#Steam dustwind player count software

It was, instead, a representation that the amount of use in those cases prevented a refund.” “In each case,” wrote Edelman, “it was not a representation that a remedy would never be given when there had been any use of the goods. Interestingly, despite agreeing that Valve were guilty of misleading Australian consumers as a whole with its “no refunds” policy, Justice Edelman did not agree that Valve was under legal obligation to provide any of the four objectors with refunds.

All four believed their rights under Australian Consumer Law were being compromised. The ACCC were initially drawn to the Steam case after receiving complaints from four Australians who were refused refunds by Valve. They were found guilty of misleading consumers on the issue of refunds.

#Steam dustwind player count software

“he significance of the “offline” mode,” explained Edelman, “is that it shows that the consumer has been provided with software which can be used without any further communication with Valve’s servers.”Įssentially, Valve lost the case. Interestingly, the fact that many Steam games can run in ‘offline mode’ helped convince Justice Edelman that the games Valve provides customers were indeed ‘goods’ in the more traditional sense. Prior to this extension, cases had recognised that computer software that was supplied on a physical medium such as a CD-Rom was a good but, perhaps controversially, that digitally downloaded computer software was not. This extension avoided debate about whether executable bits of digital data might fit with the idea of thinghood which would otherwise be an essential requirement for a “good”. The definition of “goods” was extended when the Australian Consumer Law was enacted on 1 January 2011 to include “computer software”. The claim that games on Steam didn’t fit the definition of ‘goods’ was also found to be inaccurate. Entered into third party agreements with multiple businesses in AustraliaĪccording to Edelman, this proved that Valve was indeed doing business in Australia. Had thousands of dollars worth of monthly expenses maintaining those servers in Australia

Spent $1.2 million establishing property and servers in Australia Knowingly served 2.2 million Australians with Steam Accounts It intended to make representations to each Australian consumer who downloaded Steam Client.Įdelmen went onto explain that the fact Valve: This is in a context in which Valve had established game servers in Australia, it had content delivery networks in Australia, and it knew it had approximately 2.2 million subscribers in Australia. Ven without specifically being told that the consumer was in Australia, the downloading of Steam Client in Australia and the agreement to Steam’s terms and conditions established a direct relationship between Valve and the Australian customer. With regards to the issue of Valve doing business in Australia Justice Edelman, who made the final judgement, wrote: The Federal Court did not agree with those claims. Secondly, Valve argued the games being sold through the Steam client didn’t fit underneath the definition of ‘goods’ as per Australian Consumer Law. First, Valve argued it technically didn’t conduct business in Australia, therefore Australian Consumer Law did not apply to Valve and the games it sold through the Steam client.