Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yep.

37 (69.8%)

Nope.

16 (30.2%)

Total Members Voted: 51

[Steelmagic]

The title was a pun. Steamy dilemma.

I personally wouldn't have submitted a ticket, but people respond to different situations in different ways.

[Knight of Fools]

I would have sat on it for a few days and submitted a ticket if I remembered and/or cared. I don't see it as being a big deal. As a customer, you had your service rendered and shouldn't be expected to take any further action. If Steam wants to take issue with it and charge your bank account several days after the fact... Well, it'd come across as rather fishy on their end if it wasn't a delayed charge, like ScriptWolf said.

If this had nothing to do with morals then why did you name the thread "A Steamy dilemma?".

Well, I'm rather aroused. That must be it.

[nenjin]

Karma.

[Tnx]

Emphasis on "dilemma", not steamy.

[Moghjubar]

Always return goods that you didn't pay for due to some accident, whether its from a local store (grocery shopping, from some poor clerk who made a mistake) or some online entity.

Integrity is worth more than games are.

[Geneoce]

Always return goods that you didn't pay for due to some accident, whether its from a local store (grocery shopping, from some poor clerk who made a mistake) or some online entity.

Integrity is worth more than games are.

Though in this day and age money tends to be worth more than integrity. 

[WealthyRadish]

If they still let him have the game after submitting the ticket, the only actual benefit was (at absolute best) alerting Valve about an issue they would've found out about anyway within hours/days, and that they more likely already know about (so it's just another ticket to process). Chances are the devs/publisher will still be paid by Valve no matter what, so there's actually very little altruism in submitting the ticket. This actually sounds like the more just option than submitting the ticket and paying, since I doubt Gaben needs to get yet more cupcake money from a college student.

[WealthyRadish]

-doublepost-

[GiglameshDespair]

If they still let him have the game after submitting the ticket, the only actual benefit was (at absolute best) alerting Valve about an issue they would've found out about anyway within hours/days, and that they more likely already know about (so it's just another ticket to process). Chances are the devs/publisher will still be paid by Valve no matter what, so there's actually very little altruism in submitting the ticket. This actually sounds like the more just option than submitting the ticket and paying, since I doubt Gaben needs to get yet more cupcake money from a college student.

Not sure why that cupcake student shouldn't have to pay for his games, either. I disagree with the idea that corporations shouldn't be paid for their services just because they're rich. It's like petty theft - "this shop is doing well. I don't need to pay for this Mars bar." While the actual cost to valve is minimal - the cost of electricity required for the increased load of doing that operation, any money deducted from their income to be sent to the developer - that kind of thinking is eclusively selfish and only sustainable in low levels. If he shouldn't pay, what abut all the other poor college students? Should they? shopuld be make a bar of income; below this, feel free to just take shit, because others are rich enough to cope?

Not aiming this at OP, really, though I think he did the right thing. But I disagree with the line of thinking quoted. Submitting the ticket will always be helpful to valve - it'll give a better representation of how common a problem it is and thus what priority it should have over other problems, so time/workers and thus money is allocated the most effectively.

[Darkmere]

Yeah I love the "I deserve free shit because people with more money than me don't need it" line.

By that logic homeless people should be free to break into your house and take your food/clothes. You can afford it, so they should get it free.

[alexandertnt]

I dont think that comparison is valid. Something like food is a requirement for survival. Without it you die. So in my opinion, people are entitled to food, as people are entitled to live. Although this is generally provided by the state and/or NGO's.

But a video game isnt required to live, and you are not entitled to it. If you cant afford it, then just dont buy it and perhaps complain about the price.

[Bauglir]

My own conclusion has generally been that whatever a creator decides to charge is what I ought to pay, and otherwise I ought to do without, at least when it comes to entertainment. If somebody wants to price themselves out of what their product is worth to me, I don't see why I need to try and encourage them to think there's adequate demand for the excessive price. If they don't, then I pay them for their work (or gladly accept the gift if they aren't asking for payment, all praise be unto the Toad). The Internet has provided such a deluge of free, disturbingly high quality content that I don't really have to care. I'll never get through all of what I want anyway.

Although I admit those first couple of months without piracy are rough. And the purges hurt. My poor collections...

[WealthyRadish]

This is still in a weird rhetorical state now, since I guess we don't know what Valve's going to do, but I still think it's better to not pay/submit a ticket in this instance.

If Valve doesn't revoke the game: The dev gets paid, he gets a free game, Gaben picks up a minuscule tab for the mistake.
If Valve does revoke the game: He buys it like normal, dev gets paid, Gaben gets even more cupcakes.

If submitting the ticket were the difference between those two, I'd definitely say to not submit the ticket. Part of it comes down to the same debate that comes up with piracy and copyright, of whether getting free versions of something freely and infinitely replaceable is acceptable. I would personally say that the only thing that's relevant when paying for virtual goods is that the creator gets paid for it. It's not so much a stealing from the rich mentality, as just not respecting the middlemaning of virtual goods as something positive for either the consumer or the producer. Valve taking a cut is normally the same necessary evil we deal with for all other stuff not bought directly, so if you can get out of it (especially on the internet, where so many of the mark up reasons aren't relevant), there's no reason not to.

I'd rather not derail this with a discussion on consumerism, copyright, and capitalism, but I think we can all agree that he was under no obligation to submit the ticket, so either choice is acceptable.

[GiglameshDespair]

Why should the middleman not be respected when the middle man is an important part of it? You didn't buy it straight from the developer, and thus the middleman has the right to get paid for his work. Valve isn't just gabe sitting on a huge pile of money - while no doubt he's rich enough to do so, he also runs a company of many employees. Valave does incur costs in letting you use that game; the costs of storing, amending, and backing up your account; transferring the data to your computer whenever you download said game. All those have costs.

You can only joke about Newell's wealth because this does not happen en masse. Of course, we don't know exactly how valve's systems work - it could be developers only get paid after steam recieves the money. So it might be the dev doesn't get paid at all, and only the customer benefits.

I disagree with you; he has a moral obligation to file the ticket, and so not filing the ticket is not acceptable morally, whether or not he had a legal obligation to do so.

[Darkmere]

I dont think that comparison is valid. Something like food is a requirement for survival. Without it you die. So in my opinion, people are entitled to food, as people are entitled to live. Although this is generally provided by the state and/or NGO's.

But a video game isnt required to live, and you are not entitled to it. If you cant afford it, then just dont buy it and perhaps complain about the price.

If you're going to pick one word of what I said just to disagree, go ahead and change my example to TV's or books or whatever luxury good you like.