Originally posted by Nythious

 How about, instead of blaming the company

 

Blame the asswipes who crack these games forcing companies to take such measures.  If people didn't do all the stupid shit to bypass paying for a game, companies wouldn't have to take these ridiculous steps to make a profit. 

From a personal perspective, I don't mind the sharing/transfer of music/games online.

From a business perspective, you lose thousands of dollars.

From a logical perspective, you make more money if you try to do a DRM.

From a realistic perspective, those who cracked the game, weren't ever going to purchase the game in the first place. 

 

The only people you can blame for shitty DRMs are your fellow gamers who screw it up for the rest of us.  So deal with it. You bought a game and it's fubared, other people are having the same issue... I'm pretty sure the company is going to try and resolve the issue. 

Steam should return the money, BUT there is a thing called a "Terms and Agreement" that you clicked yes to.  Soooo in the long run, your complaining about something you already agreed to... GG for not reading. 

First lets start with "Terms and Agreement"  or ToS or EULA or anything like them are not legal contracts, me click yes is not the same as me signing a contract.  You can and will win in a court of law with the right lawyer but it will cost you.    Just like back in the day in arcade rooms, the sign that read "Play at your own risk" is not a legal sign and can be challenged in the court of law.

Unless you physically sign a contract or verbly comit to the contract it is not legally binding and can be challenged in any court of law.

Second True its the hackers that caused most companies to move to DRM but how far these companies have taken DRM is out of control.  You play a single player game you have to be connected to the internet 24/7?  That is crap.

Originally posted by zymurgeist

Originally posted by Xondar123

Originally posted by zymurgeist

Originally posted by Xondar123

 

First of all, cxhargebacks are not fraudulent in any way, shape or form. They are a legitimate way for a customer to resolve billing issues and to get their money back from shady, unscrupulous companies. The recent debacle with Atari not honouring the 90 days of game time they promised people and charging for "free shipping" is evidence enough of that. There's a good reason why only 1% of all chargebacks are decided in favour of the company rather than the card holder.

Secondly, a credit card company or bank with never, ever drop a customer or take away their credit card account for using chargebacks. Who is the bank/credit card company's customer? The card holder, or the company getting chargebacks? Of course they will do everything they can to retain the business of a card holder over some company they occasionally deal with on a customer's behalf.

Third, I do agree that it's bad form to ever mention chargebacks when dealing with a business. There is no better way to spook them since they most likely hate chargebacks very much. Chargebacks are a legitimate way to get money back, but one should plan on probably never using that company's services with that card ever again, and a customer should only use chargebacks after all other means of dealing with the company are resolved.

 

Your second point invalidates much of your first. We'll never know if a chargeback is warranted if the credit card companies are biased in favor of the retail customer. It's more expensive to fight a chargeback than just let it slide, most are never challenged. The company is also the customer. Credit card companies make money from both ends. If you chargeback often they will drop you, raise your interest rate, and flag your credit profile. Charge backs cost them money too. They'll figure out and act if you're abusing it.

 

No they absolutely will not. Please stop spreading lies about chargebacks. It helps no one when you try to make people too afraid to use them.

 

 If you abuse your credit cards they will act. Don't believe it? Read your credit card agreement. People shouldn't be afraid to charge back if it's warranted. They should be afraid to abuse them. There are companies that maintain databases of chargeback abusers and your credit card can be refused based on it. I've given my proof, it's in the fine print you sign for a credit card. Where's yours?

Actually, you did not provide any evidence, you simply made claims. Chargebacks are not tracked by credit bureaus, and there is no penalty for using them.

This is what the California Attorney General says about chargebacks: ag.ca.gov/consumers/general/credit_card_chargeback_rights.php

Notice there is absolutely no mention of penalties to card holders who ask for chargebacks. In fact, chargebacks are mandated by law and can't be used to penalize the card holder (the specific laws include: the Truth and Lending Act in the United States: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_in_Lending_Act, and the Electronic Funds Transfer Act: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Funds_Transfer_Act, notice that neither mention any penalties to card holders for using chargebacks.)

Even if the fine print on your credit card agreement says that you will receive penalties for issuing chargebacks, such fine print is not legal. The fine print on such contracts can never go against or replace laws in your state, province, or nation.

Here are more websites on chargebacks:

• www.essortment.com/all/creditcardchar_tvsj.htm
• www.which.co.uk/advice/your-rights-when-paying-by-credit-card/chargeback-on-credit-and-visa-debit-cards/index.jsp (here is a British site for those "across the pond.")
• www.consumer.org.nz/reports/credit-card-chargebacks (here is a New Zealand site for those across the even bigger pond.)
• www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/PUBLICATIONS/ombudsman-news/3/plastic-cards.htm

Notice that absolutely none of these sites mention chargebacks being tracked by credit bureaus or causing penalties to card holders? Don't you think they would mention important information like that?

Now, I ask you again to STOP FLAT OUT LYING ABOUT CHARGEBACKS.

---

Originally posted by TdogSkal

---

Originally posted by Nythious

 How about, instead of blaming the company
 
Blame the asswipes who crack these games forcing companies to take such measures.  If people didn't do all the stupid shit to bypass paying for a game, companies wouldn't have to take these ridiculous steps to make a profit. 
From a personal perspective, I don't mind the sharing/transfer of music/games online.
From a business perspective, you lose thousands of dollars.
From a logical perspective, you make more money if you try to do a DRM.
From a realistic perspective, those who cracked the game, weren't ever going to purchase the game in the first place. 
 
The only people you can blame for shitty DRMs are your fellow gamers who screw it up for the rest of us.  So deal with it. You bought a game and it's fubared, other people are having the same issue... I'm pretty sure the company is going to try and resolve the issue. 
Steam should return the money, BUT there is a thing called a "Terms and Agreement" that you clicked yes to.  Soooo in the long run, your complaining about something you already agreed to... GG for not reading. 

---

 
First lets start with "Terms and Agreement"  or ToS or EULA or anything like them are not legal contracts, me click yes is not the same as me signing a contract.  You can and will win in a court of law with the right lawyer but it will cost you.    Just like back in the day in arcade rooms, the sign that read "Play at your own risk" is not a legal sign and can be challenged in the court of law.
Unless you physically sign a contract or verbly comit to the contract it is not legally binding and can be challenged in any court of law.
Second True its the hackers that caused most companies to move to DRM but how far these companies have taken DRM is out of control.  You play a single player game you have to be connected to the internet 24/7?  That is crap.
 

---

You're not going to be able to stop release groups, they cracked Ubisoft's DRM basically the day it was out in the games.

We'll see what companies will do in the future. Seeing as Ubisoft's latest and greatest idea was cracked basically the day it came out, they just screwed over the people who actually bought the game (Ubisoft that is) if things go wrong.

Not a steam issue.

Originally posted by ponerr

-snip- 

I just have to add my voice that you really are a fool.  Not only does Steam warn about the DRM, the DRM is Ubisofts doing. Ubisoft is the one that is using that DRM and making your stay online. NOT steam.  For you to go on a rampage and blame Steam for another companies doings.. is just sad

Originally posted by Heretique

 

---

Originally posted by TdogSkal

---

Originally posted by Nythious

 

 How about, instead of blaming the company
 
Blame the asswipes who crack these games forcing companies to take such measures.  If people didn't do all the stupid shit to bypass paying for a game, companies wouldn't have to take these ridiculous steps to make a profit. 
From a personal perspective, I don't mind the sharing/transfer of music/games online.
From a business perspective, you lose thousands of dollars.
From a logical perspective, you make more money if you try to do a DRM.
From a realistic perspective, those who cracked the game, weren't ever going to purchase the game in the first place. 
 
The only people you can blame for shitty DRMs are your fellow gamers who screw it up for the rest of us.  So deal with it. You bought a game and it's fubared, other people are having the same issue... I'm pretty sure the company is going to try and resolve the issue. 
Steam should return the money, BUT there is a thing called a "Terms and Agreement" that you clicked yes to.  Soooo in the long run, your complaining about something you already agreed to... GG for not reading. 

---

 

 
First lets start with "Terms and Agreement"  or ToS or EULA or anything like them are not legal contracts, me click yes is not the same as me signing a contract.  You can and will win in a court of law with the right lawyer but it will cost you.    Just like back in the day in arcade rooms, the sign that read "Play at your own risk" is not a legal sign and can be challenged in the court of law.
Unless you physically sign a contract or verbly comit to the contract it is not legally binding and can be challenged in any court of law.
Second True its the hackers that caused most companies to move to DRM but how far these companies have taken DRM is out of control.  You play a single player game you have to be connected to the internet 24/7?  That is crap.
 

---

 

You're not going to be able to stop release groups, they cracked Ubisoft's DRM basically the day it was out in the games.

We'll see what companies will do in the future. Seeing as Ubisoft's latest and greatest idea was cracked basically the day it came out, they just screwed over the people who actually bought the game (Ubisoft that is) if things go wrong.

Not a steam issue.

Actually as far as I know it hasn't really been cracked that as I have read on other news sites was an exaggeration.Apparently whilst said crackers have the game in a playable state,it is currently unknown if it's 100% playable and complete and as far as been reported you cannot save your games.I'm pretty sure if this has changed it would be big news all over the web right now.Do I think they will eventually crack it completely? Sure given enough time anything is crackable.DRM exists really not to stop this but to prolong the time between release and being cracked.

Agreed not a steam issue at all.Seems to be both a Ubisoft problem and a customer problem.From the scant information given here and the general attitude of said poster,it would not surprise me if  this went to court,that Valve would be found to have acted with due diligence and that the poster was in fact the one acting in an unreasonable manner.But of course I doubt we have or will ever have all the unbiased facts.

No offense intended, BUT, in a retail environment if you purchase software and it comes back opened then you can't return it.  That part is very upfront with most retailers.  Steam is no different if you purchase a game and install it then technically you opened it, and can't return it. 

Now I know this sucks but look at it from this point of view, I go out and buy a new release from steam lets say silent hunter 5 or whatever, I then download it try it out, then log off and hack the download so that I can now throw it up on a torrent.  I do all of this within the first 24hrs, then I try to return it to get a refund, if they give it to me then I successfully hacked a game and got it for free.  So what I am saying is no matter how legit you might think you are buisnesses have to think of the worst in order to ensure piracy is at its lowest point.  I know this sounds stupid but I believe if you bought it and installed it then you should not be allowed a refund and I really do back up steam on this case.

---

Originally posted by Xondar123

---

Originally posted by zymurgeist

---

Originally posted by Xondar123

---

Originally posted by zymurgeist

---

Originally posted by Xondar123

 
First of all, cxhargebacks are not fraudulent in any way, shape or form. They are a legitimate way for a customer to resolve billing issues and to get their money back from shady, unscrupulous companies. The recent debacle with Atari not honouring the 90 days of game time they promised people and charging for "free shipping" is evidence enough of that. There's a good reason why only 1% of all chargebacks are decided in favour of the company rather than the card holder.
Secondly, a credit card company or bank with never, ever drop a customer or take away their credit card account for using chargebacks. Who is the bank/credit card company's customer? The card holder, or the company getting chargebacks? Of course they will do everything they can to retain the business of a card holder over some company they occasionally deal with on a customer's behalf.
Third, I do agree that it's bad form to ever mention chargebacks when dealing with a business. There is no better way to spook them since they most likely hate chargebacks very much. Chargebacks are a legitimate way to get money back, but one should plan on probably never using that company's services with that card ever again, and a customer should only use chargebacks after all other means of dealing with the company are resolved.

---

 
Your second point invalidates much of your first. We'll never know if a chargeback is warranted if the credit card companies are biased in favor of the retail customer. It's more expensive to fight a chargeback than just let it slide, most are never challenged. The company is also the customer. Credit card companies make money from both ends. If you chargeback often they will drop you, raise your interest rate, and flag your credit profile. Charge backs cost them money too. They'll figure out and act if you're abusing it.

---

 
No they absolutely will not. Please stop spreading lies about chargebacks. It helps no one when you try to make people too afraid to use them.

---

 
 If you abuse your credit cards they will act. Don't believe it? Read your credit card agreement. People shouldn't be afraid to charge back if it's warranted. They should be afraid to abuse them. There are companies that maintain databases of chargeback abusers and your credit card can be refused based on it. I've given my proof, it's in the fine print you sign for a credit card. Where's yours?

---

 
Actually, you did not provide any evidence, you simply made claims. Chargebacks are not tracked by credit bureaus, and there is no penalty for using them.
This is what the California Attorney General says about chargebacks: ag.ca.gov/consumers/general/credit_card_chargeback_rights.php
Notice there is absolutely no mention of penalties to card holders who ask for chargebacks. In fact, chargebacks are mandated by law and can't be used to penalize the card holder (the specific laws include: the Truth and Lending Act in the United States: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_in_Lending_Act, and the Electronic Funds Transfer Act: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Funds_Transfer_Act, notice that neither mention any penalties to card holders for using chargebacks.)
Even if the fine print on your credit card agreement says that you will receive penalties for issuing chargebacks, such fine print is not legal. The fine print on such contracts can never go against or replace laws in your state, province, or nation.
Here are more websites on chargebacks:

• www.essortment.com/all/creditcardchar_tvsj.htm
• www.which.co.uk/advice/your-rights-when-paying-by-credit-card/chargeback-on-credit-and-visa-debit-cards/index.jsp (here is a British site for those "across the pond.") www.consumer.org.nz/reports/credit-card-chargebacks (here is a New Zealand site for those across the even bigger pond.) www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/PUBLICATIONS/ombudsman-news/3/plastic-cards.htm

Notice that absolutely none of these sites mention chargebacks being tracked by credit bureaus or causing penalties to card holders? Don't you think they would mention important information like that?
Now, I ask you again to STOP FLAT OUT LYING ABOUT CHARGEBACKS.

---

You definitely have rights.

But there are always two sides, if the consumer can chargeback all he/she wants there has to be something that can hinder the consumer somehow in the long run. Just use it wisely when you can and have exhausted all your options. Remember to read policies and all that jazz too.

Just some links I found interesting.

http://www.askmrcreditcard.com/creditcardblog/pitfalls-to-chargebacks/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/04/bad-customer-credit-card-chargeback-blacklist_n_485227.html
http://www.merchantcouncil.org/merchant-account/fraud-chargeback/chargeback-fraud-illegitimate.php

Originally posted by Heyitschris

 Come on! 

Let me answer this to you now so we can /end thread. 

 

When you baught your game, (from UBISOFT) you should've looked for a message on screen which informs you of the 3. party DRM which is included in the game. 

Steam lets publishers have their DRM in their game and you can read about the 3. party DRM before you buy the game. 

It's not STEAMs fault. It's UBISOFT lame DRM.  This DRM is included in retail also. It's everywhere. 

 

/end

 

 

 

No because the issue wasnt that he cared about the DRM, its that the DRM iteself was blocking him from playing.. So he did not wantt o deal with this constant headache.. and wanted a refund.. Yes he know hates DRM and will never buy it again.. moot point.. he got it.. it didnt work, he wants a refund.. he's not getting it because of some OFFLINE time tracker... now he is getting a refund through the alws of his state... and Steam says go ahead try it.. we wil suspend and take ranson your entire account trying to trump the law..

Again poeople need to read the point and whats going on, and heed the warning, what steam can do in the future if any problem arises between you and them.

Originally posted by Vulnero87

OP I'm sorry that this happened to you, but in the eyes of STEAM you played the game for 12 hours.  They don't know what happened to your computer, so they are going by their logs.  Not to mention you should of done the research about new UBISOFT games before hand, but people make mistakes and they suffer for them.

It sucks you lost 50$ or whatever the price was, but I highly doubt you'll get your money back.  Even if you sue them, no good will come of it because they have a log that says you were playing them game for 12 hours.  Even if their system is flawed, the only proof you have is hearsay, which won't mean crap in court.

You might get credit from steam, but with the your aggressive attitude, they'll treat you like a nuisance and push you away.

Good luck to you and learn from this.

Thanks for your opinion, actually we dont want the refund.. OP says he cna care less about his account.. He is a man of princpical.

He is going to find out for all of us.. just how much ransom steam will use when you do a chargeback on a item your state gives you laws to get a refund wiht... Again, he care lessa bout the 12 hours of play.. its irrelevent... the story here is

STEAM WILL HOLD YOUR ACCOUNT WHEN YOU RIGHTFULLY USE YOUR CONSUMER RIGHTS TO GET BACK WHAT THEY WONT GIVE...

This has nothing to do with DRM, who's the problem, who's right or wrong.. Its consumer rights and a game company is about to get a law changed if lost that will prevent them from using your previous purcahses against you...

Anyone who wants to step up and protect their accounts best start doing so.. The more games steam sells, the more they control the monopoly.. another thing we fought in this country to avoid

And yes digital distributiion is a  monopoly. go see if you can open up a store like steam today..

 Maybe its just me that thinks Steam is a great way to buy and play games, I am an avid gamer, I buy games on a regular basis and most of the time I just dont have the time to go around shopping for them, or just dont have the patience, some days I get home and I really feel the urge of playing a different game, I dont want to wait to order from Amazon, or go to the shop.

I go to the steam shop, browse a little bit, sometimes even find a good deal, buy it, download it and play it, thats why Steam is great, dont have to keep CD's and manual updates, if I have to format I can just install all my games again over night everything ready to go. The people complaining about being online REALLY?! Its 2010, I spend my whole day connected to the internet, If my internet goes down for any reason for more than 10 min I will be calling my ISP and they will sort the problem within the hour ( this has only really happened to me once, and someone cut one of the wires on the distribution box in my area was sorted within an hour).

The only reason not to use Steam is the situation one of my friends keeps telling me about, when the apocalypse happens there wont be internet and I wont be able to play the games offline :(.

About the shit games, I am gonna be honest maybe its not the right attitude but I have never really asked for a refund, its entertainment, if I couldnt afford it I wouldnt have bought it, if its a bad game, I just toss it into my game collection and mentally stamp it as terrible, I may even came back after a while and play it again, hell I even have unopened games on my shelf *gazes at LOTRO unopened copy* (used the trial code that also came with it then decided it wasnt worth my time), regarding the specific incident with the DRM from Ubisoft it is experimental, maybe its bad, Ubisoft servers got hacked recently which probably doesnt help, take it up the chin and wait for a fix or just take it as a bad purchase.

I also find it funny people using the chargeback system so loosely nowadays, by company standards chargeback is a behind the back thing, if you do this to a company then they have every right to not provide any further services to you, for all they know you could just be doing that because you wanted to see the game and get a refund, furthermore you refuse to go through their support channels.

Originally posted by uohaloran

 

---

Originally posted by mickm
Thanks for your opinion, actually we dont want the refund.. OP says he cna care less about his account.. He is a man of princpical.

---

 

Dude. Give it up.

Why because you know he will become victorious and make you look bad in public..

He told me earlier then responded to him aagain, telling him he had to go through support court to get his refund. Kinda like you get a driving ticket, you have to go through training to get the ticket removed and money back....

Seems Steam is applying this phoney concpet, knowing noone in their right mind is going tio play email games for 5 days....
Steam thinks they can make a 5 day pschool a process before issuing refunds.. LOL

Not gonna happen... My consumer rights protect me and the OP and thats all he needs..

Originally posted by ponerr      ......The bigger your Steam account gets, the more leverage they have to keep your money!!

BOYCOTT STEAM TODAY!!!!

 

Wow.

Seems like corporate trolls have been sent to the Steam Silent Hunter 5 forums to stop the bleeding going on there..

All of a sudden a forum that was 99% flaming mad and upset,  has now turned into a forum of rose petals and praise..

Lol, i mean wow how a forum changed overnite... cant see one complaint now, after there was hundreds...

the frew they left remain and ousted by a few of the same guys repeat posting hjow great the game is..

Thats whats going on this world today.... Everything is a facade... a cover up.. A lie...
 

What happens when the common people know you are a lie... the world is soon doomed.

This whole thing just seems wrong to me.

I can totally understand companies wanting to protect their hard work and effort (UBISOFT) and I can also understand Steam in trying to troubleshoot the problem BUT I can also understand the OP.

They way I see it is that Steam is a retailer in this case, at this point OP has simply purchased the game, not used it, regardless of the problems with the DRM, if an item sold is not fit for purpose i.e. not useable for whatever reason, the purchaser IS entitled to ask for a refund.

So now the bit that worries me is that after legitimate purchase and use of his games library to date is that Steam can block access to them over a dispute over a single purchase. Whatever way you look at it, that just isn't right.

Look at it this way, If I bought a faulty CD from a store and wanted a refund which they disputed, should they have the rights to come to my house and remove all the previous CD's I'd bought from them?

Bottom line, DRM is Ubisofts problem, agreed... The retail of said game in this case is Steams problem, this is clearly a retail problem. Steam should refund or credit.

https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=4938-WTDF-9465

http://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/

It is amazing what a little research can do.

EDIT:

http://ag.ca.gov/consumers/general/credit_card_chargeback_rights.php

Originally posted by Mister_Bit

This whole thing just seems wrong to me.

I can totally understand companies wanting to protect their hard work and effort (UBISOFT) and I can also understand Steam in trying to troubleshoot the problem BUT I can also understand the OP.

They way I see it is that Steam is a retailer in this case, at this point OP has simply purchased the game, not used it, regardless of the problems with the DRM, if an item sold is not fit for purpose i.e. not useable for whatever reason, the purchaser IS entitled to ask for a refund.

So now the bit that worries me is that after legitimate purchase and use of his games library to date is that Steam can block access to them over a dispute over a single purchase. Whatever way you look at it, that just isn't right.

Look at it this way, If I bought a faulty CD from a store and wanted a refund which they disputed, should they have the rights to come to my house and remove all the previous CD's I'd bought from them?

Bottom line, DRM is Ubisofts problem, agreed... The retail of said game in this case is Steams problem, this is clearly a retail problem. Steam should refund or credit.

Be careful Mister_Bit.  You made sense, your opinion was intelligent, and you did not attack anyone.  Some people will instantly abuse the troll reporting tools because of it while others will post some insanely stupid comment about the EULA, which of course is not really a legally binding contract and is notorious for not holding up in court.

You nail the jest of the whole problem that I am having here because I am also a Steam user.  If I someday have a problem, I get banned, or what not I instantly lose my ability to play games I have PURCHASED just because I have to use their service to play them?  In essence, they can sell you products, ban you, and you then cannot use products you legally purchased?

For all the clowns here who defend Steam religiously, in terms of them being able to ban for a chargeback and deny access to their games, you should stop and think a moment about what you are supporting.  You are supporting a company taking someone's legally purchased games from them and denying them access to playing them because that person has an issue with one of the games and seeks legal methods to get his money back?  Yes, I know, chargebacks can be abused and I have no doubt there is numerous people who do abuse them.   However, think critically for a moment, think beyond black and white and understand the real issue at heart here.

I do agree the problem is with UBISOFT, and in terms of the OP not wishing to get things resolved through technical support, says he/she maybe lazy.  However, anyone who does defend Steam's stance on ransoming the games as leverage against customers is a complete and utter piece of dog dung and it is mindless sheep like you who allow corruption to flourish.

Originally posted by joker007mo

Originally posted by Unlight

So the lesson here is, check if the game you want has DRM and make sure you do this before you checkout.  If it has it, walk the other way and keep walking the other way every time you see it thereafter.  It may surprise some people that there are a lot of folks out there that don't know what DRM is, nor how troublesome it can be.  Spread the word, stop buying games that contain it and stop supporting companies that promote it. 

I still use Steam because I simply like the convenience, I'm just a lot more discerning about what I purchase now and won't hesitate to say no to a DRM-laced game, no matter how shiny it is.  Given Ubisoft's current policy, everything they produce from now on will fall into this category.  At least until they smarten up...

 

i honestly want to know i thought that drms were ruled invasion of privacy due to the fact that companies werent telling the customer it was installing stuff on the comp and the only way to remove it was a rootkit that they had to give out to those with the drms installed on comps and replacing the discs with ones that didnt have it that could be music cds though  still cant be good ill have to look that up...

only if the DRM giving away info to the company about u plus the company has to tell you the customer it there is a DRM (most games have them now anyways) but in the Agreement it we all hit accept to the companys put a few lines in there.

Originally posted by Dethnoble

Originally posted by Mister_Bit

This whole thing just seems wrong to me.

I can totally understand companies wanting to protect their hard work and effort (UBISOFT) and I can also understand Steam in trying to troubleshoot the problem BUT I can also understand the OP.

They way I see it is that Steam is a retailer in this case, at this point OP has simply purchased the game, not used it, regardless of the problems with the DRM, if an item sold is not fit for purpose i.e. not useable for whatever reason, the purchaser IS entitled to ask for a refund.

So now the bit that worries me is that after legitimate purchase and use of his games library to date is that Steam can block access to them over a dispute over a single purchase. Whatever way you look at it, that just isn't right.

Look at it this way, If I bought a faulty CD from a store and wanted a refund which they disputed, should they have the rights to come to my house and remove all the previous CD's I'd bought from them?

Bottom line, DRM is Ubisofts problem, agreed... The retail of said game in this case is Steams problem, this is clearly a retail problem. Steam should refund or credit.

 

Be careful Mister_Bit.  You made sense, your opinion was intelligent, and you did not attack anyone.  Some people will instantly abuse the troll reporting tools because of it while others will post some insanely stupid comment about the EULA, which of course is not really a legally binding contract and is notorious for not holding up in court.

You nail the jest of the whole problem that I am having here because I am also a Steam user.  If I someday have a problem, I get banned, or what not I instantly lose my ability to play games I have PURCHASED just because I have to use their service to play them?  In essence, they can sell you products, ban you, and you then cannot use products you legally purchased?

For all the clowns here who defend Steam religiously, in terms of them being able to ban for a chargeback and deny access to their games, you should stop and think a moment about what you are supporting.  You are supporting a company taking someone's legally purchased games from them and denying them access to playing them because that person has an issue with one of the games and seeks legal methods to get his money back?  Yes, I know, chargebacks can be abused and I have no doubt there is numerous people who do abuse them.   However, think critically for a moment, think beyond black and white and understand the real issue at heart here.

I do agree the problem is with UBISOFT, and in terms of the OP not wishing to get things resolved through technical support, says he/she maybe lazy.  However, anyone who does defend Steam's stance on ransoming the games as leverage against customers is a complete and utter piece of dog dung and it is mindless sheep like you who allow corruption to flourish.

well when u agree to use steam you agree to play by there rules. As for the court thing eh good luck. just bite the bullet and get over it.

Originally posted by Dethnoble

Originally posted by Mister_Bit

This whole thing just seems wrong to me.

I can totally understand companies wanting to protect their hard work and effort (UBISOFT) and I can also understand Steam in trying to troubleshoot the problem BUT I can also understand the OP.

They way I see it is that Steam is a retailer in this case, at this point OP has simply purchased the game, not used it, regardless of the problems with the DRM, if an item sold is not fit for purpose i.e. not useable for whatever reason, the purchaser IS entitled to ask for a refund.

So now the bit that worries me is that after legitimate purchase and use of his games library to date is that Steam can block access to them over a dispute over a single purchase. Whatever way you look at it, that just isn't right.

Look at it this way, If I bought a faulty CD from a store and wanted a refund which they disputed, should they have the rights to come to my house and remove all the previous CD's I'd bought from them?

Bottom line, DRM is Ubisofts problem, agreed... The retail of said game in this case is Steams problem, this is clearly a retail problem. Steam should refund or credit.

 

Be careful Mister_Bit.  You made sense, your opinion was intelligent, and you did not attack anyone.  Some people will instantly abuse the troll reporting tools because of it while others will post some insanely stupid comment about the EULA, which of course is not really a legally binding contract and is notorious for not holding up in court.

You nail the jest of the whole problem that I am having here because I am also a Steam user.  If I someday have a problem, I get banned, or what not I instantly lose my ability to play games I have PURCHASED just because I have to use their service to play them?  In essence, they can sell you products, ban you, and you then cannot use products you legally purchased?

For all the clowns here who defend Steam religiously, in terms of them being able to ban for a chargeback and deny access to their games, you should stop and think a moment about what you are supporting.  You are supporting a company taking someone's legally purchased games from them and denying them access to playing them because that person has an issue with one of the games and seeks legal methods to get his money back?  Yes, I know, chargebacks can be abused and I have no doubt there is numerous people who do abuse them.   However, think critically for a moment, think beyond black and white and understand the real issue at heart here.

I do agree the problem is with UBISOFT, and in terms of the OP not wishing to get things resolved through technical support, says he/she maybe lazy.  However, anyone who does defend Steam's stance on ransoming the games as leverage against customers is a complete and utter piece of dog dung and it is mindless sheep like you who allow corruption to flourish.

If true this is something of a wakeup call, i only have a few titles purchased from Steam, but i've noticed that DRM is sneaking in more and more - and becoming more intrusive. And i have to wonder, why are these companies treating PC users like potential criminals - are these same measures being introduced into Console games too? It seems even Bioware, a company i thought was above such things, is getting in on the act, the last game i bought of theirs, Dragon Age:Origins, installs a process into your services.msc listings, (mostly background processes) if you try to disable it, or remove it, the game no longer works, as this is something that runs even though your computer isnt even using the game in question, i have to wonder, how long before there are dozens of these things all related to different games etc, using up system resources and gradually slowing your computer down more and more. I think personally we should have the option of whether or not we want to install these things, me, i've uninstalled DA:origins and i'll be thinking twice about purchasing another Bioware product.

Originally posted by Dethnoble

Originally posted by Mister_Bit

This whole thing just seems wrong to me.

I can totally understand companies wanting to protect their hard work and effort (UBISOFT) and I can also understand Steam in trying to troubleshoot the problem BUT I can also understand the OP.

They way I see it is that Steam is a retailer in this case, at this point OP has simply purchased the game, not used it, regardless of the problems with the DRM, if an item sold is not fit for purpose i.e. not useable for whatever reason, the purchaser IS entitled to ask for a refund.

So now the bit that worries me is that after legitimate purchase and use of his games library to date is that Steam can block access to them over a dispute over a single purchase. Whatever way you look at it, that just isn't right.

Look at it this way, If I bought a faulty CD from a store and wanted a refund which they disputed, should they have the rights to come to my house and remove all the previous CD's I'd bought from them?

Bottom line, DRM is Ubisofts problem, agreed... The retail of said game in this case is Steams problem, this is clearly a retail problem. Steam should refund or credit.

 

Be careful Mister_Bit.  You made sense, your opinion was intelligent, and you did not attack anyone.  Some people will instantly abuse the troll reporting tools because of it while others will post some insanely stupid comment about the EULA, which of course is not really a legally binding contract and is notorious for not holding up in court.

You nail the jest of the whole problem that I am having here because I am also a Steam user.  If I someday have a problem, I get banned, or what not I instantly lose my ability to play games I have PURCHASED just because I have to use their service to play them?  In essence, they can sell you products, ban you, and you then cannot use products you legally purchased?

For all the clowns here who defend Steam religiously, in terms of them being able to ban for a chargeback and deny access to their games, you should stop and think a moment about what you are supporting.  You are supporting a company taking someone's legally purchased games from them and denying them access to playing them because that person has an issue with one of the games and seeks legal methods to get his money back?  Yes, I know, chargebacks can be abused and I have no doubt there is numerous people who do abuse them.   However, think critically for a moment, think beyond black and white and understand the real issue at heart here.

I do agree the problem is with UBISOFT, and in terms of the OP not wishing to get things resolved through technical support, says he/she maybe lazy.  However, anyone who does defend Steam's stance on ransoming the games as leverage against customers is a complete and utter piece of dog dung and it is mindless sheep like you who allow corruption to flourish.

I should point out I don't think mostly  anyone is mindlessly defending steam.Several people including myself have pointed out we have in the past with no problems gotten refunds from Steam despite it's stated no refund policy and have found their customer service to be polite and helpful.I've never heard or read about something like this happening before and it's certainly worrisome  if it is a precedent but it still sounds to me like most others that the OP took and unreasonable and aggressive stance and got treated with the same kind of response...not professional I grant you and maybe Steam needs to look into whoever CSR was at the time.