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

[Jokester]

Produce products people want to keep because they like them and contunue to get value from them rather than because they have no choice and it wont affect you as a publisher.

But if you can sell and then buy the key as and when needed, there's no need to keep it. You keep suggesting this as if it's easy to do, if it was easy to do then every publisher would be on to a winner as it is. But it isn't, there's a huge financial risk for developers to make a game, even if it is a quality product. I still mourn for Looking Glass Studios.

I disagree that it will have the effects you have outlined above. The console market is not a barren wasteland as a result of used game sales and however much you make it sound like its rocket science trading in a console game can be as easy as spending 30 seconds putting it in an envelope, so it's not as its sufficiently difficult to save the industry, is it?

You keep ignoring that it's not identical to the new product, a lot of normal people prefer paying for new stuff over perfectly good 2nd hand products. You're also ignoring the time taken to post it, the cost of postage, the time spent finding a buyer and so on. Digital key sales can be completely automatic other than you clicking a box to say that you want to sell the key for that game.

Most people like to have a library of games, films, music so they've always got various things to play, watch or listen to. If everyone was to rush into selling everything in an industry destroying melee as you predict we'd all end up sat at home with nothing to play..

People would only sell what they dont want. You appear to be advocating a situation whereby developers profit from people owning products they don't use or want...

As opposed to a system where there is no product? Lesser evil I would say.

 

[[TW]Fox]

So you think that being able to resell games you've finished with will result in there being no more PC games?

I think we are going to need to agree to disagree as I doubt either of us is going to bring the other round to our respective positions on this

 

[Purdy]

You severely underestimate how much convenience of digital resale would dramatically increase the number of second hand games compared to second hand physical copies, how many here dont bother to trade in their console games but would sell half their steam library? I know I would

 

[Jokester]

So you think that being able to resell games you've finished with will result in there being no more PC games?

I think we are going to need to agree to disagree as I doubt either of us is going to bring the other round to our respective positions on this

I think such a move will do so much more to kill off innovation and originality in the gaming industry because of the increased financial risks that will now be associated with the industry (I think the US are also going down the EU route). I can only see the industry getting worse because of this, with a much bigger push to subscription models, or online gaming only where money will be made elsewhere.

 

[[TW]Fox]

how many here dont bother to trade in their console games but would sell half their steam library? I know I would

But I'd imagine the majority of the half of your Steam library you'd sell is all old and virtually worthless anyway....

 

[banja]

I think it may have been mentioned, but there should be a small kickback license fee which goes back to Steam for each resale. One game could then potentially create many more times it's original cost, with the revenue partly going to the devs as well.

 

[mmj_uk]

At the end of the day digital media should not be able to strip away consumer rights, if publishers are not happy about a digital second hand market then they can always go back to a physical media or if they don't want digital media to have a second hand market then they should compromise and cost of digital should be reduced drastically, all too often digital media is as equally as or more expensive than physical media which is not right considering the reduced manufacturing cost and draconian measures blocking re-sale. It's greed pure and simple.

As it stands now publishers have constructed a paradigm that gives them all of the benefits at the expense of the consumer (some of whom think it is great due to the convenience of digital) and law is yet to catch up. There's no reason why the digital market can't have the same rules as the physical market other than greed. Degradation is not an issue with physical copies unless the disc is scratched to the point of not working and in that case it shouldn't be re-sold, I certainly don't remember bartering with a second hand seller over price because of the condition of the disc, the only thing that determines price is the software itself.

 

[RavenLunatic]

If the ruling goes against the publishers they might have to start making sure the games they release are so good their customers will not want to sell them on.

Regular patches, Free DLC over the life time of the game... Sounds like a great idea, and very consumer friendly.

 

[Purdy]

But I'd imagine the majority of the half of your Steam library you'd sell is all old and virtually worthless anyway....

Probably not and itd probably be more than half id sell

Also itwould be the effect on new games of people not buying and just waiting for second hand ones

Its a crap idea and I highly doubt it'll be enforced anyways

 

[Surfer]

Fox is correct


What the developers/publishers want is for the gaming market to be regarded much like a cinema ticket / fairground ride ticket etc i.e. 1 use only then worthless.

Afterall you cant sell on your cinema ticket to someone else - you are only paying for the privilege of viewing the film. You own nothing.

This way the developers/publishers can create a product and can sell access to it rather than sell the item (either tangible or non-tangible).

If they sell (or licencse or whatever) the product then immediately consumer laws come into play that apply to that whole market.

Different legislation (i think) applies whether they are selling a product or providing a service.

Ultimately if the item is a commodity then 1 sale = 1 buyer (second hand market should be allowable in this because dev/publisher already sold the game to the 1st buyer)

If they are providing a service and you pay for access then no second hand market applies. Potentially infinite sales from 1 product (sorry i mean service )

 

[chris-82]

At the end of the day digital media should not be able to strip away consumer rights, if publishers are not happy about a digital second hand market then they can always go back to a physical media or if they don't want digital media to have a second hand market then they should compromise and cost of digital should be reduced drastically, all too often digital media is as equally as or more expensive than physical media which is not right considering the reduced manufacturing cost and draconian measures blocking re-sale. It's greed pure and simple.

As it stands now publishers have constructed a paradigm that gives them all of the benefits at the expense of the consumer (some of whom think it is great due to the convenience of digital) and law is yet to catch up. There's no reason why the digital market can't have the same rules as the physical market other than greed. Degradation is not an issue with physical copies unless the disc is scratched to the point of not working and in that case it shouldn't be re-sold, I certainly don't remember bartering with a second hand seller over price because of the condition of the disc, the only thing that determines price is the software itself.

Absolutely agree.
How fox hasn't been frustrated by this conversation I don't know he has answered every question you have thrown at him but yet you still argue its obviously a point where people are not willing to move on.

Also all this talk of oh my god games will be so cheap people will buy only second hand games (bar the fact they have to sell first to be resold) have people forgotten steam sales!!!!!!! 85% off why aren't you screaming at steam for destroying the gaming industry rather than trying to stick up for a company who are blocking my/our LEGAL right/s.

Games do degrade but due to appeal I for sure am not going to buy a Amstrad game hey they don't degrade so its still worth the same money than when it came out or toe jam and earl or battlefield 1942 or and so on even If I wanted to I'm sure either the servers are offline or very empty does that mean if the servers are closed on a very old game i paid full price for as they dont degrade I can complain and get my money back 10 years on..... Oh wait I can't even do that with new game which technically it would still be by your logic so not only do I not own or allowed to sell my purchase which i didn't really purchase but did
At full price and a little more than a physical copy but didn't get packaging,manual's and cd I also can't return faulty goods as apparently games come under a law to themselves.
Hmmm I wonder who benefits from this........ The answer is not the consumer.

 

[orderoftheflame]

Games do degrade but due to appeal I for sure am not going to buy a Amstrad game hey they don't degrade

I'm not really big on getting involved in this argument, but..

That's not degradation, that's loss of appeal. The product is still exactly the same as it was when it had full appeal, and a second hand copy is identical (in the case of digital..) ten years later to a new copy the day it was released. There's no damage and it's not worn out at all.

 

[Wh00pS]

But this will fundamentally just drive developers to the safety of online games paid by subscription.

And how is this model safe from 2nd hand sales ?.
Take WoW for instance, it's online only and subscription based yet 1000's of accounts are bought and sold weekly on online auction sites and forums.

 

[Amraam]

IMO, whether it's digital, physical or simply the rights to use something via a license, if you paid for it, you own it. You should be allowed to sell on anything you own legally.

Yes, you don't a copy of the game - you own the rights to play it, but surely this is still something you should be able to sell on. Without trekking into the grounds of piracy, yes you can make infinite copies of a game, but without the license, those copies are useless, so I don't get why we can't sell licenses for games we no longer want.

 

[Kenai]

And how is this model safe from 2nd hand sales ?.
Take WoW for instance, it's online only and subscription based yet 1000's of accounts are bought and sold weekly on online auction sites and forums.

Because income is based on a rolling monthly sub that is always paid directly to the developer/publisher regardless of when or where you bought the original game from. Regardless of accounts being sold or whatever, Activision/Blizzard still see £6 a month or whatever it is being realised from the active playing of that account.

Vastly different from a typical single player game where you get income once from selling it and then never again, unless you release expansions or DLC.

------

The trouble with this whole issue is that digital products differ fundamentally from non digital products in the second hand market - they do no degrade, they don't change, they don't wear out. They are 100% identical in every respect. A console game at least ends up with a tatty box and a scratched box, lessening it's appeal to buyers and pushing them towards new sales. With purely digital products there is absolutely no negative side to a second hand purchase at all and so the prospective appeal is vastly higher than any other second hand product, effectively making the second hand product much more directly competitive with the new product.

 

[Jokester]

And how is this model safe from 2nd hand sales ?.
Take WoW for instance, it's online only and subscription based yet 1000's of accounts are bought and sold weekly on online auction sites and forums.

When I talk about subscription based services, I don't mean online games paid for by subscription, I'm talking about a subscription to Steam, so rather than pay once to play forever (in effect buy it regardless of what Valve say in the t&c's) you will now need to pay continually to keep using the product. Want to play an EA game (some are alright!) same again, you need a sub there as well.

I don't think most people realise what the unintended consequences of this could be. On the face of it yay cheaper games to buy, but the flipside is a subscription based model immediately closes the the door to things like Steam sales where people can pick things up for better value. The cost of PC gaming will in effect go up, forcing either people to suck it up, or just not bother with it anymore.

Consoles may well go the same way, except conceivably it will all just be through the PS4/xbox720 site, rather than through multiple independent publisher sites, so again eroding the PC market.

 

[[TW]Fox]

I don't think most people realise what the unintended consequences of this could be.

I know I said we should agree to disagree but you know what I'm like

I maintain that people with this viewpoint are massively over-exagerating the effect it would have on the market. It's slightly different to trading in physical games, sure, but not so different that it would have a completely different effect.

The availability of tradeins and used games for 25+ years has not caused anything like what you are suggesting would happen if consumers were allowed to once again sell things they dont want anymore.

It remains limited by the same thing has stopped the market being flooded with infinite cheap used games on console - only one person can have the game at any one time. For a used sale to take place, a corresponding new sale must happen *and* the person who made that new purchase must not want the product anymore.

As I keep saying, I doubt I'd sell any of my games and I'd imagine most people here are no different. I like playing them.

Infact what it MIGHT cause is for people like me to buy MORE new games. After all, why not take a punt on the latest MOH? If its as crap as the internet says I can sell it on. Who knows, I might like it and keep it. Currently I don't buy games like that because I want value out of what I buy.

The massively higher margins on digitally distributed games are more than enough to compensate for the minor effect this would have on new sales. Physical games have a MUCH lower margin yet STILL survive with used copies in circulation.

 

[nightrider1470]

At the end of the day digital media should not be able to strip away consumer rights, if publishers are not happy about a digital second hand market then they can always go back to a physical media or if they don't want digital media to have a second hand market then they should compromise and cost of digital should be reduced drastically, all too often digital media is as equally as or more expensive than physical media which is not right considering the reduced manufacturing cost and draconian measures blocking re-sale. It's greed pure and simple.

As it stands now publishers have constructed a paradigm that gives them all of the benefits at the expense of the consumer (some of whom think it is great due to the convenience of digital) and law is yet to catch up. There's no reason why the digital market can't have the same rules as the physical market other than greed. Degradation is not an issue with physical copies unless the disc is scratched to the point of not working and in that case it shouldn't be re-sold, I certainly don't remember bartering with a second hand seller over price because of the condition of the disc, the only thing that determines price is the software itself.

Nice dude!

 

[Kenai]

I think it is different enough that it will have an effect.

Currently, at least in console terms, the buying choice you have is between a brand new sealed game at £35 or a second hand, slightly tatty game more than likely with a scratched disc at £30.

For the vast majority of people, saving that fiver isn't worth the trade off and so the new market doesn't suffer particularly drastically.

Move to digital only and suddenly you're looking at £35 for a 'brand new' digital license, which is in effect, immaculate versus £30 for a 'second hand' digital license which is in effect, also immaculate. Who in their right mind would pay £35 for something they can get for £30 and is absolutely identical in every single respect possible except for where your £35 or £30 goes?

It's a situation we can only speculate on because we've never before seen a market operate where a new market and second hand market offer identical items for differing prices. Simple economic logic dictates that the cheaper product will be more attractive, thus attract more demand and so have a much larger effect than we've seen before.

Plus, you can sell a key by sending an email, vastly easier than selling a physical item and so you don't end up in the situation where your selling price is more like £10 to the local GAME store because selling yourself is more hassle than it's worth. Suddenly you can easily attain £30 for your second hand game, not £10 or £15, so the supply of available second hand games will be much higher than ever before too.

 

[Jokester]

But trade ins of existing games are inherently 2nd hand product, not only that you have a restricted market place in the sense that if I trade in a game in Aberdeen and someone wants it in another town it doesn't happen. Fully digital trades don't have that issue they can be traded worldwide, instantly. They don't have the used issue, they can always undercut the orginal supplier as they don't have to care about making a profit on the sale, just minimising their loss. It's effortless and completely hassle free.

Fundamentally in a digital 2nd hand market there is no reason to buy it from the originator. Yes, people need to initially buy the game to get copies into the 2nd hand market, but once there the originator will never get a look in again.