-
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
First the excitement for the PS4 supposent "gaolbreak" then this. Pro-consumerism equals anti-developer to some people.
There is no such thing as "Used digital content".
Unless they allow the client to sell a portion of the game from the "used" market and then pay the publisher a lesser fee to aquire the whole licence (like season passes that will ruin this for everyone) this thing will go nowhere thankfully.
And even then it will destroy the digital market. You can't keep this in the confinement of the "video games" section. It's about digital trade as a whole. How will Amazon streaming, Netflix, Adobe, Hulu, survive through this?
Used licences for everyone? Meh, people actually want GPL but are not willing to make the migration. We can't have the best of both worlds, u kno?
There is no such thing as "Used digital content".
Unless they allow the client to sell a portion of the game from the "used" market and then pay the publisher a lesser fee to aquire the whole licence (like season passes that will ruin this for everyone) this thing will go nowhere thankfully.
And even then it will destroy the digital market. You can't keep this in the confinement of the "video games" section. It's about digital trade as a whole. How will Amazon streaming, Netflix, Adobe, Hulu, survive through this?
Used licences for everyone? Meh, people actually want GPL but are not willing to make the migration. We can't have the best of both worlds, u kno?
I agree with most of these points, but I really do think that digital licenses should be non-transferable.
It's a peculiar territory because there is no degradation on a digital good, it lasts forever and means that a content owner has no opportunity to compete with a second-hand seller.
I think there's a strong argument to say that when I buy a digital game it should be stay with me forever regardless of platform. Steam does this, my library is permanent, but It's BS that I have to rebuy Virtual Console titles on different platforms, for example.
It's a peculiar territory because there is no degradation on a digital good, it lasts forever and means that a content owner has no opportunity to compete with a second-hand seller.
I think there's a strong argument to say that when I buy a digital game it should be stay with me forever regardless of platform. Steam does this, my library is permanent, but It's BS that I have to rebuy Virtual Console titles on different platforms, for example.
sono
Member
une,deux,trois,quatre,cinq. Valve is sank..
wait: where is: six: failed to give fans HL3 in a reasonable time?
I fully agree. There is no reason why "licenses" (which were basically invented to take away ownership from buyers) should not be transferable.
You should be able to sell them/give them away at your discretion.
Tyreese Victoria
Banned
If they did something like this you'd be getting like 1$ in your steam wallet for every new game you trade in, otherwise the system would be hilariously easy to abuse.
It already exists and is used massively. Same is piracy, which is as easy or easier than buying a game today, indie or not, even with DRM. Also where is the "control" when you have hyper-low prices during "sales" and a monopolizing corporation that is vampirizing the market that is not taken by grey keys and pirated games ?
Really love those useful idiots who defend anti-consumers corporations and can only predict the worse case scenarios. Really good job.
Stockholm Syndrome in full effect in this thread.
Digital content you can access locally (streaming is out of the question) is the one you should be able to resell/own. This is the exact same thing about content on a disk, on a USB key, on a floppy disc or cartridge although it lies on your HDD and it is distributed via the internet.
The content itself doesn't deteriorate. But as it is one copy, you should be able to own it and resell (while not owning the actual property itself).
It won't kill any market but it will add actual free competition and actual market oriented prices.
Digital content you can access locally (streaming is out of the question) is the one you should be able to resell/own. This is the exact same thing about content on a disk, on a USB key, on a floppy disc or cartridge although it lies on your HDD and it is distributed via the internet.
The content itself doesn't deteriorate. But as it is one copy, you should be able to own it and resell (while not owning the actual property itself).
It won't kill any market but it will add actual free competition and actual market oriented prices.
Well that's not true, as exemplified by the previous discussions in this thread by others.
nephilimdj
Member
Anyone who wants to read valves views, check the current Australian court documents
https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/NSD886/2014/actions
Gabes defense
https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/NSD886/2014/actions
Gabes defense
Valve Corporation has a number of defences.
(1) Valve Corporation says that the conduct did not occur in Australia.
(2) Valve Corporation does not admit that it carried on business in Australia although it admits that it has made available to Australian Consumers online access to use video games through Steam Client pursuant to the terms of a Steam Subscriber Agreement. Steam Client is an application that must be downloaded and installed to access video games and which is updated from time to time.
(3) Valve Corporation denies that it supplied “goods” within the meaning of “consumer goods” in s 2(1) of the Australian Consumer Law. It says that it supplied “online access to video games via a subscription service”. It says that this is a “service” within s 2(1) of the Australian Consumer Law so that the consumer guarantee of acceptable quality in s 54 does not apply.
(4) Valve Corporation says that the Steam Subscriber Agreement is not a contract to which the Australian Consumer Law, Chapter 3, Part 3-2, Division 1 (“Consumer guarantees”, applies because the proper law of the Steam Subscriber Agreement is the law of the State of Washington, United States of America and not the law of any part of Australia. The ACCC says that the exercise of characterisation of the proper law of the contract must proceed in light of s 67 of the Australian Consumer Law which provides that:
If:
(a) the proper law of a contract for the supply of goods or services to a consumer would be the law of any part of Australia but for a term of the contract that provides otherwise; or
(b) a contract for the supply of goods or services to a consumer contains a term that purports to substitute, or has the effect of substituting, the following provisions for all or any of the provisions of this Division:
(i) the provisions of the law of a country other than Australia;
(ii) the provisions of the law of a State or a Territory;
the provisions of this Division apply in relation to the supply under the contract despite that term.
(5) Valve Corporation does not admit that the representations were made and says that even if they were then they were not misleading.
Memorabilia
Member
This is a fantastic idea. Gaben, make it happen.
Also true. It does seem that those who scream doomsday in response to a 2nd hand digital market are over-stating the potential issues.
Currently this exists and there is a fight against it. There is a reason why here on GAF discussion about grey market resellers is banned.
Sales and promotion are a part of the system, and this is allowed because of the DRM system. Even at low sales there is some money for the software developer.
The monopolizing (which does not exist, there are alternatives like gog, uplay, origin) is the reason, pc market exists and did not disappear in the mid 2000.
This was a message from the useful idiot.
As a sidenote, personal attacks are not encouraged on GAF.
This is no better, because it will just make Steam richer (like Gamestop is) without any profit to the developed.
Think up a good way to let this through without wrecking the marketplace.
It might not be the consumers responsibility, making sure that companies are profitable.
But sensible rules should be in place to let businesses do their work.
Digital goods are a whole different ballgame when compared to physical goods.
Maybe that's because it's about Steam. Make the same thread but about Sony (and the PS3 digital content forever lost if you don't have a PS3 anymore... Shame) and a big chunk of those guys would reverse their positions.
Local stored digital content is the same as a game on a CD. Content doesn't deteriorate in the lifetime of the marketed product (although the CD can be unreadable but then it is not resellable), the content is the same as new. Exactly the same.
is it hard to understand how it might have undesirable consequences?
unless I misunderstand you, ease of access is different. A cd has to physically change hands while a digital license transfer is instant and can be automated. this makes them fundamentally nonequivalent in my opinion.
It is funny that these anti-consumer story are always about Steam, and not about console digital licences.
Can I resell Appstore games ? Do UFC attack them about that ? Simple question.
UFC should attack them. There is no console vs pc agenda here. All companies are equal to me about this particular problem. It should be solved because it's not fair to consumers. So please don't push this agenda yourself by defending Steam because it is important to most PC gamers right now.
We should be united as consumers against those anti-consumers policies.
Looking at the 5 claims, I think that 4 of them are valid and I support this. The resell is just out of touch with the reality of the digital market, the advantages we have in terms of service from Steam (including sales and card drops, bundles, etc)
2nd hand market will only lower the amount of money given to Steam and the developers, increasing the overall price of the games (or decrease the diversity of the proposed games).
Maybe we can sue him to develop the damn game
The burden of dealing with that should be on the companies and not the consumer though
Just because a good is digital doesn't mean we should forfeit our consumer rights.
Agreed, I don't see how anyone can say that this wouldn't be good for consumers. I really don't get the mindset that this would kill steam or indie games.
I don't disagree with this, but I think the subject isn't well understood and to me it's not a given that consumer rights should be the same with digital goods.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Basically this.
I'd also add that there's nothing noble about this. You can call it "pro consumerism" all day long butd its still purely a matter of self-interest; "Fuck those guys, I want my entertainment cheaper".
My attitude is, and always has been, if you don't like the terms of the transaction, don't enter into it. Nobody is forcing you, its just entertainment.
"Paying for the show" is not unreasonable.
It might be just the type of users.
Console = expensive stuff is bought physical
App = A lot of stuff is freemium. No resale value.
The end result could be games becoming free and in-app purchases to become more widespread. There should be an equilibrium.
Editors are both greedy and have to stay in the black.
Consumers are self interested and have to get something worth in return for their money.
Both are hypocritical in how they talk about this affair.
Why would anyone buy a "new" copy of a game from the developer when cheaper copies of the same game are available from resellers. Sales of games that gain traction through word of mouth and long tail sales would be gutted. Only die hards who want to give money to the creators would buy it after cheaper trade copies are in the wild.
I'm not some anti consumer monster like opponents of my viewpoints here like to accuse. If I had the power I'd implement many things that big corporations wouldn't like(like a use it or lose it stipulation for copyrights, media is public domain if you don't offer a fair method of purchase within x years). It's just in this case I think digital simply doesn't work the same as physical and can't be treated the same.
What would happen would be that we'd get market prices for digital goods. The number of licenses sold to consumers is not infinite. Right now there is no pricing competition, which is bad.
Another idea could be selling back licenses for store credit (less than the initial sum, of course).
Another idea could be selling back licenses for store credit (less than the initial sum, of course).
I buy a indie game (let's say $5 goes to the developer) and beat it in the first two days. I then sell it to my friend for $1 who beats it in a day and then sells it to another friend and so on. The developer has now lost out on $10 and more to come by allowing me to resell the game. Now multiply this example by the entirety of the steam user base. You don't see this as an issue? No, because you are only thinking of the benefit for yourself. Developers will see the issue and they will want no part of it.
What is good for the consumer isn't always good for the industry.
Only if you are talking about consoles. PC has plenty of pricing competition as stated below.
Another Example: http://www.dealzon.com/gaming/pc
How is there no pricing competition?
This website wouldn't exist if there was no pricing competition.
This is basically the issue. Physical copies and digital copies are inherently different and it has less to do with their degradation of quality and much more to do with how easy it is to make 1:1 copies.
Different laws need to exist regarding regulation of digital materials, but even more to the point, copyright & IP laws need a major rethink. Like a, "maybe Disney's 100 year-old movies should be public domain" rethink. And the reason WHY we need that rethink is entirely because technology is far outpacing current copyright and IP law's ability to sensibly manage it.
soulassssns
Banned
Dream_Journey
Member
Hope Valve lose.
I'm buying digital games when they are much more cheap than boxes version because i can't sell them after i finish. Selling digital games thing would be really nice but would be really bad for developpers for sure.
I'm buying digital games when they are much more cheap than boxes version because i can't sell them after i finish. Selling digital games thing would be really nice but would be really bad for developpers for sure.
Well, it depends. If you are allowed to re-sell the license, given that we know who the owner is, what's to say that they couldn't receive a cut of re-sold Steam keys? Basically royalties but for digital.
Teletraan1
Banned
It wouldn't stop games from selling on steam after release. As I tried to say in my last post it isn't all or nothing. It would just set the price according to the market rather than whatever prices the publishers set. No need for steam sales, prices are based on what something is actually worth. You would also see games that were less than stellar get reduced faster than they currently are because there would be more people looking to unload these games. So the online retailer would need to adjust their prices. The price would be determined by how many people are willing to sell their copy. Just like every other used market on the planet. This special snowflake routine in gaming is getting old. Plus there is the fact that if you could recoup some of the costs of these games you might be more inclined to buy more games new or used as a result of having more money in your pocket instead of a game in a list you are never going to play again. As I stated in my first post the pool of used keys would have to come from somewhere so a sufficient number of new sales would have to occur to even sustain that market. If only a handful of people bought new the used price would be similar to the new price.
To counter this developers/publishers need to do what they have been doing on console. Give people a reason not to trade in the game.
Price is NOT a reflection of quality.
Battlesmurf
Member
One of these points I've brought up in the past. I would love a buy back program and I think it'd be doable (and incredibly smart) if it's pulled off right. I would cash in so many games that I don't/won't ever use- for steam credits-and put those right back into new ones. Likely is buy more, more often than I do already.
I would be a disaster for PC gaming if we could sell our steam games.
The AAA market is full of bland padded experiences I don't want the same to happen to indie/niche games too
The AAA market is full of bland padded experiences I don't want the same to happen to indie/niche games too
TylerDurden4321
Member
Great thread, both sides are making good arguments and keeping it fair and unpersonal so far (mostly .
I just wanna throw in a thought for indie games (and in general maybe as well):
What if... Steam would charge a fee for transferring the license to a different account and would be a percentage of the selling price (banks can do that even though it's the same amount of work no matter how much money you transfer), part of that goes to the developer/publisher ...aaaaand what if, the indie game was LIMITED to a certain amount of licenses. (you know, like getting "rare" over time the more people think to keep their copy and not resell it).
.I just wanna throw in a thought for indie games (and in general maybe as well):
What if... Steam would charge a fee for transferring the license to a different account and would be a percentage of the selling price (banks can do that even though it's the same amount of work no matter how much money you transfer), part of that goes to the developer/publisher ...aaaaand what if, the indie game was LIMITED to a certain amount of licenses. (you know, like getting "rare" over time the more people think to keep their copy and not resell it).
One way I think the resell of digital games could work would be like this, there is a marketplace for "used" games, want to sell your game? Ok you add it there, the price is idk maybe 80% of the lowest it has ever been on steam, it's is automatic (that way you cant buy low sell high) and when the sale is complete, a fraction of the money goes to the developers, another one to valve, and the rest goes to your steam wallet, that way everyone gets something, this is something quick I came up with, it might have some problems or it could be abused idk
Of All Trades
Member
Those reasons currently include things like the annoyance of having to move physical goods to resale locations and usually massive fees to the reseller or insecurity in the transaction. None of which are present if valve just makes the process a few clicks.
To my knowledge there is no precedence for this kind of marketplace. The closest I can think of would be my limited knowledge of high frequency trading, and I really don't think you want that infesting games.
There's also the obvious possible outcome which will be a form of drm that creates a sort of deterioration in the digital good unless you feed money into it.
SonyToo!;189784133 said:
It would affect console games too. So you would be able to sell digitally bought DLC /w your used games too.
How big portion going to publisher would be fair?
Theoretical example:
game costs 60 "new" or 48 used.
New copy nets publisher around 42. (70% pub - 30% retailer share).
If user gets 70% of 48 sale it would mean around 10 / 4 for publisher and retailer.
So profit per copy would drop to 1/4th. Do you think it would be sustainable?
Also if publisher ever lowers price, it would mean even less.
Real world example:
GMG has trade-in digital games, but it's more of gimmick and typically you just get 10 - 50 cents back by trading-in. As side effect, very intrusive DRM.
Would gamers think something like this is an acceptable solution?
No. They wouldn't.
What makes this a knee slapper is that consumers actually think they own software. Are consumers that oblivious to licensing? You don't own a game.