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

VZVB feels that even if the suit fails, it would at least be a good way to raise awareness of the issue, and possibly scare some other digital distributors into thinking twice before they decide to prevent the resale of their used goods.
Click to expand...

Or maybe show that they can prevent such a thing and get away with it?
 
Yep it does suck balls. But you don't really own the games on Steam, you're more, using the service to be allowed to play those games.

Personally, I wouldn't call it unfair for Valve and the original developer / publisher to get a 'reasonable' cut of the sale. Minefield, though.
 
Last edited:
However, back in July, the Court Justice of the European Union ruled that trading software licenses that are considered to be “used” is legal, and cannot be prevented by the creator of the software. The VZVB is using that ruling as the basis to sue Valve once again.
Click to expand...

Frankly I'd love Steam to allow me to unlock a game from my account and send it to another person. There are so many games I'd never play again that some people might enjoy.
 
Maybe if you gift a game there should be like a £5 fee for the other person. Otherwise how the hell would they make money? I could buy a game, pass it you one of you guys and so forth and so on!
 
I can't see how this would work without killing the industry, the only way perhaps is by selling the keys back to steam at a reduced price and steam reselling at full/normal price.
 
shanestatham said:
Maybe if you gift a game there should be like a £5 fee for the other person. Otherwise how the hell would they make money? I could buy a game, pass it you one of you guys and so forth and so on!
Click to expand...

I think it should be percentage based on the amount the product is worth at the time at normal pricing, so that the money can be spread into the right pockets.

That's the only way I'd be for the resale of digital goods on Steam.
 
Martini1991 said:
I think it should be percentage based on the amount the product is worth at the time at normal pricing, so that the money can be spread into the right pockets.

That's the only way I'd be for the resale of digital goods on Steam.
Click to expand...

I think it would be better going on what the person paid if purchased direct from Steam rather than what the current retail price is and only using the current Steam price on games purchased elsewhere. The Steam sales would totally screw up the amounts otherwise. You purchase a game for £4.99 in the sales but it goes for £29.99 outside of the sales etc.

Limited amount of unlocks/locks I guess would be the solution for the whole pass the game around issue.

I can't see it killing the industry, we already get stacks of super cut price games during the Steam sales and with companies like GMG. Putting 2nd hand sales of games you own into the mix isn't going to stop or harm that.
 
Speed said:
I can't see it killing the industry, we already get stacks of super cut price games during the Steam sales and with companies like GMG. Putting 2nd hand sales of games you own into the mix isn't going to stop or harm that.
Click to expand...

Erm.
When we buy during sales, they're still getting money, it generates a new lease of life for a product, if sold 2nd hand then no one gets the money bar the other party.

With a digital item, there's no degradation, someone sells it uber cheap as they bought it uber cheap, and lost sale.

And I still think it should be a percentage based on its current value, more money in the right pockets = Better.
 
I really hope this doesn't happen, if the court were to decide against steam we may as well kiss single player games goodbye, there'd be zero incentive to buy a game 'new' and everything would be DLCd to death (or at least more so than now).

Yeah, it'd be nice to be able to sell on games but I don't think it's suitable for a digital product.

Also, seriously, Valve are the good guys, why can't they go sue EA instead, they don't allow for the resale of their games either :mad:
 
I wish people would realise that what once applied to tangible goods no longer applies to non tangible goods, the same logic does not apply.

If you do not like it, do not use Steam or any games which use it.

All this will end up doing is creating a complete mess.
 
As much as I'd like to resell on games I don't play anymore/have never and will never play, I honestly can't see this being a good thing if Valve are forced to allow game resales.

However, being able to collect together games you don't want linked to your account anymore and getting credit in Steam would be nice...
 
Why cant all those people who **** and moan about Steam just buy their games from GOG.com or elsewhere?

If the game is Steamworks, dont play it.

Just leave the rest of us to enjoy the best thing to happen to PC gaming since Minesweeper.
 
Martini1991 said:
Erm.
When we buy during sales, they're still getting money, it generates a new lease of life for a product, if sold 2nd hand then no one gets the money bar the other party.

With a digital item, there's no degradation, someone sells it uber cheap as they bought it uber cheap, and lost sale.

And I still think it should be a percentage based on its current value, more money in the right pockets = Better.
Click to expand...

That is true, but the profits on certain Steam sale games have to be pence. Maybe selling them back to Steam for a % of what you paid would be better but only in Steam credit. That way the funds go back into the market and it would stop the issues you and others mention.

The problem with the % of its current value though is the Steam sales, say a game is £4.99 on Sale and £29.99 normally. The percentage is for example 25% of its current value, you could end up getting more back than you paid if it is based on the current value of the title. However if it is based on what you paid, Steam and therefore the developers get back a fixed amount of what you actually paid.

I guess the issue there though is that games devalue over time, more so on the retail side of things than the Steam side of things though. I'm sure there is a system that would work if it is forced upon Steam.

I have quite a few games I'd be glad to get rid of, the other option would be to donate the game to Steam, they sell it back during a special charity sale and a % of the funds get donated to a worthy cause. The rest goes to Steam and the developers. I'm sure many people would be up for that but it does side step the court ruling and doesn't really solve the "problem" so to speak.
 
Last edited:
linktoinsanity said:
However, being able to collect together games you don't want linked to your account anymore and getting credit in Steam would be nice...
Click to expand...

I think this would be the best compromise for all involved to be honest. Developers don't get stung, Steam doesn't get stung as they could re-sell the code and the customer gets some money back to spend on games on Steam.
 
Jokester said:
What he says.
Click to expand...

Presumably by buying in the first place shows that you're not a pirate.

Secondly, people who buy games and can sell them off afterwards then have more disposable income to buy more new games, thus paying a new developer potentially for something new?

Or maybe it will force game developers to make games have lasting appeal, not £30 and completed in a day, and actually make longer more interactive games where more content is provided down stream but hopefully not as DLC.

Or maybe developers will just offer game subscriptions on a monthly rate, so you can never have a game to sell back and the dev gets a constant stream of cash..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom