As a company isn't it always better to be on the safe side of laws like this?

Steam does *not* have an age check for German customers, the way the legal system there requires it (apparently), yet they supply games to Germans anyway. Doesn't it make sense those games should be censored since they have no way of knowing who the games are going to?

Feel free to debate the points that have been made in this thread. So far, I took your silence as approval - I figured that if you saw a reason to disagree, you'd voice it. ;-p

I don't see what the existence or lack of an age check has to do with the matter at hand. Jamyskis bought an uncensored disc version of the game. Any age check is supposed to have been done by the shop that sold the disc. What exactly is your point?

Na. The debate is way to slanted for an proper approach anyway.

Also, there are several different reasons for censorship that are due to several different laws, which means I would need to unwind half the thread. I'm no longer getting into legal discussions as (especially with Steam) people want their preconceived ideas confirmed, not educate themselves.

Let's give you my "non-legal" opinion. Would a company do something that would curb their income for no reason at all?

He did? I missed that part, my bad.

Still, they are supplying the game, digitally to Germans, updates and all. If you are in Germany at the time that happens, and with no way to ascertain the difference in age, I can still see how it might be a case of 'just on the safe side'.

Somebody said a magic word!

While I probably prefer to have my preconceived ideas confirmed in matters I feel strongly about, I like to believe that I'm not totally immune to being educated yet. ;)

That said, I can see your point.

Actually, the most likely scenario (imho) is that the publisher wanted to have the German version censored, and that Steam applied this change retroactively to sold copies without need. Doing so does not curb Steam's income any more (or less) than leaving the sold copies as-is.

looks like there are both faces of the coin , lol just look at this thread
http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3001454
someone raging that steam is selling postal 2 in Aussie even though its banned there

every system has a flaw you have to bare with it and get your share of joy from the game and dump it out later

this is true on more than one occasion , valve devs have said on the forums that using vpns will have your account locked out , expect it to happen at the worst time

That's true, Postal 2 is one of the only games banned here in Brazil, and it's available on Steam for me. I think it's a matter of time before they realize it.

The time of supply for the purposes of law is deemed to be the time of purchase. In my case, at the time I bought the disc from the store. Because the service is bound to my account details, it is then my responsibility to ensure that no minor has access to this game through my account.

You do bring up a valid point in stating that Valve is wildly inconsistent in observing German law though. Formal age checks are indeed required for 18-rated games, which Steam doesn't observe, even though practically every other German retailer does.

Gamersgate and GOG are just as guilty of this though. Origin and UPlay comply with this law in another way, but in a way that is quite frankly bizarre.

Edit: In other news, Sleeping Dogs (EU) has reappeared in my account history list, but I'm too tired to check the game now. Sounds like the Russian version problem was related to it though.

I'd say that forcing consistency in multiplayer focused titles is not wrong, but actually the right way to do it, to ensure compatibility between the players. It can be done from within game launchers, but it is honestly much more convenient to have it been done automatically. Single player though, that is more problematic, and ends up fucking over things (and in the case of things like Skyrim, breaking down mod compatibilty since the mods were made for previous versions).

In general I'd say that the autopatching in steam is more of a benefit than a hindrance, except in horrible cases like this one.
If there was an update to be applied, it should have been to the version acquired, not changing it to the censored version? Goddamn.

They could ban you for getting a slightly different version of a patch, or they could not ban you and continue to get money from you. I've spent over $2500 on Steam, and will surely spend many thousands more in years to come. They're not going to throw away money because someone in Germany downloads a US patch for a game they legally bought, or someone in England downloads their legally purchased copy of Skyrim 12 hours early. You really have to learn the difference between reality, and reams and reams of legalese; you're coming across kind of like a Vulcan.

There's also a program you can use to give yourself achievements you haven't actually earned - there's of course the potential to be banned, but what do Valve care about more, tens of thousands of dollars, or the morality of pretending to have smashed 1000 barrels when you've only smashed 678? If you want to see that as a risk, go ahead, but I assume you'll also never get into a car because of the comparatively much higher risk of being killed in a road accident?

... no, I'm coming across as someone who has seen first hand what kind of stupid crap Steam support can pull.

Again. You want to do that, that's your own problem. I do have an issue with you telling people to go ahead and do this, since nothing will happen. Best to err on the side of caution.

WOW, they really are assholes for banning people for using VPN services.