Party this is because of perceptions of time, and especially when with something so immersive as games, time actually spent and time perceived spent is often two different things. Asking people is more flawed then collecting data using automated system. Also -people lie a lot


Ahh -so what you want to collect is what people say they do, not what they actually do.Welcome to the world of social science... Big flaw - you will only get responses from the group of people who care enough to fill out a form. This group is not large at all.

It's ridiculous because this thread is supposed to be about GamersGate and it's still ended up being about Steam. I openly dislike Steam, but let's keep the Steam hating to threads actually about Steam.

Pretty sure I took part in this thread way back when anyway (when it was still about GamersGate).

Well said. The unfortunate part is that none of this has any effect on those who pirate games. The publishers put us customers at odds with each other to combat those pirates. I am not a fan of any game that requires activation everytime you play, install or upgrade hardware, I'm even less a fan of any game that forces you to patronize a specific retailer irrespective of where the purchase was made. If I choose to buy a game at GOG, Steam, GamersGate, Origin, ect then I willingly accepted the terms of that service, if however I intentionally go to another retailer to avoid the terms of a specific service then it is wrong to force me to go redeem/activate on that other service. I would prefer to see all these exclusivity deals vanish and have every Digital Distributor free to offer any game they wish with whatever terms they have established. Next offer a system that allows the customer to deactivate a game from one service and get a code that can be redeemed for the same game on another service. Wait about 3 years and then see who is on top, it just might surprise us all if it turns out to be Desura.

Yes, and I'm sure they know that.

You say it for yourself. Everybody agrees to it. That's not what I meant and you know it. But let me refine:

Good behaviour would be to not collect any usage information if the user does not want it unless said information is absolutely essential which the information discussed here will not be by far for the foreseeable future. This implies that any such collection must be purely optional and not on by default.

Better?

Uh...no. If they're using user stats showing what players are actually playing, they're actually making games that people clearly DO want.

If they understand the user stats right. E.g. What does a player mean, when he uses nukes in Civilization? Does he want more of that?

And what if you are an atypical player? They optimize it so, that the average user wants to play it. Depending on who the user is, such improvements might even be bad for him.

And some users just might feel uncomfortable, when someone/thing is constantly looking over their shoulders. I know I would. I might use less nukes in the end.

There are enough reasons to make such things purely optional. But if it is the case I am perfectly fine with it.

No, because now you changed your reasoning. First you said they are bad, because they don't ask you. Which is wrong, they explicitly ask you to sign that privacy policy.

To be more clear

[all quote provided without additional source are those directly taken form Steams privacy policy] Now you want to have that optional. You changed the issue. To bad Steam doesn't allow that. Oh wait: and But wait, how does this work? Steam sells information, right? They need that to run their business. Like clubbing baby seals runs their servers.

Let me elaborate: Aha! Aggregate information is shared. Damn you Steam!

..... what does aggregate information mean? Well, Now we have this nasty of "individual information". You might think it mean "information about you as an individual", something akin to personal information. Which wouldn't be rather shady, but also contradictory in itself. It actually just means information as a singular term as opposed to aggravated. But the important thing is that it isn't personal information.

Oh, and I could have avoided all that, because look at what we have in the PP of Steam: TL:DR:

Steam isn't collection more personal information than any other store that lets you save your CC card or other payment options. All other information is void of any personal identification. For example, your ISP knows everything about your internet usage. And they store it. And they can trace it back to you as a person with just one mouse-click. Doesn't stop you from using the internet, does it?

You can be pissed that Steam is earning money with data your playing provided. But that is pretty much like ref links, the user doesn't lose anything. Actually, the fact that this data is curbing Steam running costs, makes it easier for Steam to make those insane deals. Because they want us playing. Therefore it might actually be beneficial for us.


Finishing touches:

You don't need to be a friggin lawyer to understand this. Steam certainly isn't a knight in shining armour. But it also isn't worse than most companies out there. On the top of my head I can name at least ten things that really suck about Steam and that hopefully will be addressed in the future/I'm currently "working around". However, I do not make up stuff just to fit my narrative. I don't let a preconceived idea about Steam being the love-child of Hitler and Stalin cloud my judgement.

I approach Steam informed and without bias. Just as I approached GOG and GG and all the other services I use. And the internet itself would be a better place if more people would do it. If you don't like Steam, fine (Which is quite easy, I disliked Steam with passion up until 3 years ago). But don't like it for the reasons that actually exist.

Well now you are just being silly. Everyone knows that it is much more efficient to run servers by neutering panda bears.

Well, that's difficult to handle money wise.

You pay distributor A for the game. Half a year later you decide to switch to distributor B. Who's gonna pay him? Distributor A has probably already used your money to pay his employees, the electricity bill, rent for the office etc.

Each distributor would have to create an accrual for every sold game, just in case it gets transferred later, and wouldn't earn any money at all.

I didn't change my reasoning. I always meant an optional thing. Maybe this wasn't conveyed clear enough. I apologize for that. However that's what I meant from the very first beginning. If something is not optional then asking is pretty much useless in my view. As far as I have understood the privacy policy this only applies to individual information. Most probably not to the collection usage data in aggregate form. If I understood it right, you cannot opt out there.

So I stand with it: good behavior would be to ask for permission to collect usage data and to make this feature purely optional. That's what I wanted to say from the beginning. I also wrote down some reasons why I think this is better. And otherwise if you can opt out or must opt in (later is better) I have nothing against it. Under these conditions they may collect everything they want.

Not necessarily. If I have 10 games with distributor A and 10 with distributor B and I decide to transfer them all to distributor B then odds are pretty good that I will be buying my next 10 games from distributor B. It is no different than transferring to a different doctor, I tell Doctor A that I want all medical records transferred to Doctor B and it's done. They are not allowed to hold those medical records hostage to try keeping me as a patient. People transfer between car insurance companies and cable companies all the time. If I change cell phone companies I get to keep the same number. So why should it be different with games? If these companies want so badly for games to be a service then we should hold them to the same standards as every other service.

Well, for starters, because games are legally something totally different.

Because in all your examples you only get new services from the docs, insurances etc. and you pay for them. The new doc doesn't have to prescribe all the pills you ate the last years to you again. You only get the ones you'll need from now on and the doc gets payed for that. The insurance company only insures your car from this moment on. But you want distributor B to give you access to all the games you bought from distributor A. That's a recourse that you don't have in those other business models.

Not really, because "we all" like to do PvE and "we all" despise PvP like a plague. Generalisation is fun.