That's not even remotely the point I am making. Fluctuation in price does not mean you are buying a diminished product with wear and tear
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Valve sued by French consumer association
- Thread starter Spirited
- Start date
That's not even remotely the point I am making. Fluctuation in price does not mean you are buying a diminished product with wear and tear
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
elcuervo75
Banned
I have sold my entire account 3 times and bought back a few of the games that I still want on a new account. I just collected too much crap that I didn't want over the years. I later found out you're technically not supposed to do it, and I wont sell my current account.
But it is. You say it don't deteriorate over time but it does. Do you really think those used games at GameStop deteriorates physically over time in the short period the game is marketed. That is fundamentally hypocritical.
Visualante2
Member
I think these blanket EULAs need to be made illegal. If you want to do business in a country or region then stop referring to agreements which are illegal in the country.
I also wish these debates wouldn't revolve almost entirely around the knock on effect of digital resales. I want to be trade my license.
I also wish these debates wouldn't revolve almost entirely around the knock on effect of digital resales. I want to be trade my license.
Valve already has their market system in place, all they have to do is allow you to trade used copies.
Will this suck for game developers? yes, unless valves makes it so they get a cut of every market transaction.
The physical used game market also was bad for them, but this is not about what's bad for them, this is about consumer rights.
Will this suck for game developers? yes, unless valves makes it so they get a cut of every market transaction.
The physical used game market also was bad for them, but this is not about what's bad for them, this is about consumer rights.
Yes. Your disc gets scratched and is somewhat less reliable, your box gets damaged, the contents or digital keys for extra content may no longer be there.
Visualante2
Member
If publishers want to sell digitally that's their choice. They can go back to disks if they want. You can't hold back the law just because of technological progress.
Aha no. No and no. You are protected by law if this used product you acquire is physically damaged.
The only deteriorating thing here (hypothetically) is the market value of that software. (Scarcity, age... Etc, all of that the same with digital licences).
Seriously, a used game physically damaged is unplayable, it is not deteriorating over time, it isn't resellable. If it is sold as used, it has to function exactly as a new one.
Wowfunhappy
Member
I mean, I'd be fully in favor of Steam being forced to allow license transfers. Beyond simply selling games, I'd like to be able to loan them to friends like I do my physical games.
I do hope policies like this wouldn't cause trouble for DRM free stores like GOG, though. They cannot realistically allow license transfers, because there's no way to remove access to a game you've downloaded.
I do hope policies like this wouldn't cause trouble for DRM free stores like GOG, though. They cannot realistically allow license transfers, because there's no way to remove access to a game you've downloaded.
I did not say otherwise
Zomba13
Member
You mean like they do right now for digital versions of games along with the retail versions?
A deteriorated product is not a broken one. Obviously anyone should be protected from a broken product whether by damage or otherwise. Should you not be complaining about digital content also being missing from a used product - rewards, vourchers, dlcs etc that are one off redeemable commodities missing from the used product - you expect a lower price for a lesser product.
Chances are if someone sold to a used store something that is factory sealed - they would sell it as new, at full price
Edit - also you do realise I am not arguing that consumers should not have the right to sell their products that they have used. I am arguing that there isn't a way to have it make sense with a digital product - ie a product that is essentially factory sealed as is from the original source
jshackles
Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the capability to make the world's first enhanced store. Steam will be that store. Better than it was before.
But that's because the digital market (and Steam specifically) had conditioned us to act this way to get the best deal as consumers. Games like Call of Duty Ghosts were released in 2013 and still have a $60 price tag on Steam. I bet they're probably even still getting a few sales a month. Activision is notoriously bad about putting their games on sale, and it's likely we'll never see the base price drop digitally. Modern Warfare 3 (from 2011) is still $40. There are tons of other examples on ludicrously priced games on other digital platforms.
Just because it's old doesn't mean it's going down in price. Activision will probably keep that $60 price tag on Ghosts until the end of time. And likewise there will probably be a few extremely uninformed consumers purchase it every month.
Rewards, vouchers, etc,should be resellable with or without the product too.
A deteriorated product in case of a playable and not broken game (that is digitally on a disc and not digitally from the internet) is just a game with less value than before. Physically deteriorated in our digital world means unreadable or unplayable (or not playable like a new one) and this doesn't exist. It is not a used car which is physically deteriorated but functioning.
A physically deteriorated game isn't functioning.
The actual value is prone to going down over time even if the price stays the same. It's not a brand new game anymore even if the copy is new.
In fact, you agree with me if you say only uninformed consumers would buy this full price.
IIRC, Intel published a research stating used games market is far more harmful to videogame market than piracy is.
The only thing that keeps used games market alive is DRM. If you could actually access the digital content of disks, copy it, store it where you want, etc. Used games market would make no sense, because a piece of software is exactly the same either you download it directly from the official store or you copy it from a physical media like a CD or pendrive.
IMO DRM is what is against user rights and should be forbidden, then they could actually make laws that treat software as software and not as physical media.
The only thing that keeps used games market alive is DRM. If you could actually access the digital content of disks, copy it, store it where you want, etc. Used games market would make no sense, because a piece of software is exactly the same either you download it directly from the official store or you copy it from a physical media like a CD or pendrive.
IMO DRM is what is against user rights and should be forbidden, then they could actually make laws that treat software as software and not as physical media.
Portugeezer
Member
People would buy "used" because digital code is all the same.
This will just make more companies push for games as services. I mean they are selling you a license to play a game that THEY(the company) owns. It blows my mind that consumers don't see that. You don't own that game. When you purchase a physical copy of a game all you own is the plastic and the box that the data came in.
This is ridiculous and people celebrating it are giving me a chuckle. So stupid.
This is ridiculous and people celebrating it are giving me a chuckle. So stupid.
Right. Resellable at what price when the market price hasn't changed? There are so many questions to be answered here that the same laws as a physical product can not apply and make sense when based on different principles. Consumers should have the right to sell, but how you do it in a digital market place is likely to be different. It's the how that needs to be determined. This applies far beyond just games
jshackles
Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the capability to make the world's first enhanced store. Steam will be that store. Better than it was before.
The closest analogy we can draw to a digital game being "physically deteriorated" would be online passes. Remember those? You had to enter a one time use code that was only included in new games to be able to play that game online. The secondhand owner literally had a partial or incomplete game.
Now let's say for the sake of argument that Valve implements some way for users to sell each other their digital games. We would see this practice come back in a big way, I think. And because of the new provisions where Valve lets you sell digital licenses, we would have to move backwards to things like paying Ubisoft of Activision directly through a secondary account system such as Uplay. Or maybe they just start releasing games that are missing content (even to day 1 buyers) that are unlocked through micro-transactions. If you start getting into the realm of micro-transactions should be refundable and/or transferable you start bringing in the big behemoths such as Apple and Google.
Either way, even if consumers win victories like this, we lose. As I said in my first post in this thread, Valve's response to losing a lawsuit such as this is more likely to be shutting down all commerce operations in France rather than amending their subscriber agreement to the benefit of customers worldwide and to the detriment of publishers.
True. But I think there is a disconnect here between the distinction of value for us consumers and value for publishers.
Part and parcel of the problem. Used is identical to new. Might as well buy "used" since it will probably be cheaper and "new" right? Zero to the original content creator, no reason to purchase from them since essentially the right to sell new is now with the customer with a discount. There are lots of interesting question to be solved. And again to highlight, I am not saying that consumers should not have the right.
If anything, being digital products with trackable origins and owners, it should be possible to reimbrurse the original creator for a portion of the future sale as well as the customer. How you sort that out mechanically, no fucking clue
People already buy used games because the digital code is all the same. But, inherently, used games are infinitely scarcer than new ones, so even if price goes down the number of copies available is always less than the original offering.
Seriously, are you out of your mind or what?
The retail digital code isn't deteriorating or changing!
That is just if your account is closed/deleted/banned.
Not if you feel like taking out your money from the wallet just because.
If they win against Valve, every single software store would have to do the same. Imagine the consequences, it would instantly kill any form of digital distribution(or physical distribution with online activation).
Yes
Northeastmonk
Gold Member
http://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/
Yea I see that. I have not enjoyed renting or the thought of renting. I see software for computers on the rise. You're paying for a subscription now versus owning the actual software. Is it like saying we have license to own Windows? Windows has a key to it, same with Office. You lose the key and a lot of times it's useless. Games use to have keys as well (they still do, but I can launch a game without knowing the product number).
I don't know if I like the idea of being someone who compares an Intellectual Property to an Operating System. I wonder if video games are too far removed from technology to have this always be the case. Either that or the PC (non-gaming specific) side is sorta going the same way.
That's why reselling cultural products should come with royalties of some sort (even more in case of digital products).
jshackles
Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the capability to make the world's first enhanced store. Steam will be that store. Better than it was before.
One way Valve could conceivably "degrade" a digital secondhand sale would be to remove features that all users enjoy today. I imagine stuff like trading cards would be the first to go because honestly if you can sell or trade games between accounts that all earn trading cards, then the trading card market collapses overnight. Maybe secondhand buyers can't earn achievements, or use Steam Cloud.
I mean there isn't really a way for us as consumers to win the ability to resell, trade, or gift our existing games without losing a big part of the reasons we love the platform to begin with.
I mean there isn't really a way for us as consumers to win the ability to resell, trade, or gift our existing games without losing a big part of the reasons we love the platform to begin with.
soul creator
Member
the "why wouldn't people just never buy the new license and instead buy a cheaper license from a user" rationale is probably the reason why MS had the "a license can only be transferred once, and it must be to someone you've been friends with for at least 30 days" idea. Makes sense, as it's probably the only way to get publishers on board.
If Valve wanted to do something similar, I'd imagine they'd have to get publishers on board as well, so I don't think this is something they can just decide on their own (though I'm curious if this was needed for the refund policy that got added)
Under that scenario, you could theoretically "sell" your license to someone, but it obviously prevents the infinite chain scenario that everyone's pointing out.
If Valve wanted to do something similar, I'd imagine they'd have to get publishers on board as well, so I don't think this is something they can just decide on their own (though I'm curious if this was needed for the refund policy that got added)
Under that scenario, you could theoretically "sell" your license to someone, but it obviously prevents the infinite chain scenario that everyone's pointing out.
Teletraan1
Banned
So where exactly are these used games going to come from if nobody is buying new? There will be people who sell the game right away to make back some money but do you or anyone else who are arguing this realistically expect that the pool of used keys around the time of release (when most games are sold) is going to be so great that it can support all the people who would want to buy this game? The prices will be dictated by the same factors as any other used market, you just wont have different grades for condition to factor the price. It doesn't mean a used market for such a product shouldn't exist.
That would be illegal. Imagine buying a used car but not being able to use some special roads only available to first hand cars.
What would happen really? Digital market becomes free and the value of things sold in there are reflected in the price. Seems like what it should be.
But, the problem is: laws can't enforce the platform to be the house of the used market. Valve won't be enforced to make it happen themselves. That is where things get complex, we should be able to resell our games, but by our own methods. How?
YianGaruga
Banned
We're talking about the PC market here, where sales are much less frontloaded than elsewhere, possibly exactly because there is no used market. Games sell well over time.
By taking that away, you eliminate one of the main reasons why tons of publishers are coming to Steam.
Exactly.
It's all quite fascinating though. I'm very curious to see what could happen in future. Obviously as someone that both like consumer rights and likes the platform, somehow having both while also not losing all the features we care about would be the most ideal. If it came to a choice of between the right to sell and the features of the platform, I'd end up choosing the later. And that bounces back to the actual ruling, where there is nothing to stop Valve or others creating a business where used products are knowingly not a part of it.
As far as I am aware, Steam Refunds was out of the blue and seemingly developers found out at the same time as users. Perhaps there was a different message to Steamworks developers. For something like reselling games, I imagine things would have to be different
This will not end as pro-consumer. Price are generally low here BECAUSE of absence of the used market.
They should be lower than retail because the cost of digital distribution isn't the same, not because this is essentially long term rental.
Portugeezer
Member
If people sell used, they should make them upload the 50GB's themselves to the buyer.
YianGaruga
Banned
And they generally are on Steam. Especially if you include sales and 3rd party resellers.
As much as I love Valve/Steam for what's it's given me this is good news. The whole used digital games is still an oddity to me. It just doesn't translate as well from physical to digital as no company on the selling end will benefit but I think there is something there, even if it is just an incentive to make people feel safer in their purchases? I do wonder how it would effect the massive discounts in the long term. Personally I'd prefer to keep the discounts (if the choice came to be) but I never got in reselling games/buying used games so i might be biased.
jshackles
Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the capability to make the world's first enhanced store. Steam will be that store. Better than it was before.
There wouldn't be anything illegal about what I said. There is no law saying Valve has to allow all of it's users access to all of it's services. In a world where you sell your digital game to another user, Valve is legally outside of this transaction if they're not receiving compensation for the license transfer. That's why it's a tricky issue - because if users can cut Valve and the publishers out of the deal, they have no legal obligation to you that the game (a) works correctly or (b) is in the same working condition as it was when it was attached to someone else's account or (c) anything really. Don't like it? Take it up with the person you bought it from. This is kind of like the transferability of warranties of physical products. In the US at least, companies don't have to honor warranties for products that are sold secondhand. Some are nice, and do, but most strictly prohibit that for just this reason: they don't want to provide service to a non-customer.
Also, your analogy to roads is flawed because roads are infrastructure that are typically put in place by governing bodies for the mutual benefit of everyone, and everyone shares in the cost of implementation and maintenance. And even then there are still for-profit toll roads that require additional purchases beyond that of your vehicle.
That's actually a really good point. As above, if Valve is cut from the transaction completely they wouldn't have any legal reason to be expected to allow the secondhand customer to use their bandwidth. Again this is all purely hypothetical, but the point stands.
Gaben doesn't exist. The church of valve is all lies.
IndoAssassin
Banned
Nice that they are going after digital games. What about digital movies or digital music?
where did microsoft ever detail their plan to sell digital games?
Silent Chief
Member
Movies is the biggest media not games.
You'd need to be able to buy and resell movies first.
You'd need to be able to buy and resell movies first.
Ford don't money when you sell your car either.
I didn't properly consider a lot of what Steam and other platforms are actually providing. A lot of stuff I kind of just take for granted at this point.
There is a lot of things that would have to change. Prices, discounts, the marketplace economy for all the digital items, using Steam in the first place since they are no longer in the picture of the transcation. Some indies and some mid-tier developers would suffer greatly and may not be able to exist at all.