Valve sued (in Germany) for not allowing Steam users to resell games

[[TW]Fox]

It is when a retailer will promote the sale of second hand games as they make more/100% profit, cutting the developer/publisher out of the loop.

So what? The product at that point belongs to the retailer. If I sell you my graphics card should I send NVIDIA a cut? Don't be so silly.

It isn't 100% profit either, they have to actually buy the used game in the first place to sell it on, you know.

A car dealer will rarely make more money on a second hand car.

Many car dealers sell exclusively used cars, and those that sell both often get better margins on used because they are far more in control of the price they buy in for and sell for.

 

[Woden]

It is when a retailer will promote the sale of second hand games as they make more/100% profit, cutting the developer/publisher out of the loop.

A car dealer will rarely make more money on a second hand car.

That is not corruption, that is the market. And it is exactly the same for the car. It is all down to what the customer is willing to pay for what, and what the provider is willing to sell for.

All 2nd hand games sales tells me is that the games being sold are not being seen as good enough to keep hold of. If they want to stop people selling their games, they need to make better games. That's how it works with books and movies. Why do games get special protection? It is already easier for games publishers, the online-pass doesn't follow the 2nd hand sale.

 

[Gimpymoo]

I take onboard your opinions, I do however disagree but as this thread shows, it is hardly a "open and shut" case.

 

[Sin_Chase]

Steam et al is the best thing that has happened in terms of buying games in a long time.

The small inconvenience of losing out on second hand sales is perfectly acceptable to me.

The irony is that many people who are complaining about not being able to sell their Steam games are likely the people who would only ever sell them when the instant accessibility, ease of use and online facilitation of the very platform they are complaining about offers them the ability to sell as second hand. I imagine most of these said people would never even consider selling a hard copy, too much effort without the platform to hand hold.

Wants the pros of digital distribution (Buying instantly, delivered instantly, sale pricing)
Wants the pros of hard copies (selling on)

If you do not like digital distribution, do not use it.

If you take issue with keys bound to accounts then take that up with the developers/publishers, not the distribution platform.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Wants the pros of digital distribution (Buying instantly, delivered instantly, sale pricing)
Wants the pros of hard copies (selling on)

If you do not like digital distribution, do not use it.

There is no choice but to use it. If Steam closed tommorrow, I would not (Lost games aside) be particularly bothered. I buy my games elsewhere if at all possible - but even when I buy a physical copy from a store it almost invariably REQUIRES me to use Steam in order to activate it.

Digital Distribution was seen as a great future for all - without the endless costs of staff, shops, delivery trucks, packaging, disc replication, etc etc we'd all benefit from cheaper games. Not so. What really happened was that they got even more expensive with 'convenience' cited as the excuse. It's a bit more convenient for us but the main winners are Valve, not the consumer. We pay more than ever before for new release games and receive, comparatively, less than ever before.

Personally, I have many physical copies of Games. I've not sold a single one and I probably wouldnt if I could sell Steam stuff, either. But neither can I see a compelling reason not to allow the sale of unwanted digitally purchased (or normally purchased but forced to be activated digitally) products between users.

However, if it encourages companies like EA to stop trotting out yet more DLC infested 8 hour long games hand over fist and actually put a bit more effort into making games people WANT to keep, then it has to be a good thing. Because currently there is absolutely no rational reason for a company to develop genuinelly decent games. Why waste the money when you can churn out the bare minimum and repeat it year on year, with 4-5 DLC packs between each release?

 

[Sin_Chase]

I think people are overplaying the second hand market for PC games to be honest. Console games, I can see it.

But since the dawn of CD-Keys and unique instances at any one time for online play on titles with multiplayer second hand purchases just made zero sense. You got the title cheaper but ran the HUGE risk of someone else still being able to use your CD-Key, negating your ability to play online.

As far as I am concerned there was just never a market for such second hand sales.

 

[MrMoonX]

I agree with fox, valve fanboys bitch and whine saying wah the developer gets nothing, but that's how second hand anything works, I'm sure you'd all be baying for blood if apple wanted you to pay them some of the money you just made by selling your second hand iOS device.

IMO valve get far too much praise, if I pay for a game on steam I should be able to sell it, the EU agrees so this case hopefully should win, as valves T&Cs cannot be above the law

 

[Sin_Chase]

if I pay for a game on steam I should be able to sell it, the EU agrees so this case hopefully should win, as valves T&Cs cannot be above the law

Sure they can.

"Steam is not available in your region."

They just will not sell to you, then you will go and use a VPN service to CONTINUE to buy from Steam. You win your principle battle for a second hand sale you will never complete and get shafted in everything else that matters.

 

[MrMoonX]

Sure they can.

"Steam is not available in your region."

They just will not sell to you, then you will go and use a VPN service to CONTINUE to buy from Steam. You win your principle battle for a second hand sale you will never complete and get shafted in everything else that matters.

But they won't withdraw from the EU lol it's a massive games market, their shares would tumble by pulling out of the second biggest market they have been trading in for years. it ain't gonna happen, they will just have to comply with EU law.

I think valve get too much love amongst of gamers, it's just as bad as apple and iTunes, but of course it's cool to hate apple.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Sure they can.

"Steam is not available in your region."

They just will not sell to you, then you will go and use a VPN service to CONTINUE to buy from Steam. You win your principle battle for a second hand sale you will never complete and get shafted in everything else that matters.

Absolute rubbish. There is simply no way Valve would withdraw from the entire Europe market. The lost revenue will make any cost associated with allowing transferrable games seem like a drop in the ocean!

Though to be honest if it happened it'd be great, because other publishers wouldn't want to lose the EU market so we might be able to actually buy a game, install it and play it again without needing to be tied to a content management system

 

[Vern1961]

Generally I'm happy with Steam but they seem to ride above the basic laws of consumer protection. If I buy something that isn't of merchantable quality - a game or DLC full of bugs which the developer doesn't patch, I have zero recourse. Initiating a chargeback usually results in complete loss of your account, not just the disputed item.

So there needs to be a middle ground if you are dis-satisfied with a game for genuine reasons that you can provide evidence for, you get your money back and Steam takes it off/blocks that title from your PC.

Imagine if Frontier First Encounters or similar huge fails had been delivered via Steam - a bugged, unplayable and unfixed mess. I took mine back to the shop and got a refund but there would be no such recourse under Steam - the developer and publisher still getting their royalties regardless of putting out a pile of poop.

 

[genan]

The PC market is tiny as it is, this could prompt some companies to abandon it altogether. Think of this when complaining about bad `console ports`

 

[Sin_Chase]

Generally I'm happy with Steam but they seem to ride above the basic laws of consumer protection. If I buy something that isn't of merchantable quality - a game or DLC full of bugs which the developer doesn't patch, I have zero recourse. Initiating a chargeback usually results in complete loss of your account, not just the disputed item.

So there needs to be a middle ground if you are dis-satisfied with a game for genuine reasons that you can provide evidence for, you get your money back and Steam takes it off/blocks that title from your PC.

Imagine if Frontier First Encounters or similar huge fails had been delivered via Steam - a bugged, unplayable and unfixed mess. I took mine back to the shop and got a refund but there would be no such recourse under Steam - the developer and publisher still getting their royalties regardless of putting out a pile of poop.

You never had this protection prior. Have never been able to refund licensed software. How can you complain about not having something you never had?

 

[Woden]

You never had this protection prior. Have never been able to refund licensed software. How can you complain about not having something you never had?

You're right that we never had that, but to not be allowed to complain because we've never had it? Tell that to the sufferegettes

It is my biggest complaint about software sales. The total lack of any recourse for broken/buggy software. Be it games or applications. Once you open the packet, you can't return it, no matter how broken it is.

 

[Gimpymoo]

their shares would tumble by pulling out of the second biggest market they have been trading in for years.

You have made yourself look like an idiot and obviously know nothing about what you are talking about.

I think valve get too much love amongst of gamers, it's just as bad as apple and iTunes, but of course it's cool to hate apple.

And your trolling of this thread is complete.

 

[Sin_Chase]

Shares......


*giggle*

 

[MrMoonX]

You have made yourself look like an idiot and obviously know nothing about what you are talking about.



And your trolling of this thread is complete.

Oh boo hoo I didn't know valve wasnt a Public company, but point still stands no business is going to pull out of a huge market like the EU.

 

[Doug]

There are just two things I want to see from publishers/digital distributers:

1. The ability to disassociate a key from your account.

2. For digital "purchases," the ability to "relinquish" your right to access that title. Titles purchased through Steam or Origin (etc) can be sold back to the service for a nominal amount (say 10-20% of purchase price or current price, whichever is less).


So, #1 would be mainly for physical copies so that they can be sold on and the new user can register the key to their account. Looking at my book case I've got dozens of games sat there, some of which I haven't touched in ten years, because of cd-keys that mean I can't sell them on as anything but coasters. Probably a half dozen of those are in Steam and Origin.

Implement #1 and #2 follows naturally. Dole it out as store credit to keep people locked into your service. There are a dozen games in my Steam library that I'd give up in a second, if it were possible and if there was some kind of incentive to do so. Even 10% back as store credit would be incentive enough and I'd be far more likely to purchase more through them going forward.

Oooh, I've thought of a 3rd thing...

3. Subscription to games.

Not a flat-fee all-you-can-eat kind of subscription, more like a lease. You'd buy a subscription to a title for a set period at a percentage of retail. Say 1 month at 50%, 6 months at 70%, 1 year at 80%, and an unlimited duration at full retail price (which is basically how the service operates right now anyway). Could even have the longer term as standard and have "sales" where you can get it for 1 month at a bigger discount. Yikes, I've just turned every game ever made into an MMO

Think about it. Why pay full price for a game you'll finish in a few days and not go back to for possibly years? Think a £35 title that you can have for 6 months at £25. You have your fun and it disappears from your account when the time runs out. A few years later you fancy another go and see if in a sale at 1 month for £5. Still hasn't cost you full price.

Think PAYG for games

 

[[TW]Fox]

You never had this protection prior. Have never been able to refund licensed software. How can you complain about not having something you never had?

You can refund licensed software - SOGA applies irrespective of whether the product has an EULA or not (The validity of which remains a grey area).

If something is not of merchantable quality then its not of merchantable quality whether its licensed software, a banana or a small unicycle.

 

[Sin_Chase]

You can refund licensed software - SOGA applies irrespective of whether the product has an EULA or not (The validity of which remains a grey area).

Good luck.

(IE - Are you going to bring a case against the retailer at your expense? Nope)