I agree that calling others apologists and so forth should normally be out-of-bounds in a debate as it simply invites flaming, but the content of his points are valid. Their former full-ban policy isn't defensible - not even with the argument that person in question deserved the ban. It just isn't. Trying to defend it by tangent of how many false/true positives their ban system has as others have done here, does invite that comment.

Valve has finally recognized the wrongness of their policy. This is good. This is progress. Further, it would be demonstrably unfair to single out Valve amongst the rest (Blizzard, EA, etc ...) as it is not the worst company in consumer rights violations, merely the biggest of the DDs. But there are many more things that they and the rest of the industry continue to believe they have the right to do to their consumers that is disheartening.

I don't dislike Valve or Steam at all and I have bought plenty of games with DRM on them. But one should call out a company or industry when they are not using best practices - or in this case even in basic compliance with the law. And one should always push companies, even if not especially the ones one likes, to respect their customers. There are cases where one might argue the legality and morality - companies are not always in the wrong. But I don't think there is much legal defense here.

Can't please some people. This is great news! I bet it's a piece of a bigger update too..dare I say "game trading"?

If you spend 500€ on games, you can spend another 100€ for basic legal counsel. From there on PKH will cover the rest of the trial.

While that would be truly awesomely amazing and I would be standing up and cheering for Valve, I don't see that happening. :)

I'd love to be wrong.

I think Valve could do it. I even think they'd make a lot of money from it. But I just don't see it happening given the general inertia and myopia of the industry. Also while this is a victory for the consumer, it doesn't necessarily imply that another one is coming. However, if there was one company capable of pulling that off successfully on a large scale, it would probably be Valve with Steam. In fairness to them, they are generally more resourceful and inventive than the rest of the industry in these sorts of matters.

I was talking about Steam being used as a DRM. No "full ban" case ever reached a court (I'm dared to say anywhere in the world).

I'm also agreeing with you in saying that full bans are downright illegal in most cases. But I believe that cases were people actually lost access to legally bought games are far and few between. The reason Steam didn't change it earlier is probably because they were restrictive with this practise in the first place.

And don't post those "my games got banned for no reason at all" threads. People write plenty of "truthinesses" on forums.

I understand, I think we're on the same page. :)

Wasn't planning to. Because to me it doesn't matter how few/many innocents got hit by it :) - the potential shouldn't be there in the first place. There are other cases which I think there are consumer-unfriendly policies that are meant to solve real problems, but I'll admit I'm stumped as to the better solution - though there are many doubtless smarter than I who are not. :) But this was a potentially very destructive policy with, frankly rather obviously, better, more legal, and more consumer-friendly ways of handling the problem they were trying to solve.

Which we agree on. :)

Good step, happy to see it.

Not much else to say really.

Oh, hi. You might want to read up on these:

Philosophic burden of proof
Presumption of innocence
Scientific method

There are indeed some people who disagree with you.

About time Steam, about time.
Keep it up.

You can choose not buying them.

It's not about "disagreeing". Simon_G and I frequently "disagree" on matters relating to Steam but in this case he's pretty much on the ball.

It's when people start making weird claims or denying the most obvious of facts ("Valve has never banned accounts that didn't deserve it!", "VAC is infallible!") that they become apologists.

but a VAC ban isn't the same as a Steam ban.

at the risk of sounding like an apologist (i don't give a fuck if i do TBH), i don't believe for a minute that banning innocent users is something Valve do on a regular basis or in notable numbers. Valve want as many customers tied to Steam as possible, and they want those customers to keep buying games. banning somebody for no reason is at the very bottom of Valve's interests.

now, i don't doubt that it does happen. occasionally. mistakes happen. everywhere and by everyone, eventually.

what i won't do is buy every sob story some loser posts online about how his account was wrongfully locked, etc. etc. like that guy who claimed he got Steam-banned for no reason. turns out he was selling Russian editions to Western customers in considerable bulks.

like i said: their house, their rules. you agree to the SSA when you sign up. i don't care if you think it's not legally binding. it's a matter of personal honor. you agree to the rules, now follow them. and i believe if you do that, you have nothing to worry about. if a mistake happens to you, i'm sure you can get your account back by presenting your identification and/or proof of purchase.

I know, but the topic of VAC came up, so I thought I'd mention it as an example. And you see it all the time, especially on the Steam forums - "VAC doesn't fuck up - if you've been banned, it's because you cheated!" I mean, it's an automated system created by people - of course it's going to have bugs!

But as you say, VAC and Steam bans are comparatively rare occurrences. That being said, I've encountered it in real-life situations enough (LAN party colleagues being locked out of their Steam accounts because their bank messed up) and it's something that should not have occurred in the first place. If you buy a game off GOG, you won't get locked out of it if your account has been locked - you still have the game.