Pretty much every EULA ever has this clause.  At some point you are just raging against the entire software game industry.

Perhaps.  Given Valve's market position they need to be held to a much higher standard.

christ people like to whinge about big bags of fucking nothing, lol.

While I agree that the supreme court saying that companies can use a license agreement to prevent class action lawsuits is kind of silly, there is nothing wrong with businesses following the law, especially when most of their peers are doing so.

It turns out that class action lawsuits aren't very good for consumers anyways, they really only benefit the lawyers who get millions of dollars. You will be lucky if you get as much as $100 out of a class action lawsuit, usually its 1/10th of that.

You still have the right to take Valve to a small claims court, as per the EULA, and that is the best way to get any kind of compensation. Neither side uses lawyers in small claims court and its a fast and easy process, the judges are more forgiving towards consumers for things like false advertising. Since your steam account isn't worth more than a few hundred dollars anyways, I think that the best method of justice is still available to consumers in this case.

Obviously this is a U.S. perspective, and will vary across different territories, and that clause may not be enforcible in other countries. 

That last section was pretty hidden: That's enough for me to tolerate and not boycott (I wasn't going to boycott forever anyways)- but valve is now a last resort purchase for anything over say $5.

Hopefully Stardock doesn't make Steamworks mandatory in future, though I have a bad feeling about this given how Rebellion did.  I'd pay more for a non-Steamworks version.

There was bold text which was viewable right in the middle of the pop-up when we got this agreement after updating Steam. To claim it is "pretty well hidden" is a lie.

But then I am not upset because these terms clearly do not apply to me. This sort of arbitration cannot be forced on consumers in Sweden where we have many non-negotiable laws to protect the consumers when the business fails to deliver.

Agree, those are pretty terrible terms for anyone who has to follow them.

Maybe this is the real danger with Steam - they are so large that even when they introduce anti-consumer terms like these, people still choose to continue using it. Who is to say what will be included in the future? I for one certainly won't be buying anything through Steam after this. Gotta support my gamer bros?

Only people negatively affected by lack of class action lawsuit are lawyers, so I dont care.

If needed we (individual users) can still take Valve to small claims court.

You are going to find clauses like that become very common everywhere.  I see nothing here that is going to prevent me from using or enjoying the convenience and pricing of Steam.

island dog, the ONLY steam game I have (and it is restricted to watercooled computers only(I only have one)) is sins rebellion, and it is the ONLY steam game I will be getting, so if you move all your development to steam then you WILL lose me as a customer.

harpo

Because lawyers generally get the lion's share of any payout does not mean there is no value to consumers from class action lawsuits.

Consumers benefit because it's possible (tho not guaranteed) the company will positively modify its behavior.  Also, small claims court actions are unlikely to generate publicity of a company's behavior, where class actions may.

Non-monetary benefits exist, which your argument ignores.

I'm not speaking on behalf of Stardock here.

I think it's quite silly not to purchase a game because it's on Steam, or it's on GameStop, etc..  I hate to tell you, but retail for PC games is over, it's done.  Steam, GS, etc. are the future and they aren't going away. 

Indeed.  I have a Fry's Electronics near my house and their PC games section is one half-stocked aisle that's also got boxed fragrances on the shelves in it.  I'm not going to patronize those guys with PC sales if I can help it.

I'll make the same point I've made in every one of these "Steam-is-evil" threads (seriously, it's like 1 a week now).  Without Steam, most of PC gaming doesn't exist in 2012 (and certainly not in the next decade).  People can pretend to take proud stances about the evils of Steam, but if you are a PC gamer in any form, you benefit from Steam, indirectly at least.  Especially if you're someone who likes to play less mainstream games like Warlock: Master of the Arcane or Legend of Grimrock.  Without Steam, the majority of those games don't exist.  So be proud and mighty all you like, but at least acknowledge that you're also benefiting from the "evil Steam".  

As for the lack of class action, I don't personally care one whit.  In the last month I've gotten 6 or 7 excellent games (AAA titles or things like Legend of Grimlock) that cost me $4 to $6 each.  On other sites (Amazon digital for example) they were all $19.99 or $29.99.  The savings on those 6 or 7 games alone crushes any settlement I'd ever get in a class action suit against Steam.  And if I have a class-action style problem with Steam, which I won't because most class-action problems are bullshit, I still have the right to small claims court, which suits me just fine.  

Exactly. Boycott Steam and go buy all your games at WalMart, Target and Best Buy. Thats really making a statement. Say what you want about DRM and whatnot but purchasing games on Steam is worlds better for the gaming industry than giving Wal-Mart your money.

Any individual that ever feels compelled to litigate over a computer game is probably in the wrong hobby.