Should game developers be able to revoke specific keys?
Without reading, just answering to the question in general, yes it's a must. Developer/publisher must have the ability to revoke a specific key for bunch of reasons. That said, looks like there's been an abuse of privilege in this specific case.
EDIT: I've read the article and it's exactly what I thought. One dev abused the basic option to ban a specific key for the user he managed to identify by abusing backend over at itch.io to see which key was granted to that user who backed the game there. Sure, it's illegal for him to do so, specifically because the user paid for the game key.
That said, it's illegal for you to drive over someone with a car, but you should still be able to drive a car - as long as you follow the rules. Millions of people drive cars daily without running anyone over. Millions of devs revoke specific keys daily (beta keys, stolen keys, ...) and are not abusing that option for something like this.
And like you'd get in trouble with the police and state if you ran over someone with your car, this dev will get on some sort of list with Valve for sure.
Everything else is making a big deal out of nothing for biased reasons (article pushes "buy drm free games outside of steam" for example).
Comment has been collapsed.
That said, it's illegal for you to drive over someone with a car, but you should still be able to drive a car
And, the guy who sold you the car should be able to break into your garage and take the car back?
Comment has been collapsed.
Remember games are licences to play only. It's more like the rental company providing you with the car reaquires it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Repossessions happening all the time if you don't pay the bill. If one mistake/stupidity happens, we don't take away the ability to lease cars from all the companies who do it, we have courts that judge on case.
And my analogy was that just because something can be abused doesn't mean it should be forbidden. Even writing comments online can be abused, yet I'd hate to live in a country where we upfront deny that ability to everyone because 1 person said something illegal.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've made a comment with a reply to your comment here below. If you do not mind or is interested, do read and reply if you feel the need. I put it below as its a general point of view yet it replies to your comment heavily too. :)
Sincere Wishes, Cruse~
Comment has been collapsed.
+1
From the Depth of Extinction developer
"Sorry about that, but I thought I you weren't interested in playing the game. I would have loved to get your feedback during the First Access but I didn't see anything from you until the Steam review, which was a little confusing. I really don't see how you saw enough of the current version of the game to make the judgement call you did there since we made massive changes in the last few months that were all just on Steam.
I can get you another key if you are interested in playing more and perhaps providing some feedback on how we can improve the game."
Smh.. the fact the dev requires some kind of condition to get another key they've already bought makes this even worse in my opinion.
Comment has been collapsed.
Just needs to be banned from steam permanently for extortion
Comment has been collapsed.
After thinking about it for a while, I think they need to have the opportunity to do it.
If they have been cheated out of keys or something like that. But at the same time, there needs to be accountability. This developer's ability to revoke keys should be taken away. Just like that. They don't deserve it.
Revoking keys is a privilege in my eyes. A privilege that everyone should have. But just like with any privilege, abusing it should end with the abuser having their privilege taken away.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is how I see it. A privilege was abused and now action should be taken on that. The action itself isn’t inherently bad because it’s always possible someone could hack a key database and steal a bunch and it wouldn’t be right to leave those active and ending a beta is often done by revoking beta keys. This was gross abuse of the function by the dev and so now they shouldn’t be able to do this anymore at all.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not to mention that if there's a hack, then it's on Steam and they'll be the one to revoke the keys anyways. Also not to mention that a Beta is under a different ID appcode usually. So they won't get the actual game, but a special version of the game. But even then, maybe it should be so drastic that they just flat out won't be able to do that either, since it requires the revoking of keys.
Comment has been collapsed.
Where the keys come from could be from literally anywhere, so the developer must know where those specific keys were sent to. Why and how plays a significant part because if the developer finds out they've been passed onto the wrong or shady person, what options are they provided with other than to take action and combat it.
Comment has been collapsed.
The developer blindly made a mistake and made a misjudgement error which i was already aware of.
And i also agree with your part regarding the fake Youtuber, that got me laughing although seriously, there is a certain hunger for keys that they would do anything to acquire a free license.
Overall, its a mixed bag but i do understand when you referred to a shady person.
Comment has been collapsed.
Stolen keys, keys issued for streamers that end up being sold by said streamer(s) on greymarket site, then use a new name and email to ask for another key to lather...rinse...repeat. keys purchased with stolen credit or debit cards, keys purchased by someone fraudulently using someone else's PayPal account or bank account, keys purchased by hackers/crackers/pirates who then go on to distribute the game for free or creating a cheat mod for it and bragging about it... just a few reasons I can think of.
If it is costing the dev money in lost sales, non-payment because of chargebacks on the PayPal CC DC or other payment method, keys obtained in any fraudulent manner... there are legit reasons.
But revoking a key because someone hurt your feelings with a bad review... yeah. No. that is not a legit reason.
Comment has been collapsed.
I also dont think you should revoke a game if someone is cheating, should just ban them from ever playing it.
How is that different from revoking a key? Either way, the person can't play the game they paid for.
shrugs
Comment has been collapsed.
In most cases stolen keys are simply sold. Revoking the keys is problematic for the people who naively bought them, but it's still usually the right thing to do, or devs would implicitly condone stealing.
Of course in some cases it's hard to do anything, but these are not necessarily the common cases.
It's also easy to say 'stop falling for these scammers', but it's hard in practice. It's a lot better to be able to resolve the problem once is occurs rather than have to act paranoid all the time.
Comment has been collapsed.
Steam recommends that "In general, you should treat keys like cash." (See the steam keys documentation page.) It also says: "You may ban keys to revoke access from legitimate users (for example, the end of a beta) or to revoke keys that have been stolen or purchased fraudulently."
Comment has been collapsed.
Credit card fraud. Only effective way to combat it is to disable the products that were purchased fraudulently. Anything else is encouraging that behaviour.
Comment has been collapsed.
good, we need less negative reviews.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is a blatant and extreme case of abuse of power from the dev, but users getting banned from community hubs for writing negative/non-constructive reviews is not unheard of.
Comment has been collapsed.
I guess he never knew that feedback isn't always a positive feedback.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, devs should have the ability to get specific keys revoked. As long as keys get stolen etc. there should be a way to act against that..
That said, abuse of that ability should also get the dev booted off the steam store for bad behavior. (Just like any other abuse of power that Valve doesn't give 2 shits about, so this whole thing probably won't have any consequences whatsoever for the dev)
Comment has been collapsed.
Hi @NB264, I believe you are a Dev too? I mean mention this because your comment represents a view from Devs for example, while I am a user point of view. In this case a key is revoked, which happens to be legally procured and project backer. I am not sure how much the backer paid but as a user, Not excluding Steam, GOG, Twitch, Discord, etc All other media platforms that distributes virtual keys for their media products I believe that revoking any key when the user did not violate terms of purchase is illegal of course that is your point too.
The main juice I want to point out is, there can be a method to remove digital medias but Not even the retailers/platforms and Devs if the purchase is legal/not in grey markets and made outright should have the right to removed said purchase. That IS the wrong of the current market. That is where Digital Media fails imo. Digital media imo had been the reason for lower cost games, more productivity, efficiency, reach out to potential gamers, generally a wider market and reduced production costs over physical copies. Where the financial surplus can be put in refining and production of a better game or marketing.
If this case gets blown over proportional which probably should, there's a need for revival of Physical Copies. That is true Ownership, unlike licenses you get from GOG, Steam, other media platforms and hope they will honor their ends of purchase. Wielding such power where if overnight, you've incurred the wrath of the platform's ownership, your games, your purchases will be suspended.
Isn't there a case recently where a Youtube reviewer had his sponsorship revoked because he advised against purchasing the new RTX? Well, that's another condition and another case. However, what I meant to point out is that the users do not have the allowance to even make their own judgement on their product of purchase. Although Steam now is generally honoring their end. I'll bank on GOG more to honor their word than valve. Even with GOG, they have the power/right to revoke keys. Although the linked article in the OP mentioned backing up the installer on your Drive that is not a feasible solution in long term.
There is NO Protection for Users/Gamers/Buyers on Digital Medias. In the case of Physical copies, at least at the end of the day, I still have my DVD and Blu-Rays("Weeps")
Note: This response is nothing against @NB264 and I posted in the thread instead of user comment because I am pointing out my view on a general flaw which pretty much answers and maybe a discussion with @NB264. :)
Main point: Not only does Developers alone should Not wield such rights, Retailers, Publishers, Platform providers too. There is basically no consumer rights! Unless it is proven the consumer had clearly been abusive in remarks, nonconstructive feedback, clearly harassment, blackmailing, coordinating defamation or any foul play.
Like how we are blacklisted on SG for various reasons, for any Body/Organization/Company to exercise/abuse their right by saying the consumer violates in any sense isn't right. A car example is mentioned; The carmaker sold you a car, you made the full purchase. Next day you have a bad review on the car as the steering and brakes do not function well and you regard it as a safety breach. On the review, its negative, Red, Don't Buy. Does that mean the carmaker can go to your residence and repossess your vehicle just because the negativity generated by you? When you made the full payment? Isn't that your ownership?
In this case, the Users/Gamers/Buyers Do Not Have the ownership even, if you paid in full, pre-order, in this case Backed the project which maybe way more than what the purchase of the product will be.
Warmest and Most Sincere Regards to anyone whom read this and hopefully we can a constructive discussion, :D
Cheers, Cruse~
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, since you asked me to read your comment and answer... I'll start by saying I fully agree this particular dev was in the wrong for banning a key for the paying customer. Period. I don't even care if it was on purpose or if it was a mistake. I thought this part was clear from my previous messages in this thread, but either I didn't make it clear enough, or you didn't pay attention...
That said, looks like there's been an abuse of privilege in this specific case.
Sure, it's illegal for him to do so, specifically because the user paid for the game key.
Now, what I'm claiming if you read carefully is that in general, developers must have this option. Sure, it can in theory lead to this kind of abuse. But everything can, that's why I used a simple example of a daily used object that most of us know very well.
My car comparison was meant to say "you can use a car to kill a person, yet we're not banning cars upfront". It wasn't me who went into the "car company can take your car" which is completely different thing, but YES a company that sold your car CAN reposes it if you don't pay. A dev can ban a key if it's not paid/it's stolen/it's been for limited beta, whatever.
Now, what we have here is a dev banning a valid key that was sold through a licensed store. It's the same as a car dealership sending a repo officer after you even if you paid all your bills on time. In that case, would you sue them, or would you petition the state to forbid the practice of repossessing the goods that were not paid? Would you say that car industry fails and we should all go back to using horses, so even when the horse dies, we at least have a carcass to make glue?
Because that's what you're doing now. One developer in one single case made a ridiculously stupid thing. And you're making a "digital distribution in general is bad, steam is bad especially, even gog is bad omg run for the hills" out of it, asking "why developers need this function that they need for so many valid reasons, why anyone has an option to return their stolen goods for example".
And no I don't see myself as developer. I've bought 2000+ games on steam alone, and released 1 tiny tiny game (not counting my free non-English educational projects). Pretty sure my bias too is on the side of "spent a lot of money here" side, and that's where all my thinking starts from. That doesn't mean I can't stop to think and not attack dozens of thousands of good and hardworking people just because one dufus revoked a wrong key yesterday.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hello again, let's get off the right note, words can often be misunderstood. I am sorry and apologise if you feel the context of my post is in anyway against you. Unless I do not understand the context of my comments here is my reply. :)
I put it below as its a general point of view yet it replies to your comment heavily too
As I mentioned, in that quote Although it seems I am only replying to your comment but my view is general and its open for other users to discuss. I am not generally just addressing to you alone but a broader audience with your comment being the main subject of discussion. Hope you understand.
I thought this part was clear from my previous messages in this thread, but either I didn't make it clear enough, or you didn't pay attention...
As such I quote from my earlier post "I believe that revoking any key when the user did not violate terms of purchase is illegal of course that is your point too."
Now, what I'm claiming if you read carefully is that in general, developers must have this option
"The main juice I want to point out is, there can be a method to remove digital medias but Not even the retailers/platforms and Devs if the purchase is legal/not in grey markets and made outright should have the right to removed said purchase" In my opinion the Devs always have an option to send a report to the platform in any form of abuse even if its illegal on the user end. Of course if we look at Dev/Publisher end it may end up on the wrong end too. In the case of Tiny Build and G2A, recently Helium Rain and Kinguin.
As much as a user chooses the platform to use and purchase, Dev/Publishers need to be careful with the platforms for their releases. It all seems to put the Devs on the losing end but there are more consumer interests in purchases than a Dev/Publisher. Perhaps I am flawed in this thought but that is how I think it should be for now.
I live in Singapore where a decent 4-room apartment at a decent location is more than half a million on resale prices. The ownership of the lease is however only 99 yrs. When the government feels the land needs to repossess I need to be forcefully relocated even if I have more than half of the lease left. When I relate that to "licensing" of platforms like Steam, the foundation is even weaker as generally most people believe they bought/purchase or own the game. Even if you purchase the Physical copy with the license to play, at least you still have the option to play the game you have purchased as its within reach.
Unless consumer rights are protected in the case where in the case of Bankruptcy or in this case a differing of views from the product creator and the Licensee. The model of Licensing play rights is flawed in my humble opinion. No, we may not go back to horses but its not a bad idea either, I like horses though I have yet have close personal experiences with them. We do go back to "Metal Horses" aka Bicycles. When we are deprived of an alternative, we look for another, for me and my opinion as stated from my comments. i would have preferred Bicycles though I do not ride a bicycle well. I'll probably walk, but still, you get what I mean.
Physical Copies from my point of view is a symbol of ownership not licensee. Where my rights and reviews of the said product is covered. Oh well you could request the Physical copies too but would they go that far? Exactly the case for Steam/GOG/Digital Keys, if the system is flawed its always up for discussion.
If you repossess my car/house, no doubt in a beat I'll challenge/pursue that right/matter to the very end. As for digital rights in general which I feel is unfair to the users, as of now my account which is value around thousands. If I were to be suspended for an unfair reason, I will pursue but it will be ages or even if Valve declared bankrupt and the service is terminated thereby I lose thousands in value with no alternatives or protection in sight. There and then it will depend on the responsibility of the Developers and other platforms to reassign the keys was of a different platform. In Physical copies, that would not have been the case.
In light, i will exclude you as a Dev viewpoint as you mentioned per se you've only released a game but the discussion remains whether digital rights is protected for consumers.
Warmest Regards, Cruse~
Comment has been collapsed.
You do realize that with physical copies you're still just paying a licence to play the game, you don't own the source nor binary code? You would own a game if you hired people to build it for you or you built it yourself. Media that licence is delivered through doesn't change that. Even back in the day, most eula's said something like if you don't like the product you can return it in a limited time period UNLESS it's been opened and by opening it you've accepted the terms of eula blah blah blah...
And in more cases than not, there's DRM on your physical media, including StarForce, SafeDisc, SecuRom, TAGES...
So the only thing you'd get by going back is the "feeling" of being more safe because you hold the physical disc in your hand. Which means nothing, as those damned things deteriorate much faster than they told us.
Comment has been collapsed.
Physical Copies from my point of view is a symbol of ownership not licensee. Where my rights and reviews of the said product is covered. Oh well you could request the Physical copies too but would they go that far?
Quoted from my reply above. Yes, I know we do not own the license, its a false sense of security and I do know they deteriorate. Better than at the mercy of media platforms directly where they could revoke without much hassle. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I do not want to sound of as annoying and end on a bad note but I think this is the end of our discussion, unless you have anything to add. Thank you for your replies, Have a great weekend ahead. Cheers, Cruse~
Comment has been collapsed.
By the way, i wasn't running for the hills either and its not the end of the world either. In fact I respect GOG as an organization alot with the care and responsibility they had shown with Witcher 3 GoTY constantly discounted at $19.99. It could easily be in $50 and the quality of products the churn out.
Nonetheless, when a system is unfair, i just want to add my opinion/view upon it and putting up for discussion.
Cheers~
Comment has been collapsed.
This has happened to me.
Their first response?
- "This could be due a problem with the payment methods you used to acquire this item from a third-party seller; or a problem with how the third-party seller acquired the Product code. Please contact the seller you acquired the Product code from for assistance."
It gets better, but it's water under the bridge. Caught them in all sorts of lies as I questioned Team Clockworks further. Wonder how many others have been victimized by these no-loads. Okay, victimized is extreme - but so is revocation.
Not that what I have said proves anything at all... but every single review I've done before Curator Connect was never revoked when given by the same group(s) and I never had problems. Doesn't add up at all. Delayed posting my negative review until the group I was in basically fizzled out. Didn't want to go against what the group was about, since I have a shred of integrity in my being, unlike the jerk above.
Comment has been collapsed.
Where did you make you purchase if you do not mind me asking? Well, generally it seems, Yes there are cases of abusing reviews/curations but that leaves little room for genuine negative reviews. I believe "smart" buyers/users read more than 1 review(s) to understand and evaluate the context/contents of the product. There's always pros and cons, the devs or any product maker/creator must be able to evaluate and advise against the review but not revoking/disarm/denied access to said product/service. Especially the product/service is paid in full and the review is constructive.
Regards, Cruse~
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, it was offered for free. It's possible the curator I was working with got the key from somewhere else, but highly unlikely, since all other keys were from developers and never revoked. The admin would pass them (keys from developers who wanted reviews done) around to whoever wanted to try to review "this game or that game" for instance... Hard to explain, but hopefully that makes sense. We (several of us that were reviewing) all came to the same conclusion - none of us could give a positive at that time. We were all in agreement it needed improvements since it was in Early Access, needed more time but it is still EA - and will probably be in perma-EA - like so many others that are thrown together in the same kind of manner.
Developer used the "third party" defense every time I tried to explain, "passing the buck", when they were the ones that pulled the trigger. To be fair, I didn't purchase it or put any money into the developer's game. I simply wanted to wait until more was done in the game before giving my opinion. I'd rather give them a chance to make things right, but it didn't happen... It was unfinished. I even left suggestions to pass along to the development on how they could improve the game... I think. I'm not certain since it was over a year or so back, but that was my standard practice, either directly, or through whomever was in contact, to give constructive criticism/feedback. Revocation destroyed the chance for me to try and help. As one can see from their store page, it's mostly negative, and there is a good reason why...
Too bad, because I was hoping it could improve, and looking forward to working with them on getting a positive review out in favor if the game turned around... It's a shame...
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, if the key is provided for, I guess the Dev can easily revoke it as you mentioned "reasons". I do think that there are more cases where I see extended reviews and the devs come out and retort in an angry manner. Perhaps at times they are not the dev team and marketing personnel that does not understand the mechanics that the reviewer was disappointed about. Even closing discussion threads on said matter.
There are of course alot of devs out there which updates and actively participate in discussions and refine, if not reply that the mechanic could not be introduced due to said issues. There is also abuse of reviews we all see while all these are not easy to tackle and striking a balance, even if a product is in the negative review stat and the buyers will look into the reviews if the reviews are plain malicious I am sure the potential buyers can identify the difference. Revoking just isn't the way even if the key was provided imo.
Regards, Cruse~
Comment has been collapsed.
Such behavior is illegal in my country and many others countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_of_intellectual_property_rights
Even in US:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_doctrine_under_U.S._law
So when dev/publisher remove your game or Humble told you that you can't resell: they all break the law.
Comment has been collapsed.
You don't own the game, you are getting a rent for a key. Same in Steam, if you read the ToS you will see that everything you spend on Steam can be taken down in a single day. You don't own anything on Steam, every game, every item in inventory is rented good. If Steam shuts down and decides to delete everything one day, you won't be able to win any court case.
Edit: An example, if you rent a scooter, you can't give it to someone else to drive (well you can, but then you'll be breaking the agreement) and same applies here. Exactly same system, you resell the rented good to someone else and you break the agreement. They can easily revoke the key if they know your key is on third party market place.
Plus Humble Bundle doesn't really fight against these black market resellers, they just warn you that in case you get scammed or something happens to your key, it's out of their responsibility to give you another one.
Comment has been collapsed.
OMG "such" people are still alive.
I don't care Steam ToS because ToS =\= LAW.
And the law says: what is mine is mine and I can do what I want to do with it.
Comment has been collapsed.
You must be under aged to think like that. All the laws can be applied as well as Terms of Uses when you take someone to court.
Change my mind. Show me an example where someone won by breaking ToS and because law was on his side, please.
Edit: Forgot to mention that ToS is usually country specific so it works according to the local laws. And is changed if the law is changed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Question can be reversed to should "game key users" be able to leave reviews at all. Did you answer yes? Well, then developers should be able to revoke the key. If you buy the game directly from Steam Store you wouldn't be in this kind of situation, but you decided to go black market or some other way, where developer has power over customer and then crying about those consequences.
Comment has been collapsed.
The person in this case in the original post was a backer of the game in their kickstarter campaign on itch.io but the key was revoked due to their negative review. Cheers~
Comment has been collapsed.
In that case itch.io should take care of it and ban the developer from ever entering their platform. If they are scumbags they'll let the developer continue to co-operate with them.
Comment has been collapsed.
They probably should, pretty sure they violated itch.io rules. Now that the case had blown out of proportion I guess, we'll sit back and review what the gaming community have to say.
Cheers~
Comment has been collapsed.
I think I get the point of you, but the way you phrased it is limiting and condemning. There are official resellers that have a contract with the developers/publishers and allowed to sell Steam keys, assuming key = black market is really just expecting the worse.
Also, in the OP the victim got a key because of an itch.io purchase - this is why the developer knew exactly which key they needed to deactivate.
While I know of no precedent beforehand, the same issue can be used to silence people who got their key in a direct way - crowdfunding, dev-issued promo key, etc. And while these do not count into the game's %, they are still visible - so a developer without a backbone still can have a reason to removenegative ones.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry, I didn't read the article before I posted, assumed he had got the key from one of those groups that promote reviews by giving free keys (they mostly want positive reviews). Nowadays those groups are dead, but back when non-Steam buys mattered in reviews these things were really popular.
I think in this case itch.io is responsible to 1) keep anonymity of the user 2) make working agreements with developers so in cases like this, the developer would get fined or not paid. Clearly they didn't manage to do any of those.
A good example is kickstarter.com, where you make a legal digital agreement with customer to deliver the specific goods at some point OR refund the sum if unable to deliver. If developer revoked those keys, he'd have to refund the money back to the buyer.
And second example is about silencing the reviewers, what Digital Homicide tried to do.
Read about it here: https://kotaku.com/game-developer-sues-100-anonymous-steam-users-for-18-m-1786721306
Or google for some better website. Steam banned him from releasing any future games and all of his existing games. That's the way it should be done when someone wants to affect the reviews by figuring out the anonymity of reviewers, or revoke/sue them.
Comment has been collapsed.
I followed the whole DigiHomi story pretty closely from the first "developer meltdown" video of Sterling - and I agree about limiting developers' rights after they misuse them.
Comment has been collapsed.
I can get you another key if you are interested in playing more and perhaps providing some feedback on how we can improve the game.
Thats an apology? Dude thinks he is in a position for demands
Comment has been collapsed.
This is Steam's service. They make the rules. Ultimately, the developers being able to directly revoke keys is their fault. With that said, developers being able to directly revoke keys is laughable IMO. There should be specific criteria that must be met before a developer can REQUEST that VALVE revoke the key. This request should then be looked at by a real person. But, we're talking about Valve so lol, real people, yeah.
Comment has been collapsed.
The main problems is twofold:
No, they should never revoke a key for trivial or unethical reasons (like bad review or such), and especially never revoke keys the users paid for in any way.
But - and this is needed and big but(t) - they also need to be able to revoke stolen or misused (like NDA breaking user and such) keys.
And still there are grey areas, like when you get a free key for a good review, if you don't deliver your good review, you broke that contract, so losing your key is a somewhat valid result.
Comment has been collapsed.
they can't revoke it if you pay for it or there are legal isues. if it was free? yes, they can totally revoke it.
Comment has been collapsed.
They can revoke it regardless, as the Steam TOS allows it. It's just that it's dangerous to misuse this feature, as explained above.
Comment has been collapsed.
well i mean they can but if you payed for it there is something you can do about it.
Comment has been collapsed.
GamingOnLinux: Game developer revokes a user's Steam key after negative review
While they did apologize for it and restore the game to the user, the fact that developers can revoke specific keys is worrisome to me. I guess that the risk of this sort of backlash has prevented this kind of behavior to this point, but the fact that they're able to do this at all seems unreasonable.
Comment has been collapsed.