Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 9,007
- Location
- Kent
To quote a famous saying: "I think you are delving into the realms of fantasy now Jones."
Valve sued (in Germany) for not allowing Steam users to resell games
- Thread starter chaparral
- Start date
To quote a famous saying: "I think you are delving into the realms of fantasy now Jones."
Times have changed.
Selling on your redeemed online purchase and digitally distributed files is not the same as tangible hard copy goods.
It's just not a model that could be sustained and it would impact the consumer. IE - Prices would raise.
It's not that Steam are stopping you selling on goods, it's just that it's not something you can actually really do in the model as it stands.
Selling on your redeemed online purchase and digitally distributed files is not the same as tangible hard copy goods.
It's just not a model that could be sustained and it would impact the consumer. IE - Prices would raise.
It's not that Steam are stopping you selling on goods, it's just that it's not something you can actually really do in the model as it stands.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
What, like the fee you pay Ford every time you buy a used Focus?
Oh wait..
So yes, you could buy an item, use it, and pass it on when you have finished using it. Just like humans have done with almost all items since the beginning of time itself.
It fundamentally is. There is no real difference between selling an original copy of Battlefield 1942 and selling a Steam version of its modern equivilent. Once its sold on, its gone and you can no longer use it. Even physical copies are linked to Steam now, preventing resale.
The prices on Steam are already excessive compared to how much you can usually buy a hard copy of the same new release for.
The same way it worked before Steam - it obviously didn't kill the industry back then otherwise it wouldn't be here now.
A lot of people keep talking about "reselling keys".
Many games nowadays have external accounts linked to these keys.
Who is going to pay to administer this?
Thats right folks, those of us who purchase the games.
All this will do is lead us all down a dead end road named "Bend over and shut the **** up". The best thing is, we would have done it to ourselves when it did not really need to happen.
Many games nowadays have external accounts linked to these keys.
Who is going to pay to administer this?
Thats right folks, those of us who purchase the games.
All this will do is lead us all down a dead end road named "Bend over and shut the **** up". The best thing is, we would have done it to ourselves when it did not really need to happen.
Last edited:
Yes, this. Because second hand sales of books, DVDs, CDs killed those industries.
Mmm...
Why are you comparing tangible Vs non-tangible?
You cannot compare two completely different things then go "See, there you go", that is stupid.
People like to have "New" things, not a book which is a year out of date from the local charity shop with dog ears and coffee stains.
Last edited:
Who asked for all that? The consumer? No. It's construct by the industry in a futile battle against piracy. It doesn't benefit us law abiding consumers at all, infact it usually makes our life difficult. So forgive me if I'm not full of enthusiasm for your idea that we shouldn't be able to sell products we buy and no longer want because somebody has to pay for the CD key account server.
We are already so far down this road it makes little difference. We are in a PC gaming world of paying more for less, microtransactions, constant DLC and the idea that a content delivery service with many times lower costs than physical retail charges you more for anything but back catalouge than you pay everywhere else.
Except you can, because the tangible v non tangible thing doesn't make any difference. Music is technically non-tangible. Sure, the delivery mechanicism is phsyical but so what? Doesn't really change the argument, does it? Its digital content just like PC games.
What about my copy of Far Cry 3? It's a physical box with a physical disk but linked to a stupid UPlay account I don't even want. Is it now non-tangiable?
Tangible v Non-Tangible is only a valid argument when the consumer RETAINS the original copy. This wouldnt be the case on something like Steam. As soon as you move the copy on, its gone - you cant use it.
It's not like an MP3 where you could 'sell' it a million times over and the very fact its non-tangible causes issues.
Because they are the same. If I sell my copy of 1984 then I no longer have the ability to read that book. If I sell my copy of Call of Duty, then I can no longer play that game.
People also like to have "new" games. Ones that come with the free DLC codes, or the online passes. Not ones that are the barebones of the game with half the content missing 'cos you cant play MP.
Yet, oddly. Second hand sales of both books, and games is very common. Infact there's whole industries based on it.
Except the industries around selling second hand games are corrupt has ****.
The retailer makes 100% profit, the developer gets ZERO.
How does this differ from industries selling second hand cars?
There is a place up the road with numerous used Focus and Fiesta on the forecourt. He makes profit and Ford gets ZERO.
It's been the same for thousands of years? How is selling products 'currupt'?
The original producer took his profit when the product was first sold. If anything it will incentivise publishers to make some replay value in games because they'll know that pushing out yet another sequel with 6 hours of gameplay in it will result in people flogging it on quickly, whereas if it had replay value they'd hang onto it.
Think of all the GREAT games you have. I bet you wouldn't sell them even if you could. Now think about the ones you'd happily never touch again....
Same with books, DVDs, cars, chairs, TVs, power tools...
Second hand book and music shops are rare nowadays (for a reason).
HOWEVER, when they did exist, the second hand shops did not sell "New" goods.
Nowadays, these shops sell New and second hand with no difference between the two.
A second hand book has obvious signs of wear, likewise, a second hand vinyl sleeve can also look a little grotty.
Not because the cd-case has a crack in it. Films though? There's a well known chain in most towns that relies entirely on second hand sales.
Go buy a second hand copy of BF3 for xbox ... then try and play online.
Then come tell me there is no difference.
Authors and film-makers have to give you a reason to hold on to your books and DVDs in order to continue their sales. They have to make something you will want to use over and over again.
Games developers/publishers on the other hand are relying on curtailing your right to sell it on. No matter how bad their product, how unlikely you are to ever play it again, your stuck with it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Dec 2006
- Posts
- 9,262
- Location
- Saudi Arabia né Donegal
[TW]Fox;23670812 said:
It's completely different to selling on a physically used item as that item will never be 'good as new' again.
You can't use digital code, it doesn't deteriorate with age, you can't scuff or dog ear it. The digital code you sell on second hand a year from now will be exactly the same as the digital code you just bought yesterday. This then leads to the problem where it makes no sense to buy a first hand copy of the code when the second hand copy is exactly the same, but cheaper.
Hope they win, some of the arguments in this thread are rather silly.
Did that digital code on that DVD, really degrade? When we buy and sale second hand?
As for no reason to buy new, if no one buys new, there's no second hand sales, so that's a stupid comment as well.
It should be no different to physical goods. But that should apply both ways, copyright infringement should be a criminal act and not just civil.
Did that digital code on that DVD, really degrade? When we buy and sale second hand?
As for no reason to buy new, if no one buys new, there's no second hand sales, so that's a stupid comment as well.
It should be no different to physical goods. But that should apply both ways, copyright infringement should be a criminal act and not just civil.
[TW]Fox;23670812 said:
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.