valve didn't know about this.

Look, the two companies work together to put the products out on Steam. Things such as playtesting, general product vetting (does it abide by Valve's Steam store policies) and general knowledge about each other's activities. It would be amazing if Valve _didn't_ know about this.

And thanks to Mr McC for your help. Much appreciated.


----------



## erocker (Mar 28, 2011)

Mr McC said:


> As the vendor, ignorance probably would not free them of the responsibility to inform the customer of exactly what they are purchasing, I don't think the fact that they were unaware of what they were selling would hold much water in a court. Valve may consider that if they enforced a "no third-party DRM" approach, these situations would never arise.



Ignorance? I would assume they get some official papers for a games release that they are to sell, they read them over and make a decision to sell it. Now, if they had information claiming this games used DRM and sold it without devulging this info, you would be correct. However, we don't know if they have this information and you are jumping to assumptions. Like I stated, from what I see EA has no information on this either, which leads me to believe that Steam didn't get this information thus, the logical thing to do would be to look at EA.


----------



## qubit (Mar 28, 2011)

You know E, this probably boils down to an admin cockup at Valve, lol.


----------



## garyinhere (Mar 28, 2011)

What's a cockup?


----------



## erocker (Mar 28, 2011)

qubit said:


> You know E, this probably boils down to an admin cockup at Valve, lol.



That doesn't answer why EA doesn't have this information posted.


----------



## qubit (Mar 28, 2011)

garyinhere said:


> What's a cockup?



It means a mistake. Particularly an incompetent one that should have been seen.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 28, 2011)

if you format without de-authorising, doesnt that eat up one of your activations for good?


----------



## qubit (Mar 28, 2011)

erocker said:


> That doesn't answer why EA doesn't have this information posted.



Well, how do I know why? It still doesn't take away from earlier post 55 that they work together and this would be generally known at Valve.


----------



## garyinhere (Mar 28, 2011)

who would need 5 active copies at once? and for what purpose maybe they don't want you to have a cockup


----------



## qubit (Mar 28, 2011)

Mussels said:


> if you format without de-authorising, doesnt that eat up one of your activations for good?



I believe it might and you then have to go begging to EA if you run out.

Also, if an earlier poster is right and the counter resets monthly, then that alleviates the problem somewhat.


----------



## garyinhere (Mar 28, 2011)

qubit said:


> I believe it might and you then have to go begging to EA if you run out.
> 
> Also, if an earlier poster is right and the counter resets monthly, then that alleviates the problem somewhat.



so in one year you could have a valid copy on 60 machines?


----------



## erocker (Mar 28, 2011)

qubit said:


> Well, how do I know why? It still doesn't take away from earlier post 55 that they work together and this would be generally known at valve.



Well.. honestly I think you're just making assumptions. It seems like an EA problem to me, not Steam and that's my opinion.

Cheers.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Mar 28, 2011)

Man oh man.  Before this thread hits six buckets of shit I want to specify a few things:

I do not buy games with invasive DRM.  I don't watch Glenn Beck/O'Riley, and I buy produce from a farmers market.  I vote with my ducats. 

Perhaps the DRM in Crysis 2 is not invasive.  Nevertheless EA lost any chance I would buy Crysis 2 by intentionally hiding the DRM--  And no, that doesn't mean I'm going to pirate it!  This has nothing to do with piracy, so get that bug out of your arse.  Pirates are going to have a field day with this one no matter what I do.

EULAs can require you to pee while doing jumping jacks, but if it contradicts another law then it's void.  Besides that, customer service is paramount.  Steam undoubtedly earns most of it's money from loyal customers, not from acquiring hordes of new customers and throwing the old ones to the curb.

Finally, this DOES NOT effect piracy except that it may piss off some of the prospective purchasers who are predisposed to pirating.  If each copy of this game was assigned a bloody FBI agent to personally watch it from here to eternity the game would still be pirated (in droves).  So bugger off!

Ever heard of lemon laws?  Not everyone is going to cut open the bloody gas tank to find out it has sand in it.  Likewise I can't install Crysis 2 in a VM to check for hidden DRM unless I buy a copy of it.

Furthermore I can count to potato.


----------



## qubit (Mar 28, 2011)

garyinhere said:


> so in one year you could have a valid copy on 60 machines?



With the standard Steam DRM, you can legitimately have an _unlimited_ number of copies on an unlimited number of PCs. However, Steam prevents you from using more than one copy at a time. It also prevents you from selling a game that you no longer want.


----------



## garyinhere (Mar 28, 2011)

qubit said:


> With the standard Steam DRM, you can legitimately have an _unlimited_ number of copies on an unlimited number of PCs. However, Steam prevents you from using more than one copy at a time. It also prevents you from selling a game that you no longer want.



i never said to run all copies at once? Which brings up a point what need is there for more than 5 computers activated at once?


----------



## TRIPTEX_CAN (Mar 28, 2011)

Steam should be held accountible for the products they sell and complete disclosure of features within said product. 

"They didnt know it was in there" is a garbage excuse IMO. 

Still this is just another example of EA/Cryteks contempt for the PC platform. Like you would see a restricion on the x360 saying "Sorry you can't put this disk in your system anymore please contact EA and waste your time reactivating a product you own"


----------



## qubit (Mar 28, 2011)

garyinhere said:


> *i never said to run all copies at once?* Which brings up a point what need is there for more than 5 computers activated at once?



I was just explaining the basic way Steam works.

Also, there could easily be a need for more than 5 computers at once, regardless of whether we can think of the reasons off the top of our heads.

As a fellow PC enthusisast, you'll understand how the hardware changes over time, with components being swapped out, gone faulty or Windows reinstalls. Each one of these can count as a "new PC" in the eyes of the DRM.

So god forgive the poor schmuck who's had a "new PC" due to hard disc failure or because they simply forgot to deactivate the damn thing, because you know, they're _human_.

How reasonable do you really think it is to impose this shit on them? Especially in the light that there could potentially be several products on that PC all with product activation. What a headache to manage! 

Nah, I see a product with this DRM and I boycott it. End of. Windows and Office are the exception due to their market dominance.



TRIPTEX_CAN said:


> Steam should be held accountible for the products they sell and complete disclosure of features within said product.
> 
> "They didnt know it was in there" is a garbage excuse IMO.
> 
> Still this is just another example of EA/Cryteks contempt for the PC platform. Like you would see a restricion on the x360 saying "Sorry you can't put this disk in your system anymore please contact EA and waste your time reactivating a product you own"



Of course, duh! Well said.


----------



## erocker (Mar 28, 2011)

Have you filed a support ticket? I'm curious to what they have to say.


----------



## qubit (Mar 28, 2011)

erocker said:


> Have you filed a support ticket? I'm curious to what they have to say.



Oh yes, you betcha! I did earlier today and I did say that in my OP. 

You can also be sure that I'll update you guys when I hear back.


----------



## garyinhere (Mar 28, 2011)

qubit said:


> I was just explaining the basic way Steam works.
> 
> Also, there could easily be a need for more than 5 computers at once, regardless of whether we can think of the reasons off the top of our heads.
> 
> ...



I don't understand? You are adamant about not buying drm games but you have exceptions, and you bought one an now you want your money back because you failed to research your buy in the first place? Then you give a heads up but continue with how unfair it is when you will find out what steam says about it later. You don't want to discuss DRM so again what is the point of this thread that I am failing to see here?

BTW I only game on consoles due to lack of PC support and poor graphics. I've never had a torn screen!


----------



## qubit (Mar 28, 2011)

garyinhere said:


> I don't understand? You are adamant about not buying drm games but you have exceptions, and you bought one an now you want your money back because you failed to research your buy in the first place? Then you give a heads up but continue with how unfair it is when you will find out what steam says about it later. You don't want to discuss DRM so again what is the point of this thread that I am failing to see here?
> 
> BTW I only game on consoles due to lack of PC support and poor graphics. I've never had a torn screen!



You seem really confused. Let me set a few things straight:

- I don't buy anything with DRM in it, except Windows, Office and Steam
- I did "research" Crysis 2 by looking carefully at the store page, to check that third party DRM was not present. I shouldn't have to do any more than that. The responsibility is with Valve to disclose it, as I've said several times over now. Third party DRM _was_ present however, which is the reason for my thread, so that other people are warned before they fall into this trap
- You're still saying I don't want to discuss DRM. How so? I've been discussing it the whole time. You even asked me a question about installing the game on 60 PCs and I gave you a clear and factual answer

Yeah, you wouldn't see animation tearing on a console, because vsync is always on, as it should be.


----------



## garyinhere (Mar 28, 2011)

qubit said:


> You seem really confused. Let me set a few things straight:
> 
> - I don't buy anything with DRM in it, except Windows, Office and Steam
> - I did "research" Crysis 2 by looking carefully at the store page, to check that third party DRM was not present. I shouldn't have to do any more than that. The responsibility is with Valve to disclose it, as I've said several times over now. Third party DRM _was_ present however, which is the reason for my thread, so that other people are warned before they fall into this trap
> ...



-So you bought a game from Steam knowing Steam has DRM
-what trap?


----------



## qubit (Mar 28, 2011)

garyinhere said:


> -So you bought a game from Steam knowing Steam has DRM
> -what trap?



I've been really, really clear. Are you really asking this question...


----------



## garyinhere (Mar 28, 2011)

qubit said:


> I've been really, really clear. Are you really asking this question...



yes


----------



## qubit (Mar 28, 2011)

garyinhere said:


> yes



It's beyond dumb, as I've answered everything already, in exhaustive bloody detail.

I don't think you're this stupid, so I reckon you're just trying to wind me up. Yes?


----------



## garyinhere (Mar 28, 2011)

qubit said:


> It's beyond dumb, as I've answered everything already, in exhaustive bloody detail.
> 
> I don't think you're this stupid, so I reckon you're just trying to wind me up. Yes?



no


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Mar 28, 2011)

gary gary gary..... carry on i just felt like saying that.

eitherway crysis 2 isnt  a game id buy, and while i dislike DRM greatly, steam ea dosent matter whos fault it is and heres why no matter what laws are in effect around the globe, if anyone really wanted to take it up with them the blame will pass back and forth

good example, nvidia locking AA to there cards in Batman AA, the code used for it was claimed as IP from nvidia they said it belonged to the studio who passed it back to nvidia, same applies here, its your fault your the seller no its your fault you didnt tell me, the stupidity of it is like a school yard argument, no one wins everyones pissed off and nothing changes, the game has DRM, love it hate it you cant change it, steam if your nice will probably give you a refund they've been nice enough to do that for me a couple times in the past. Just google DRM + the game your looking at before you buy,

heres a good example anyone running Fallout 3 retail version? turn off auto play and install the game manually from the setup file. it will bypass the DRM install thus Fallout 3 installs with No DRM, granted only works on the first batch of retail versions but info of that nature are well, often good to know. 

your a decent enough sort Qubit just dont fall into the stupid majority that cant google something, not trolling man but i really really dont want to have to google it for you, i mean i can but it wont be because im trying to be nice


----------



## garyinhere (Mar 28, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> gary gary gary..... carry on i just felt like saying that.



I don't understand how it was a trap? Or why DRM is a deal breaker?


----------



## qubit (Mar 28, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> your a decent enough sort Qubit just dont fall into the stupid majority that cant google something, not trolling man but i really really dont want to have to google it for you, i mean i can but it wont be because im trying to be nice



Yeah, I'm great, I know.  And of course I can google. I actually trusted the Steam store page to give me accurate info, like it always has before . Shocking, isn't it?

And you don't have to "try" to be nice with me.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 28, 2011)

garyinhere said:


> i never said to run all copies at once? Which brings up a point what need is there for more than 5 computers activated at once?



its not 5 computers, its 5 installs. as i said above, if you format without uninstalling the game (and who uninstalls all their games before formatting? seriously?) then that activation is GONE. it cannot come back.



garyinhere said:


> I
> BTW I only game on consoles due to lack of PC support and poor graphics. I've never had a torn screen!



maybe because the tearing is a symptom of FPS going above your refresh rate, and consoels struggle for 30FPS, let alone the 60 that HDTV's support? stop dragging this thread off topic, its not about you and your consoles.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Mar 28, 2011)

i know i was being a blunt asshole, im a pessimist i dont trust anything till i see multiple sources on it i dont trust steams store page i dont trust developers pages, but add both together plus forums like TPU i can get all the info i need for a decision never take 1 source and be content with it otherwise you end up up shit creek without a paddle.


----------



## garyinhere (Mar 28, 2011)

qubit said:


> Look, 3rd party DRM _not_ disclosed on store page: http://store.steampowered.com/app/99830/
> 
> Doesn't say, does it?
> 
> ...


this is the post i was referring to... 5 machines i believe it says, Wasn't talking about your post


Mussels said:


> its not 5 computers, its 5 installs. as i said above, if you format without uninstalling the game (and who uninstalls all their games before formatting? seriously?) then that activation is GONE. it cannot come back.
> 
> 
> 
> maybe because the tearing is a symptom of FPS going above your refresh rate, and consoels struggle for 30FPS, let alone the 60 that HDTV's support? stop dragging this thread off topic, its not about you and your consoles.



I know how graphics work


----------



## qubit (Mar 28, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> *i know i was being a blunt asshole*, im a pessimist i dont trust anything till i see multiple sources on it i dont trust steams store page i dont trust developers pages, but add both together plus forums like TPU i can get all the info i need for a decision never take 1 source and be content with it otherwise you end up up shit creek without a paddle.



Awesome!  I don't mind how big and blunt an "asshole" you are, you're intentions were honourable, which is what matters. 

And ya know what? After my unpleasant experience with Crysis 2, I'll be taking that pessimistic leaf out of your book.


----------



## L|NK|N (Mar 28, 2011)

I have a solution to this pesky DRM.


----------



## alexsubri (Mar 28, 2011)

Don't blame EA for the DRM's , Blame Al Gore for Global Warming


----------



## HTC (Mar 28, 2011)

garyinhere said:


> I don't understand how it was a trap? Or why DRM is a deal breaker?



The way i understand it is:

- dude want's game but *only if it is DRM free or if it's DRM is Steam's DRM*
- dude checks and there's no mention of having DRM anywhere @ the store (Steam)
- dude buys game
- turns out game did have DRM and it's a 3rd party DRM
- if dude had known prior to buying, dude wouldn't have bought the game in the 1st place

IMO, dude's right to be pissed. If i were in his shoes, i would be pissed too.


----------



## garyinhere (Mar 28, 2011)

HTC said:


> The way i understand it is:
> 
> - dude want's game but *only if it is DRM free or if it's DRM is Steam's DRM*
> - dude checks and there's no mention of having DRM anywhere @ the store (Steam)
> ...



I am under the impression that all games have some form of DRM, and I don't think the OP will have any luck getting any kind of money back due to clicking the initial agreement and subsequent agreements tied to the game. Ignorance is not an excuse and the OP has even stated that towards Steam so how would it not apply to himself?


----------



## qubit (Mar 28, 2011)

HTC said:


> The way i understand it is:
> 
> - dude want's game but *only if it is DRM free or if it's DRM is Steam's DRM*
> - dude checks and there's no mention of having DRM anywhere @ the store (Steam)
> ...



Ahmen, brother!


----------



## HTC (Mar 28, 2011)

qubit said:


> Ahmen, brother!


I understood correctly, it seems.



garyinhere said:


> I am under the impression that all games have some form of DRM, and I don't think the OP will have any luck getting any kind of money back due to clicking the initial agreement and subsequent agreements tied to the game. Ignorance is not an excuse and the OP has even stated that towards Steam so how would it not apply to himself?



The issue is not that it has DRM but that *it has 3rd party DRM and that such isn't mentioned anywhere @ the store*.


----------



## overclocker (Mar 28, 2011)

greyinhere seems to be trolling to me. Why are you even posting here? have you helped anyone learn anything here?


----------



## lilkiduno (Mar 28, 2011)

The OP states that because of UK law Steam, the reseller or any other reseller, must inform there customers that this this game contains DRM. And everyone jumps to the conculsion of piracy... or that steam could have not been aware of the contains of the game it was selling.

If one buys a car from a dealership and the car has something 3rd party that is against the law, even if the dealership is unaware of the 3rd party object, they will be held liable. now I know I am compairing apples to oranges. but the moral of the compairson is that steam sold him his copy and steam if even unaware of the 3rd party DRM is and should be held liable.

EDIT:
Also the DRM would not have made a difference in piracy anyways seeing as how Crysis 2 was up for grabs off torrents a month before release...


----------



## garyinhere (Mar 28, 2011)

overclocker said:


> greyinhere seems to be trolling to me. Why are you even posting here? have you helped anyone learn anything here?





> Games Developed and Supported by Third-party Developers/Publishers
> 
> *You will need to contact the game's developer/publisher directly for support if you encounter any errors or unexpected behavior which is not related to Steam authentication or CD Keys after the game has loaded.* If you are unable to locate third-party support, please contact Steam Support for further information. Some examples include:
> 
> ...



I believe this eliminates them (steam) from the OP's Claim


----------



## overclocker (Mar 28, 2011)

Ok now I have learned something from you


----------



## garyinhere (Mar 28, 2011)

overclocker said:


> Ok now I have learned something from you



I needed to know exactly what the problem was/is before I offer advise. It would be irresponsible to do otherwise


----------



## qubit (Mar 28, 2011)

HTC said:


> I understood correctly, it seems.
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is not that it has DRM but that *it has 3rd party DRM and that such isn't mentioned anywhere @ the store*.



Exactly, thank you. 



overclocker said:


> greyinhere seems to be trolling to me. Why are you even posting here? have you helped anyone learn anything here?



Yeah, it certainly looked that way to me from the off. The last few posts to me before I started ignoring him were very obvious trolls.

I see he's still at it even now, by all the time "not understanding" something really simple and obvious. 



lilkiduno said:


> The OP states that because of UK law Steam, the reseller or any other reseller, must inform there customers that this this game contains DRM. And everyone jumps to the conculsion of piracy... or that steam could have not been aware of the contains of the game it was selling.
> 
> If one buys a car from a dealership and the car has something 3rd party that is against the law, even if the dealership is unaware of the 3rd party object, they will be held liable. now I know I am compairing apples to oranges. but the moral of the compairson is that steam sold him his copy and steam if even unaware of the 3rd party DRM is and should be held liable.
> 
> ...



Yup, you're quite right about where the responsibility lies. Also, all the straw man arguments about why I'm supposedly not due a refund and Valve are protected by their EULA come out. Annoying, isn't it?


----------



## garyinhere (Mar 28, 2011)

umm No name calling please, Your answer is in post 96
Link to the page: https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=5806-YFGL-3427
Link to page stating the crysis series is NOT a steam game but a third party game: https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=8977-TULC-5791

I really don't know what more you could want?


----------



## Mussels (Mar 28, 2011)

garyinhere said:


> umm No name calling please, Your answer is in post 96
> Link to the page: https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=5806-YFGL-3427
> Link to page stating the crysis series is NOT a steam game but a third party game: https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=8977-TULC-5791
> 
> I really don't know what more you could want?



oh come on, he's said it dozens of times already. try reading and stop trolling.


previous crysis titles stated they came with DRM.







Crysis 2 does not







its clear to assume that someone could interpret that as crysis 2 not having 3rd party DRM. its false advertising by omission. Before you have a rant at that, look at other examples: games that require internet to play state it, and companies got in huge trouble in the past for not stating so.


----------



## qubit (Mar 28, 2011)

Mussels said:


> *oh come on, he's said it dozens of times already. try reading and stop trolling.*
> 
> 
> previous crysis titles stated they came with DRM.
> ...



Thank you! I've been ignoring him since he gave me that No one word answer. It was dead obvious by that point. 

Exactly, other companies got into trouble on both sides of the pond. It's false advertising to omit stuff like this.


----------



## qubit (Apr 7, 2011)

Steam store page now finally shows "3rd-party DRM: TAGES Solidshield ". Of course, I've heard nothing about my refund. 

I'm not sure how to go about chasing Valve about my query - can someone please tell me? I can add a note to the open ticket, but it doesn't look like it triggers an alert with them.


----------



## garyinhere (Apr 7, 2011)

Do you have a screen shot of when they didn't have it listed?
I'd jst ask them for store credit do to their user agreements otherwise they will be likely to tell you to jst not use the account.


----------



## qubit (Apr 7, 2011)

Good point - but yes, courtesy of Mussel's post above. 

EDIT: A credit sounds reasonable, I want to get Portal 2 after all. I'll add a note to the ticket and see if they notice.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Apr 7, 2011)

Well just to be clear its not false advertising. They didn't advertise anything thats not in there. That would be false advertising. 

They chose not to advertise something that is. I'm sure there are tons of things in the game they do not advertise. 

I'm not saying its right or wrong. I just don't see the big deal.


----------



## Muhad (Apr 7, 2011)

Stamp out Steam ... it's PC game cancer!


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Apr 7, 2011)

Muhad said:


> Stamp out Steam ... it's PC game cancer!



Trollololol


----------



## Mr McC (Apr 7, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Well just to be clear its not false advertising. They didn't advertise anything thats not in there. That would be false advertising.
> 
> They chose not to advertise something that is. I'm sure there are tons of things in the game they do not advertise.
> 
> I'm not saying its right or wrong. I just don't see the big deal.



The big deal is simply that we should never become blasé about the inclusion of unannounced DRM, that is a serious issue, even if it does not appear to be a serious issue in this particular case. DRM often dictates my puchasing decisions, is that foolish in the sense of needless self deprivation? I don't know, but there are enough alternatives out there to enable me to feel no loss. I wouln't puchase Crysis 2 in any event, but I am eager to hear Valve's reply with regaards to this clearly deliberate omission, as a consumer and a Steam user.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Apr 7, 2011)

Mr McC said:


> The big deal is simply that we should never become blasé about the inclusion of unannounced DRM, that is a serious issue, even if it does not appear to be a serious issue in this particular case. DRM often dictates my puchasing decisions, is that foolish in the sense of needless self deprivation? I don't know, but there are enough alternatives out there to enable me to feel no loss. I wouln't puchase Crysis 2 in any event, but I am eager to hear Valve's reply with regaards to this clearly deliberate omission, as a consumer and a Steam user.



What does it matter if it has DRM or not? I mean Steam itself is a DRM and yet you bought the game through a DRM. Why does more DRM make a difference?


----------



## DannibusX (Apr 7, 2011)

Portal 2 is gonna have DRM.


----------



## Mr McC (Apr 7, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> What does it matter if it has DRM or not? I mean Steam itself is a DRM and yet you bought the game through a DRM. Why does more DRM make a difference?



I was aware of what Steam entailed before I decided to use the platform, Crysis 2 DRM does not afford us that privilege. That difference is important to me.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Apr 7, 2011)

Mr McC said:


> I was aware of what Steam entailed before I decided to use the platform, Crysis 2 DRM does not afford us that privilege. That difference is important to me.



You don't know every detail of every game you buy anyway. Why is this any different?


----------



## qubit (Apr 7, 2011)

DannibusX said:


> Portal 2 is gonna have DRM.



It has Steam only DRM, which is acceptable to myself and Mr McC.


----------



## Mr McC (Apr 8, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> You don't know every detail of every game you buy anyway. Why is this any different?



I don't know every detail about gonorrhea either, but that does not prevent either of us from surmising that it's a bad thing. I am assuming that you, like me, are not privy to its inner secrets.

In this case, I feel that the failure to disclose is unnacceptable, given that DRM and the type of DRM is a decisive issue for many consumers. Whether or not that concern is misplaced is an entirely different debate and my own reasons for disliking this practice and its future implications are largely irrelevant. It is sufficient to say that what you seem to see as a failure to provide a courtesy, to my mind is a failure to abide by a corporate obligation, which is something that should always cause at least minor concern. That said, you are free to feel and advocate complete indifference.


----------



## qubit (Apr 8, 2011)

Mr McC said:


> I don't know every detail about gonorrhea either, but that does not prevent either of us from surmising that it's a bad thing.



 I'm gonna frame that.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Apr 8, 2011)

Mr McC said:


> I don't know every detail about gonorrhea either, but that does not prevent either of us from surmising that it's a bad thing. I am assuming that you, like me, are not privy to its inner secrets.
> 
> In this case, I feel that the failure to disclose is unnacceptable, given that DRM and the type of DRM is a decisive issue for many consumers. Whether or not that concern is misplaced is an entirely different debate and my own reasons for disliking this practice and its future implications are largely irrelevant. It is sufficient to say that what you seem to see as a failure to provide a courtesy, to my mind is a failure to abide by a corporate obligation, which is something that should always cause at least minor concern. That said, you are free to feel and advocate complete indifference.



You don't buy types gonorrhea for entertainment ether. Your analogy is fail. There was no ungenuine effort to sell you the game. You should be buying a game because you want to play it. Not because it doesn't have a DRM which makes no difference in the gameplay. Unless you are going to use the game unintended by the makers.


----------



## erocker (Apr 8, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> You don't buy types gonorrhea for entertainment ether. Your analogy is fail. There was no ungenuine effort to sell you the game. You should be buying a game because you want to play it. Not because it doesn't have a DRM which makes no difference in the gameplay. Unless you are going to use the game unintended by the makers.



I guess if it doesn't bother you, fine. It does bother some people and you obviously aren't going to change their minds. This thread isn't for the argument you're bringing to the thread.


----------



## qubit (Apr 8, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> You don't buy types gonorrhea for entertainment ether. Your analogy is fail. There was no ungenuine effort to sell you the game. You should be buying a game because you want to play it. Not because it doesn't have a DRM which makes no difference in the gameplay. Unless you are going to use the game unintended by the makers.



erocker's right. If you want to discuss the pros and cons of DRM in software, start another thread. That would be the cool thing to do.


----------



## Mr McC (Apr 8, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> You don't buy types gonorrhea for entertainment ether. Your analogy is fail.



- The whore is good (the game)
- The gonorrhea is bad (the DRM)
- You have no prewarning (bad)
-You claim a lack of knowledge of all details prohibits a negative view
- I illustrate that we both have a negative opinion of gonorrhea, without full knowledge or experience of gonorrhea


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Apr 8, 2011)

I'm not. I'm trying to understand the reasoning to "WATCH OUT".



Mr McC said:


> - The whore is good (the game)
> - The gonorrhea is bad (the DRM)
> - You have no prewarning (bad)
> -You claim a lack of knowledge of all details prohibits a negative view
> - I illustrate that we both have a negative opinion of gonorrhea, without full knowledge or experience of gonorrhea



Bang the hooker. Run the risks.


----------



## Breathless (Apr 8, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> You don't buy types gonorrhea for entertainment ether.



Speak for yourself!


----------



## overclocker (Apr 8, 2011)

Weird thread.


----------



## RejZoR (Apr 8, 2011)

It's stupid that games on Steam require 2 protections. First one is the steam and then the one that comes with retail boxed game. Nonsense. All games on Steam should be stripped and all the extra protections other than Steam completelly removed.


----------



## RoutedScripter (Apr 8, 2011)

Where does the install limit save , DRM servers ? , what about if you disconnect internet, try installing/ uninstalling with unplugged cable

as for other games , i doubt there was drm server , it had to be saved on DVD it self , i don't know for digital games,  i never bought them.

When installing a retail game , disabling DVD write function could prove if this is the case.


----------



## zithe (Apr 8, 2011)

RejZoR said:


> It's stupid that games on Steam require 2 protections. First one is the steam and then the one that comes with retail boxed game. Nonsense. All games on Steam should be stripped and all the extra protections other than Steam completelly removed.



I don't think it requires it. They might have just let it go since you can't play a game attached to a steam account on more than one pc at a time (for the most part). Why bother removing it?


----------



## qubit (Apr 8, 2011)

RuskiSnajper said:


> Where does the install limit save , DRM servers ? , what about if you disconnect internet, try installing/ uninstalling with unplugged cable
> 
> as for other games , i doubt there was drm server , it had to be saved on DVD it self , i don't know for digital games,  i never bought them.
> 
> When installing a retail game , disabling DVD write function could prove if this is the case.



Yes, the game authenticates with EA's DRM servers. If they play up for whatever reason, you can't play your game and you have to contact EA. Good luck with that.


----------



## 95Viper (Apr 8, 2011)

RuskiSnajper said:


> Where does the install limit save , DRM servers ? , what about if you disconnect internet, try installing/ uninstalling with unplugged cable
> 
> as for other games , i doubt there was drm server , it had to be saved on DVD it self , i don't know for digital games,  i never bought them.
> 
> When installing a retail game , disabling DVD write function could prove if this is the case.



RS, I have never purchased a retail game or app CD/DVD that was write enabled, where did you get them?
Not saying it is not possible, but I have not seen it.

The DRM  code is usually saved between the DRM servers and your HDD(SSD) for authentication.
______________________________________________________________________________
Back on topic...

I understand where you are coming from Qubit.
Some people will argue with you until the cows come home, just for the sake of trying to get under your skin or they cannot see the forest for the trees.

And, IMO, I don't like DRM or the way pc gaming has headed in the last few years.  But, that is a discussion for another time.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 8, 2011)

RuskiSnajper said:


> Where does the install limit save , DRM servers ? , what about if you disconnect internet, try installing/ uninstalling with unplugged cable
> 
> as for other games , i doubt there was drm server , it had to be saved on DVD it self , i don't know for digital games,  i never bought them.
> 
> When installing a retail game , disabling DVD write function could prove if this is the case.



it wont let you install offline, and if you uninstall offline then that activation is *lost* forever.


nothing at all is saved on the DVD, its all stored online in their servers. you cant install offline because of this.


----------



## RejZoR (Apr 8, 2011)

qubit said:


> Yes, the game authenticates with EA's DRM servers. If they play up for whatever reason, you can't play your game and you have to contact EA. Good luck with that.



My point exactly. On Steam you can re-install games as many times as you like and no one will bother you. With EA, you have 5 activations and if you either forget to deactivate before formating a PC or if it crashes, 1 activation after another are gone. And i don't think you want to bother with EA tech support...


----------



## qubit (Apr 8, 2011)

95Viper said:


> RS, I have never purchased a retail game or app CD/DVD that was write enabled, where did you get them?
> Not saying it is not possible, but I have not seen it.
> 
> The DRM  code is usually saved between the DRM servers and your HDD(SSD) for authentication.
> ...



Yeah, it's amazing how many times I've seen "What's the problem?" on here. The problems with DRM are a no-brainer, which is why I started this thread in the first place.

And to anyone that starts quoting this post and asking me "What's the problem?", no I'm not gonna get drawn into it here. If you really wanna talk about it, start another thread on TPU or GN and PM me a link to the thread.


----------



## Moose (Apr 8, 2011)

Have your heard back from Steam yet, because I think as long as they give you your money back, they should be forgiven for the mistake (which may have been EAs fault) there is no reason why they can't give you it back. You paid for something they didn't give you. However if they don't give you the money back then they are profiting (by having a game purchased which otherwise would not be) from their own retarded mistake and should be prosecuted.

On a sub note I actully really like steam but even so they are not above the law.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Apr 8, 2011)

Dirt 2 didn't say it came with Blue Ripple sound. Should I ask for my money back? Or what about all the games that have Physx or Havok and is not listed as such on Steam. Should I ask for my money back on those too?


----------



## Melvis (Apr 8, 2011)

DRM = Piracy, when will they ever learn?

Im interested to see what steam says also.


----------



## Moose (Apr 8, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Dirt 2 didn't say it came with Blue Ripple sound. Should I ask for my money back? Or what about all the games that have Physx or Havok and is not listed as such on Steam. Should I ask for my money back on those too?



There is no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to. Say if your system couldn't play blue ripple sound, or Physx lagged your system as you didn't have a physics card + was crutial to game play?

Anyway the law happens to state and I agree, that you need to tell the customer it has DRM so they have to! Even if the law stated that they had to spoil the ending if it was sad, *if they didn't and it was they would be breaking the law and you could have your money back.*


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Apr 8, 2011)

Moose said:


> There is no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to. Say if your system couldn't play blue ripple sound, or Physx lagged your system as you didn't have a physics card + was crutial to game play?
> 
> Anyway the law happens to state and I agree, that you need to tell the customer it has DRM so they have to! Even if the law stated that they had to spoil the ending if it was sad, *if they didn't and it was they would be breaking the law and you could have your money back.*



In your country. Not where Valve is based. Its a two way street. See everyone always bragged about how piracy is legal in their nation and a US based company had no grounds to pursue them. Now the tables are reversed. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. You can't come after a US company because it violates YOUR laws on the subject on piracy and piracy protection ether. 

You just got owned by Valve.


----------



## garyinhere (Apr 8, 2011)

RejZoR said:


> It's stupid that games on Steam require 2 protections. First one is the steam and then the one that comes with retail boxed game. Nonsense. All games on Steam should be stripped and all the extra protections other than Steam completelly removed.



That is over simplifying it a lot. Unless it is a valve game it is a third party and steam is merely distributing. For them to be able to strip down DRM from a third party would be like asking block buster to take the FBI warnings off video's.


----------



## Moose (Apr 8, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> In your country. Not where Valve is based. Its a two way street. See everyone always bragged about how piracy is legal in their nation and a US based company had no grounds to pursue them. Now the tables are reversed. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. You can't come after a US company because it violates YOUR laws on the subject on piracy and piracy protection ether.
> 
> You just got owned by Valve.



Actually I expect that you have no idea, tbh I'm not sure, I think they have to abide by UK law as they are selling in a seperate British store in pounds.

Also the chance of me ever being owned is amusing there are plenty of ways for me to get the game without DRM for free.


----------



## qubit (Apr 8, 2011)

Moose said:


> Have your heard back from Steam yet, because I think as long as they give you your money back, they should be forgiven for the mistake (which may have been EAs fault) there is no reason why they can't give you it back. You paid for something they didn't give you. However if they don't give you the money back then they are profiting (by having a game purchased which otherwise would not be) from their own retarded mistake and should be prosecuted.
> 
> On a sub note I actully really like steam but even so they are not above the law.



I've not heard back from them, which is why I'm pissed off. I'm sure I won't either. If I get nowhere, then I'll simply do a chargeback with the credit card company. But we're not at that stage yet. 



garyinhere said:


> That is over simplifying it a lot. Unless it is a valve game it is a third party and steam is merely distributing. For them to be able to strip down DRM from a third party would be like asking block buster to take the FBI warnings off video's.



But the game is being distributed under Steam's infrastructure, so surely it's subject to their terms of service? They could easily put in terms to prohibit any kind of third party DRM, especially as Steam is very popular now. I reckon that it suits their purpose somehow not to do this.


----------



## garyinhere (Apr 8, 2011)

qubit said:


> But the game is being distributed under Steam's infrastructure, so surely it's subject to their terms of service? They could easily put in terms to prohibit any kind of third party DRM, especially as Steam is very popular now. I reckon that it suits their purpose somehow not to do this.



Think cost and effect though... Hey can you make another version of this game without your version of DRM(Third party) so we could sell it with just our DRM... it just wouldn't add up



qubit said:


> I've not heard back from them, which is why I'm pissed off. I'm sure I won't either. If I get nowhere, then I'll simply do a chargeback with the credit card company. But we're not at that stage yet.


I'd be careful with this sense you wouldn't be giving a "product" back it could be considered theft of service.


----------



## Mr McC (Apr 8, 2011)

garyinhere said:


> Think cost and effect though... Hey can you make another version of this game without your version of DRM(Third party) so we could sell it with just our DRM... it just wouldn't add up



_Hey can you send us the Game before adding the DRM as we at Valve no longer allow the inclusion of third-party DRM if you wish to use our platform to sell your products. _

Perhaps that doesn't add up in certain minds; however, to me, it makes perfect sense, in fact, from a consumer's point of view, it would improve the service Steam offers.


----------



## garyinhere (Apr 8, 2011)

Mr McC said:


> _Hey can you send us the Game before adding the DRM as we at Valve no longer allow the inclusion of third-party DRM if you wish to use our platform to sell your products. _
> 
> Perhaps that doesn't add up in certain minds; however, to me, it makes perfect sense, in fact, from a consumer's point of view, it would improve the service Steam offers.



They do allow third-party DRM though. How long and tedious do you think the distribution contracts are in the first place and then you would want Steam to change it mid-season? Somebody's got to pay for those lawyers. DRM or not Steam is leading and does a great job. I've only seen a few issue's with anybody with steam so it's not like they are not trying to look out for us.


----------



## TRIPTEX_CAN (Apr 8, 2011)

If EA and crytek can't even get their mp keys sorted out to prevent pirates from playing against legitimately customers why would it be such a problem to remove drm on the steam version. Clearly they just have to clue Wtf they're doing and how to respect the pc platform.


----------



## Jstn7477 (Apr 8, 2011)

qubit said:


> I've not heard back from them, which is why I'm pissed off. I'm sure I won't either. If I get nowhere, then I'll simply do a chargeback with the credit card company. But we're not at that stage yet.



That would be a theft of service and Steam shuts down your entire Steam account. My friend bought some games on sale and then discovered that someone fraudulently bought airline tickets with her card. The card was shut down with the Steam charges pending, and Steam shut down her account. A week later, they reopened it under the stipulation that she rebuy the games (which were then at full price).


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Apr 8, 2011)

qubit said:


> I've not heard back from them, which is why I'm pissed off. I'm sure I won't either. If I get nowhere, then I'll simply do a chargeback with the credit card company. But we're not at that stage yet.
> 
> 
> 
> But the game is being distributed under Steam's infrastructure, so surely it's subject to their terms of service? They could easily put in terms to prohibit any kind of third party DRM, especially as Steam is very popular now. I reckon that it suits their purpose somehow not to do this.



FYI that kind of move might get your account banned. If nothing else it will get their attention lol


----------



## Mr McC (Apr 8, 2011)

garyinhere said:


> They do allow third-party DRM though. How long and tedious do you think the distribution contracts are in the first place and then you would want Steam to change it mid-season? Somebody's got to pay for those lawyers. DRM or not Steam is leading and does a great job. I've only seen a few issue's with anybody with steam so it's not like they are not trying to look out for us.



No company looks out for us, they provide services that are better or worse, but their interests are primarily focused on profit. I use Steam and, in general, I am also happy with it; however, that does not give Steam licence to not disclose DRM, particularly where the previous games in the series did include such information. In short, there is no logic or advantge in professing blind adoration for any company. Furthermore, both you and the Mailman have made it perfectly clear that this is not an issue that should concern us, repeating this message in various forms over the course of several posts, have either or you anything constructive to add other than repeating this mantra?


----------



## garyinhere (Apr 8, 2011)

Mr McC said:


> No company looks out for us, they provide services that are better or worse, but their interests are primarily focused on profit. I use Steam and, in general, I am also happy with it; however, that does not give Steam licence to not disclose DRM, particularly where the previous games in the series did include such information. In short, there is no logic or advantge in professing blind adoration for any company. Furthermore, both you and the Mailman have made it perfectly clear that this is not an issue that should concern us, repeating this message in various forms over the course of several posts, have either or you anything constructive to add other than that message?



how about stopping your flame baiting... i've been nothing but helpful so I have nothing to say to you 

Don't confuse me with TheMailMan... we are affiliated but hold our own opinions.


----------



## Mr McC (Apr 8, 2011)

garyinhere said:


> how about stopping your flame baiting... i've been nothing but helpful so I have nothing to say to you
> 
> Don't confuse me with TheMailMan... we are affiliated but hold our own opinions.



Find one incidence of flame baiting. 

There are many instances of both you and the Mailman being deliberately and provocatively obtuse, so I grouped you together on an intellectual level, I apologise and acknowledge your existence as a separate entity.


----------



## garyinhere (Apr 8, 2011)

garyinhere said:


> Think cost and effect though... Hey can you make another version of this game without your version of DRM(Third party) so we could sell it with just our DRM... it just wouldn't add up
> 
> 
> I'd be careful with this sense you wouldn't be giving a "product" back it could be considered theft of service.


^^helpful 


garyinhere said:


> Do you have a screen shot of when they didn't have it listed?
> I'd jst ask them for store credit do to their user agreements otherwise they will be likely to tell you to jst not use the account.


^^helpful


Mr McC said:


> The big deal is simply that we should never become blasé about the inclusion of unannounced DRM, that is a serious issue, even if it does not appear to be a serious issue in this particular case. DRM often dictates my puchasing decisions, is that foolish in the sense of needless self deprivation? I don't know, but there are enough alternatives out there to enable me to feel no loss. I wouln't puchase Crysis 2 in any event, but I am eager to hear Valve's reply with regaards to this clearly deliberate omission, as a consumer and a Steam user.


^^baiting

you were the first to bring up DRM when the thread was reopened even though it is not about DRM so who is derailing the thread that is supposed to be an update on whether or not steam refunds or credits an account for an omission that was corrected on a product page


----------



## Jstn7477 (Apr 8, 2011)

Why do we care this much about DRM not being advertised, or even existing for that matter? My Toyota Camry isn't advertised to have a Denso alternator, or Pennzoil motor oil, or Hess gasoline in the gas tank. If you are this disturbed by a software restriction (well, your game actually works fine when you get it) that you think about it 24/7 and are willing to get into deranged arguments and flame wars about it, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG.

If your software that you purchased works fine, WHO CARES? It's not like it's guaranteed to work forever, or even in 10 years. Favorite game company go bust and stopped activations? Someone will surely unlock your game one way or another. Gabe Newell promised Steam will be unlocked by some mechanism if VALVe dies.

When you buy a game, you should probably spend all this time playing it instead of being this scared of the "spooky DRM software."

Because of these thoughts, the OP is considering doing a chargeback on his credit card, which is THEFT in Steam's book. Instead of simply "returning" the game that you're scared of the DRM of, YOU LOSE YOUR ENTIRE STEAM ACCOUNT. Please, wake up and see what you are actually doing.

EDIT: Sorry if I offend you, but this is my opinion and I feel the right to express it.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Apr 8, 2011)

Mr McC said:


> Find one incidence of flame baiting.
> 
> There are many instances of both you and the Mailman being deliberately and provocatively obtuse, so I grouped you together on an intellectual level, I apologise and acknowledge your existence as a separate entity.



I wasn't deliberately doing anything. I am trying to understand exactly what the issue is. As it stands now it just seems like a phobia from a stereotype founded in the ignorance of no facts.

I even advised the OP not to credit back his purchase as it may get his account closed. If thats not helpful then I don't know what is.


----------



## Mr McC (Apr 8, 2011)

Jstn7477 said:


> Why do we care this much about DRM not being advertised, ."



Because it sets a precedent and goes against previous Steam practice; because it may contravene the law, depending on your geographical location; because, whilst the DRM appears fairly innocuous in this case, we should be wary of the level of access we afford companies for the privilege of playing a game (which in this particular case appears to be anything but a privilege); because further DRM  is simply an unnecessary inconvenience, given that Steam is already in place, and certain types of DRM have caused issue in the past; because it represents an erosion of your rights as a consumer, albeit on a seemingly insignificant level; because EA/Crytek gain no advantage in terms of piracy by including this DRM on Steam - when it's cracked its cracked and whoever wishes to play the game in without paying  will do so; because it adds nothing of value to you as the purchaser; because EA could feasibly obtain other information not relating to your use of their game via DRM; because you have moved beyond the phase of "I gots to have it" and now analyse your purchases with greater care; because you enjoy using Steam and don't want that relationship to sour on the basis of broken trust...



garyinhere said:


> ^^baiting



Gary, Gary, Gary, if you consider that baiting, I can only suggest that as quarry, you would prove entirely too easy.



TheMailMan78 said:


> I even advised the OP not to credit back his purchase as it may get his account closed. If thats not helpful then I don't know what is.



I'm willing to accept that somewhere, deep down, perhaps in a parallel universe, you are in fact a good Samaritan.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Apr 8, 2011)

Mr McC said:


> Because it sets a precedent and goes against previous Steam practice; because it may contravene the law, depending on your geographical location; because, whilst the DRM appears fairly innocuous in this case, we should be wary of the level of access we afford companies for the privilege of playing a game (which in this particular case appears to be anything but a privilege); because further DRM  is simply an unnecessary inconvenience, given that Steam is already in place, and certain types of DRM have caused issue in the past; because it represents an erosion of your rights as a consumer, albeit on a seemingly insignificant level; because EA/Crytek gain no advantage in terms of piracy by including this DRM on Steam - when it's cracked its cracked and whoever wishes to play the game in without paying  will do so; because it adds nothing of value to you as the purchaser; because EA could feasibly obtain other information not relating to your use of their game via DRM; because you have moved beyond the phase of "I gots to have it" and now analyse your purchases with greater care; because you enjoy using Steam and don't want that relationship to sour on the basis of broken trust...
> 
> 
> 
> Gary, Gary, Gary, if you consider that baiting, I can only suggest that as quarry, you would prove entirely too easy.



The failure of DRM is not the subject nor the point of the thread. Its the fact they included a small piece of software that makes no difference in your enjoyment of the game. It makes no difference at all. Yet the OP is pissed its there. Why? Because its a DRM? Steam is a DRM. What does it matter?


----------



## garyinhere (Apr 8, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I am trying to understand exactly what the issue is.



The issue is that he want's his money back from Steam for not letting the consumer know that the Third-party included DRM of thier own and even steam did not know but corrected the issue. The OP said he didn't want to discuss DRM and the thread was closed only to be reopened with an update on what steam did... Steam "disclosed" the third-party DRM and we still don't know what is going to happen with the OP's account. But, for some reason some are still chiming about DRM and should just start a thread about it instead of crapping this one.


----------



## Jstn7477 (Apr 8, 2011)

Didn't realize the thread was previously closed as I just jumped in. Sorry.


----------



## Mr McC (Apr 8, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> The failure of DRM is not the subject nor the point of the thread. Its the fact they included a small piece of software that makes no difference in your enjoyment of the game.



That is possible, I'll even say probable, but my universe is broader than the confines of Crysis II.



TheMailMan78 said:


> Yet the OP is pissed its there. Why? Because its a DRM? Steam is a DRM. What does it matter?



That has been answered, many times and in many ways, I honestly can not provide anything else to justify my point of view, but consider this, if a future game includes DRM without advertising this fact and said DRM causes issues (server issues or hardware issues, we both know this has happened in the past), what service would you be providing the community by advocating a stance of "forget about it and just play the game"? However, if Steam undertakes to inform of all third-party DRM in the future, what have you lost, why are you so eager to ensure that we do not even consider this approach? What do you gain by converting me to your way of thinking and why would you wish to do so if, as you say, the failure to disclose is not worthy of consideration?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Apr 8, 2011)

garyinhere said:


> The issue is that he want's his money back from Steam for not letting the consumer know that the Third-party included DRM of thier own and even steam did not know but corrected the issue. The OP said he didn't want to discuss DRM and the thread was closed only to be reopened with an update on what steam did... Steam "disclosed" the third-party DRM and we still don't know what is going to happen with the OP's account. But, for some reason some are still chiming about DRM and should just start a thread about it instead of crapping this one.



Oh well if thats all it is then he will not get his money back. Once he agreed to EULA and installed Steam he pretty much waved any right to complain about a third party game unless Valve didn't deliver the game. Which they did. Steam has no liability past that.

He paid for the service of digital distribution. That service was given. End of story.

I quote from the EULA:



> 6. THIRD PARTY CONTENT
> 
> In regard to all Subscriptions, Software, and related content that are not authored by Valve, Valve acts merely as an intermediary service provider. Valve does not screen such third party content available on Steam or through other sources. Valve does not assume any responsibility or liability for such third party content.





> C. NO GUARANTEES.
> 
> VALVE DOES NOT GUARANTEE CONTINUOUS, ERROR-FREE, VIRUS-FREE OR SECURE OPERATION AND ACCESS TO STEAM, THE SOFTWARE, YOUR ACCOUNT AND/OR YOUR SUBSCRIPTIONS(S).




/Thread.


----------



## garyinhere (Apr 8, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Oh well if thats all it is then he will not get his money back. Once he agreed to EULA and installed Steam he pretty much waved any right to complain about a third party game unless Valve didn't deliver the game. Which they did. Steam has no liability past that.
> 
> He paid for the service of digital distribution. That service was given. End of story.
> 
> I quote from the EULA:



i agree but some are trying to turn this into the "3rd party DRM isn't fair thread" lol

The thread was locked by a Mod due to this and was unlocked for an update on what steam is doing but some are trying to crap the thread again. :shadedshu


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Apr 8, 2011)

Oh well. Problem solved. No money back for the OP.


----------



## garyinhere (Apr 8, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Oh well. Problem solved. No money back for the OP.



He might have a chance because DRM wasn't initially disclosed but I doubt it. User agreement states once product is downloaded and key installed/or activated there is no turning back, like it or not it is yours.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Apr 8, 2011)

garyinhere said:


> He might have a chance because DRM wasn't initially disclosed but I doubt it. User agreement states once product is downloaded and key installed/or activated there is no turning back, like it or not it is yours.



If he pursued EA he would have a better chance then with Steam. Steam is the messenger. Not the message. Right, wrong. Doesn't matter. Law is the law.

qubit I would contact EA. The law may be on your side there. With Steam you are screwed as I showed you in the EULA.


----------



## erocker (Apr 8, 2011)

I'm thinking keeping this thread open and reopening this thread was a bad idea. So.. some more reported posts from this thread have happened and it's done. Bottom line is if you have a problem with whatever go deal with it as TPU isn't the place to do it. I don't feel like giving the moderators here more work by keeping this thread open any longer.


----------

