Valve Locking Out Gamers Who Buy Orange Box Internationally 665
Via Opposable Thumbs, a post on the Consumerist site notes that some enterprising gamers who bought the Orange Box in a territory different than the one they lived (to save a few bucks) have now found themselves unable to play the game. "One user, Todd, explains that thousands of crafty North American gamers looking for a deal have 'bought the product (and hence, the serial numbers) at well known international game stores' at a significant markdown. Activation of the purchased titles went off without a hitch. However, Valve apparently has taken issue with the region-specificity of some international versions and has begun locking out accounts of those living in North America, but owning international serial numbers with the message that the purchased game is in the 'incorrect territory.'" Worse, folks who tried to 'make it right' by buying a local copy have found they're basically SOL. I've been a big fan of the Steam concept since it launched, but this is the sort of thing you need to communicate to your users before you sting them.
Silly users (Score:5, Insightful)
And this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Way to burn goodwill (Score:4, Insightful)
Probably a requirement (Score:5, Insightful)
Reading some of the various "deal" forums it amazes me what people will go through to save a few dollars, yet turn around and brag about their $300 cases, water cooling, and thousand dollars worth of video cards.
Two words: charge back (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Probably a requirement (Score:4, Insightful)
They have no right (Score:2, Insightful)
They also have no right to require an active Internet connection in order for users to play offline, single player games.
They also have no right to make the game "phone home" every time the user wants to play.
They also have no right to force-push updates to single player offline games every time the user wants to play.
But that hasn't stopped them.
It has just stopped me from buying their games.
Re:Methinks Zonk needs to work on his woriding... (Score:4, Insightful)
I would describe myself as more of a casual gamer, but crap like this (and what happened with Bioshock) makes me want to completely avoid PC gaming entirely and stick just with consoles. My Gamecube will happily play any game I stick into it, without requiring an internet connection.
I recently re-played my old copy of Fallout (great game, BTW). I would have been completely pissed if I couldn't play it because of some sort of hare-braned activation scheme. What happens if you want to pull out your copy of Orange Box and play it ten years from now? Will you be able to?
Valve Reality Distortion Field (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't matter how evil the DRM, when Valve does it, it's OK!
More than a decade after MPAA invented region-coded DVDs explicitly to protect deals with distributors, it's still an affront to us. But when Valve does it, hey, it's "just something they put something in to protect deals with distributors".
Product activation and phone-homeware is just as bad an idea when it's called "Steam" as when it's called "Windows Genuine Advantage".
Cozy deals to fuck over the consumers in favor of artificial segregation of distribution channels are just as defective by design whether they're called "Steam" as when they were called "Region-coded DVDs".
The Steam may be delicious and moist, but it's still a lie.
Steam is no triumph.
I'm making a note here - EPIC FAIL.
It's hard to overstate dissatisfaction...
Valve's DRM scheme,
It does what it must, because it can.
For the good of none of us, (except the ones who wear suits.)
But there's no use crying over software that breaks
You just keep on paying 'till you run out of cake
And the damage gets done, and the DRM's won
For the people who are selling lies.
Re:Misconceptions running rampant (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And this... (Score:3, Insightful)
In short, closed source does not fucking mean that you're going to get bent over by every company that makes a program, stop pretending it does.
Re:Two words: charge back (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm really disappointed in Valve here, but then I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
Re:Valve Reality Distortion Field (Score:1, Insightful)
I don't mind Valve doing it because all the money goes directly to THEM. It is in my best interest that people pay full price for the games, because I like Valve's games, I think they're worth the purchase price and I would like for them to keep making games.
I am a consumer and I am not screwed in the slightest. But, I didn't try to screw Valve by buying a copy sold for cheap through another distribution channel. I like Steam and would like it to stick around.
Re:And this... (Score:2, Insightful)
I occasionally use a certain closed-source GIS application that has constant version compatibility problems. The company line is "Upgrade." "Buy more." Isn't that about control?
Re:Probably a requirement (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering that this whole situation is because Valve IS adjusting their prices for the local markets, you really have no idea what you're talking about.
They have retail distributions agreements in Russia and Thailand to sell boxed products at competitive local prices, rather than trying to get people who might earn $300 USD a month to shell out $50 USD for a game. In order to stop people from buying Russian copies en masse for, say, $10 USD a piece and selling the keys online for $20 USD each, they lock the keys to the geographic region in which they're sold. I can't say I've seen the boxes myself since I live in the US, but I've read that they SAY on the box that they won't play outside of country X. Of course, they export the keys anyways and sell them to stupid people who think they're getting a great deal, and that's why we have this retarded article claiming that Orange Box is region locked everywhere.
Don't give me that shit about "I didn't know it was imported" either. If it seems too good to be true, it PROBABLY IS. The only fault I have with Valve for this is that they should let people unregister so they can register the copies they bought afterwards.
Re:Misconceptions running rampant (Score:3, Insightful)
So the fuck what? Chinese labor costs a tiny fraction of the money that you would have to pay a US worker. That doesn't stop anyone from buying manual labor where it's cheap and selling products at insane markups at home. If you put that genie back into the bottle, we can talk about not buying your products where we want and using them somewhere else. Can't have it both ways.
Re:Game portability (Score:2, Insightful)
If you connect via wifi your IP will report you being in X country and will this prevent you from playing overnight in the hotels?
This stinks, if the account is valid, why the fuck are people buying it again - I know I wouldn't.
Re:Probably a requirement (Score:5, Insightful)
And yes, what's wrong with buying abroad to save money and spend that money on something else? That's like saying that companies do something wrong when they produce dirt cheap in the far east and brag that they had another record profit year and could seriously increase the benefits for their shareholders.
Re:Misconceptions running rampant (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, I am not sure why you can't remove the CD key. I imagine they did it for piracy regions so people couldn't try multiple cd key to see which ones worked. This seems reasonable to me. This is a story of cheap people trying to rip off a company and getting screwed over because of it. I don't feel sorry for them at all and am confused why Slashdotters defend these morons. Yeah, I understand DRM is bad and annoying. But from a corporate standpoint, this looks like Steam is a DRM success because it is able to block people who try to abuse the system. The people can still play their game on another Steam account or get their money back one way or another.
The only thing that looks bad for Valve at this point is their customer service. Should people who now rectified their wrong doing by buying a copy be able to play? I think so. But right now it may not be technically feasible with the way the software is designed. I'd give Valve a few days to analyze the problem and decide how (or if) they will fix it.
Re:Probably a requirement (Score:5, Insightful)
It all amounts to the same thing, and if it is allowed in one context, it should be allowed in the other. Conversely, if companies insist on being able to do price fixing like this, it shouldn't be legal for them to go over to China and pay somebody 10 dollars a day to do the work when there are Americans over here willing to do it (although the American will of course want a higher wage).
Re:Misconceptions running rampant (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And this... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Misconceptions running rampant (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, yes, why not? Wal*Mart can buy shoes from Thailand for $5 and sell them here for $20, when American-made shoes of the same quality and materials would cost $50. That's supposed to be a good thing, at least that's what we tell the Americans when we close down all the shoe factories here because the shoes are cheaper from Thailand.
Re:Misconceptions running rampant (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? The article I read said they bought the game for the price Valve asked for.
Re:Probably a requirement (Score:4, Insightful)
His point is that, in the UK, prices are significantly higher, even though incomes are not drastically different than those in the US.
Re:Silly users (Score:2, Insightful)
2. Advertise service to SOL'd steam users
3. Profit
Re:Probably a requirement (Score:5, Insightful)
By selling the product at $10USD in a foreign market, it is shown that the product still generates profit (or they wouldn't sell it that low).
So the issue becomes that of "How much can they rape the local market for?"
Violating Regional Licensing or whatever cannot possibly "hurt" a company, if the company would lose money selling it in the US at $10 a copy, there is no way they are going to sell it for $10 a copy in Russia. At worst the company won't make as much profit as they want. Either way they still make some profit.
Re:Silly users (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And this... (Score:2, Insightful)
They won't have to come to your home to remove the program. They'll be able to turn the switch remotely. Like windows does. Or like steam does.
Re:Misconceptions running rampant (Score:3, Insightful)
Valve was selling a product for a price, and a lot of people bought it for that price. If Valve wanted more money, they should have charged more money. You can't be "ripped off" if people are paying the retail price for your goods.
Re:Misconceptions running rampant (Score:5, Insightful)
The scam was that they didn't tell you that the keys were region-locked, which is stated ON THE BOX in those regions. It's possible that they didn't even bother to look at the box, but in that case they're just idiots, not scammers.
Re:F Globalization! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Probably a requirement (Score:5, Insightful)
Your basic position is that not making A LOT of profit and instead making LESS THAN A LOT of profit is the equivalent of "losing money."
Never mind the fact that by regionally isolating a product you can bypass normal Supply & Demand dynamic.
You want to know why it's legal for them, not you? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Methinks Zonk needs to work on his woriding... (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh ok. Want to play an obscure RPG based on your favourite cartoon series? Nope! That's only for the Japanese market, not you, you silly overseas buyer. But it's ok, it's in Japanese anyway, so no big loss. But hey, there's a version out in the US now, and it's translated into English! Want to import it now? Nope, you can't! That's only for the US market, you silly PAL territory buyer.
That is why I can barely stand to play console games any more. You can buy a copy abroad, in English, and physically hold in your hands your legitimately purchased product, but if you put it in your machine it won't work, because you need a PAL version. But there is no PAL version, and there never will be. Why won't Sony and Nintendo let me give them money for the stuff they are selling which I want to buy?
At least with PC gaming if you get crap like this there's a cracked version of the single player games on the net within 24 hours of release.
Vote with your wallet (Score:2, Insightful)
EULAs are unenforceable (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Contracts must happen before the deal. Contracts cannot be ex post facto. This is why you sign contracts before you buy a house or car, and why people talk about prenuptial agreements. If it doesn't happen before the exchange, it isn't valid. All terms must be agreed upon up front by both parties, you can't tack them on later. Since EULAs don't come up until after you bought the software, they aren't enforceable.
2) Along those lines contracts must involve an exchange. There's no such thing as a one sided contract. No exchange, it's not a contract and not legal. That's why if you do something like quit your claim to a piece of property to give it to someone else the contract will read (I, yournamehere, for the sum of ten dollars and other valuable consideration do hereby quit all claim..." and so on. Without that exchange in there, it's not legal, even if the intent is just to give it to them.
3) A contract must be open to negotiation. You are not allowed to make it a one sided thing of "Here it is, you have to accept it as is and I won't talk to you." You HAVE to negotiate. You don't have to accept what the other side wants, but you have to be available to the negotiations. You either have to be able to meet with them, or they have to be able to send you a modified contract and so on that you can then review and accept or reject. Well you can't do that with EULAs so again, they aren't contracts.
4) There are various rights you cannot give up. You cannot, for example, sign yourself in to slavery. I can draft a contract that says you'll be my slave, it can be an exchange, we can negotiate it, and you can sign it. You still aren't my slave, you can't sign away that right. EULAs often say you are giving up rights you can't sign away. That clause in unenforceable and having blatantly unenforceable clauses is a great way to have the whole contract tossed.
EULAs are just companies being stupid. Half of it is usually shit they don't have to say, like "You can't copy this." Well duh, that's copyright law, don't need a contract for that. The rest is irrelevant because you already bought the software, it's way too late for them to restrict it. They want a cotnract, they need to get one beforehand.
With some major packages, that'll happen sometimes. We've bought engineering software that required a signed contract. That one is enforceable. You sign a contract prior to the sale agreeing to terms of the sale, that's legal. However EULAs aren't. That is the reason why our lawyers, who have to be very careful since we work for the state, tell us not to worry and just click through. However real contracts we may not sign, those have to be sent over to legal and generally get torn apart.
Re:Probably a requirement (Score:4, Insightful)
WRONG! The company in question has to, at the very least, disclose those licensing restrictions! And even then, since they're selling (not "licensing," regardless of their BS claims), such restrictions aren't legal anyway!
Imagine if you bought a shirt while you were on vacation in another country. Then you try to wear the shirt after returning home, and the manufacturer comes and rips it off your back and refuses to let you wear it because he thinks you should have paid more by buying it locally. Is that wrong? Fuck yes, it is! AND VALVE IS DOING EXACTLY THE SAME THING!
Re:Valve Reality Distortion Field (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah it is.
No, Steam (not it's DRM) gives you more convenience than you have otherwise. Convenience != rights.
We'll assume for the purposes of this discussion that this is true (although I disagree), but even so, that's despite the DRM, not because of it!
Note: DRM is not necessary for this.
EULAs are unenforcible and irrelevant. Steam's DRM does not give you more rights than the Doctrine of First Sale; on the contrary, it gives you significantly fewer rights!
Oh yeah? What "law or logic" claims that DRM is good?!
Bullshit! There is no difference between stuff like music and stuff like software. Sure, one dumb-ass judge set a bad precedent, but that makes the distinction no less ridiculous!
Re:Screw steam. (Score:2, Insightful)
Why the hell would I pay that much money for a game so I can get screwed by a DRM system that has done nothing to hamper piracy of the games in question?
Actually, Steam does a LOT to hamper piracy. It's far more effective than other company's solutions.
The key is that Steam requires you to connect to their online server in order to decrypt the game's files ... sure, eventually someone will crack the encryption, but it takes a lot longer to do so. What's more, a lot of Steam's games are online multiplayer only, which means that unless you have a cd-key that was validated by Valve, you can't play the game even if you get around the encryption. It's only possible (and even then, difficult) to pirate single-player versions of Steam material.
Additionally, I don't see how you're "getting screwed" by Steam. The prices are all at market price (or in some cases, slightly lower than market price), and the client itself is very unobtrusive. Now, throw in the fact that you can install Steam on any computer, log on with your username, and start downloading any of the games that you've previously paid for, and suddenly buying a game on Steam seems more attractive than buying a physical disc. After all, discs can break, and if you don't back them up, you're fucked.
Re:Probably a requirement (Score:5, Insightful)
Why Screw steam? (Score:2, Insightful)
The issue here isn't with Steam, it's with how the company handled the problem. Even if Steam wasn't involved, using a CDKey system, keys would have been deactivated. Everyone bashing Steam needs to realize this (the majority of bashers probably don't even use it - I actually really like it).
To re-iterate what the real problem was: the *majority* of people (sure one or two may have legit complaints) affected tried to buy the game for a discounted price, had their games de-activated, can get a refund and buy it properly now. For the few people affected, I don't think this is that big of a deal - don't be so cheap on a company that's offering 5 very awesome games for the price of one, and one that even offered a discount beforehand.
Re:Probably a requirement (Score:3, Insightful)
However, the producer, in this case Valve, has decided to make sure that consumers in region "A" cannot simply purchase goods from region "B" at a lower price, just as they too are entitled to do. Yes in such low-costed regions they don't make as much, but it's simply a matter that they cannot sell it at A's higher price because at that price it is too high for local consumers. After all, you cannot sell a game for US$50 to a region of people who don't make enough to ever consider that reasonable or even a luxury, but you can put safeguards in to make sure that a region of people who can afford that price readily can't pay US$10 or so because the goods came from that lower priced region.
As a consumer, yes I am entitled to do the research and purchase lower priced goods, but in the same breath I'd say, yes, Valve is entitled to shut down any operation that would attempt to sell such lower priced goods to higher priced regions. So... yeah, capitalism is really the act of everyone screwing everyone else as best as possible, with one caveat, the more you have, the more you can actively screw others.
Re:Probably a requirement (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Methinks Zonk needs to work on his woriding... (Score:5, Insightful)
We have a word for products that "don't work" out of the box. It's BROKEN. Nonrefundable doesn't apply if you sell me a retail product that is broken. I wonder what EU and German common contract law have to say about this...
Re:Probably a requirement (Score:5, Insightful)
They want it both ways: they can buy stuff on the global market at the lowest achievable price. Then they come around and mandate that humans can not do that. Why? What makes a company more important than you or me? Companies scream around that regulation is bad, everything must be totally deregulated - except their customers, who must be heavily regulated to guarantee profit to the company and preferably executed if they do not comply.
Once I read in old book, that a long, lo9ng time ago there was this crazy idea that we elect governments and give them certain powers in order to make *our* lives better. We also allow the government to give certain rights to non-living entities, such as corporations, *as long as* it helps the government's primary goal: to make our lives better. What a silly, pinko-commie sentiment! Fortunately, we know it better: it must be the other way around. Corporations are the ruling class and they give power to the government to control us so that our behaviour furthers the corporations' wellbeing. We call it democracy, which is some ancient word for the power over the people!
Re:Probably a requirement (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Probably a requirement (Score:3, Insightful)
Close, but not quite. After the initial investment to create the game, producing the media and bandwidth to download/play is close to zero. As long as they sell any games at any amount over a couple bucks, they're making more money than they would be otherwise. It's the same reason airlines will often offer really cheap seats on flights with a lot of empty space. They may not make the full ticket price, but it's better than not making anything at all off those seats.
Translating a game to a different languages costs significantly less than creating the game in the first place. A whole lot less than 1/5th the original cost. Once sales from the translated game recoups the small translation cost, they're not necessarily making a profit, but they're making money they wouldn't be otherwise.
That doesn't make the huge price difference any less stupid, but I'm almost certain that's why they're doing it.
Re:Probably a requirement (Score:5, Insightful)
Valve wants to make a game, it costs $100 million to make.
That means they have to sell 2 000 000 copies at $50 to break even. If they only sell at $50 then in countries with lower wages they won't sell any copies.
According to their market studies, if the global market is 20 million players 75 percent of which have a low income ($400/month) they will likely only make marginal sales in the low income part of the market because for most of these potential players the price is just too high(let's say they stille make 10 000), and they will have to make the bulk of their sales in the high income part of the market which is only 5 million people. Their market study says they will only be able to sell 1.3 million copies in this market, because of piracy, second hand sales, other games etc. 1.3million * $50 is only $65 million and they loose money, so they don't make the game.
Ok so $50 is too high, let's tap the low income market and price everywhere at $10 :
they will sell 7 million in the low income market and maybe 3 million in the high income market that's 10 million sales for only $100 million dollars revenue. as much as valve love it's gamers it doesn't want to make a game to only break even it wants to make money
Now their marketing officer checks out to see what happens if they have two pricing policies : say $10 for low income segment and $50 for high income segment. Suddenly the market study indicates they will be able to make a huge amount of sales in the low income segment say 7 million out of the 15 million people and they will sell 1.1 million copies in the high income segment (because the game is more widespread in countries that don't have as strong copyright laws there will be more piracy, they are still able to prevent high income gamers from buying at low income prices since they have this nifty activation system).
7 000 000 * $10 is $70 million !
1 100 000 * $50 is $55 million !
Total sales : $125 million suddenly they make $25 million! instead of loosing money, they almost make twice as much money as they did with the first scheme and %25 more than the second scheme!
Now which option would you choose ? Sure my numbers are completely made up so that the sum work out in the end, but don't doubt a second that it is exactly the kind of reasoning that went behind the creation of the regional lockout and the different pricing schemes.
Re:Probably a requirement (Score:3, Insightful)
So it's not okay to ban my account when I go back home becauase:
a) When I was there that's all I could afford
b) I was living there not shipping it to another country.
Over 25 Million foreigners live in Thailand, so please explain why I should have my account banned and have to re-buy the game, again, for what I could afford at my standard of living.
Re:Probably a requirement (Score:2, Insightful)
Valve aren't only trying to cover the costs of the CD and box; these games have been in development for years at a staggering cost.
I agree with other comments that Valve could correct this situation by allowing "offenders" to register a local license.
I'm not sure how many other companies have tried charging local prices for products, like this, but it should be encouraged. The only way I can see other companies doing the same, is if they know that they can prevent the market from mass-importing the cheaper product.
Caveat: I like in the UK, and we get stung a lot by the 1:1 import of goods from US$ to £.
Personally, I bought it on Steam because it's so much easier, and I'm more than happy to fund Valve's work.
Re:Misconceptions running rampant (Score:3, Insightful)
And there's nothing new or novel about that. Gray market goods were being imported into the US long before "software" existed. It's never been considered immoral or "ripping off" the company to buy an American product in Hong Kong for a few hundred dollars less and bring it back to the USA.
I'm just trying to figure out why gray market goods have always been considered acceptable, DVD region encoding has always been considered a ridiculous market price discrimination tool (indeed, many countries allow circumvention of it precisely because it is used solely for price discrimination), yet for some reason Valve is considered a victim in this situation and the people trying to import the cheaper product are suddenly considered "bad" by so many otherwise rational people.
It is indeed tough shit for the customers, simply because Valve has the ability to enforce their preferences in a way that no other company does, and has the DMCA on their side to prevent their own customers from exercising their legal rights (much the same way it's perfectly legal to use clips of video, yet illegal to obtain them from a protected DVD).
It's a perfect intersection of legal and technical abuse of customers, yet it seems nobody cares because it's Valve and we like their games.
Re:Probably a requirement (Score:3, Insightful)
This is once again the old argument of the "strong" vs. the "weak". The strong will do what they can, while the weak will suffer what they must.
The ONLY reason Valve is doing this is because they CAN. There's no law against it. They write the program and they can make your computer do what they want. Someone thought it was a good idea (to sell to the distributors). We have to put up with it.
Of course because of the internet (which puts a lot of power back into OUR hands) word of this will get around and their sales will probably not be as high as they could have been. But still I bet they sold enough to make money, so they will do it again.
Re:Probably a requirement (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Probably a requirement (Score:5, Insightful)
"region coding" of any sort is not legitimate in a free market economy. The entire *point* of a free market is to benefit society by improving efficiency, efficiency improves since buyers will choose the best supplier for their need, and suppliers will have to make competitive offers, or else not sell anything.
Transporting something from a place where it's cheap, and to a place where it's worth more and sell it there is a fundamental function of trade. We'd all be a lot worse off if that wasn't possible.
Frankly, I don't see why the US govt or the EU hasn't cracked down on this bullshit a long time ago (at the very least when the DVD-standard was launched with artificial barriers to trade baked-in)
Re:F Globalization! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Silly users (Score:3, Insightful)
<sarcasm>
Silly you. People don't travel, only pirates and cheap-asses do.
</sarcasm>
Seriously, I am no longer going to buy HL2 (I have a legal version of HL1), because I am currently working in France for the moment and fear that if I buy a copy they will lock me out as soon as I get back to the states. Steam is a fine idea, but this is turning into abuse.
Re:Probably a requirement (Score:3, Insightful)
Because companies have pushed to be able to have this privilege, while end-buyers (aka consumers) have not banded together to get law changed in their favour.
Re:Probably a requirement (Score:3, Insightful)
That equates to around 25 quid. The retail box, in high street shops, has a "recommended retail price" (RRP) of £35 (US$70), but almost all shops, and even Amazon UK, have got it discounted to £24.99 . Given that I'll get a shiny box to put on my O'Reilly Wall, plus hopefully some manuals, I'll get the real box as opposed to the virtual one (I don't imagine I'll ever actually use the DVD, mind).
Don't get me wrong, us Brits get shafted on pricing on a lot of stuff, and I enjoy sticking it to The Man as much as the next armchair anarchist, but in this particular instance, Valve and Steam have helped promote price equality by pushing digital distribution.
Having said all that, I'm getting The Orange Box for my birthday next week, and I'm going to be mightily annoyed if it locks up when I take my laptop to my sister's house in Holland or any business hotel in America.
Protectionism or free market? (Score:4, Insightful)
Are free market and globalisation only for the big players, or should they be for everyone? Suppose a company is looking for labour, and they can buy it here for $50 an hour or overseas for $10 an hour. They think they can save some money by importing labour from abroad (or having their work done there), but when they import the goods, the government suddenly says: "since you didn't buy your labour in the local market, you can't sell those goods here." That's basically what's happening here. It's a kind of protectionism.
Re:Probably a requirement (Score:3, Insightful)