European court: You are allowed to resell your steam games
- Thread starter Komedy
- Start date
I dunno - maybe it can work out. The digital distributers, Steam, etc, just have to be the second hand market so they make money from that to offset/cancel out lost sales. This shouldn't be hard as selling on will have to be done through their client systems anyway - so they are in control already.
So for example, anyone can trade in their Steam game back to Steam and it disappears from their library. Of course Steam only gives you Steam Store credits for this ensuring future sales. Steam can then re-sell the 'used' license for more than they gave out when it was traded in. In other words exactly what existing second hand stores do.
Of course they dont actually sell new and used licenses side by side for different prices like a physical store, because that doesn't make sense for a digital software license. Instead though the price of buying the title would simply vary based on how many licenses have been traded in - i.e. supply and demand. So what would happen would be a new popular game would have loads of people buying and few traded in licenses which would set the price very close to a typical rrp today. An old/**** game would have had loads more licenses traded in therefore setting it's price low. Again - essentially what already happens in an existing second hand stores.
The end result could simply be that for a given number of people who end up playing the game (at some point), yes there would be far less licenses sold overall than under current rules because many would be effectively buying traded in 'used' lisenses, but the distributor has made more money per license through multiple profitable sales of one lisense. Maybe there's no difference in the end?
The question is, would a scheme like this where the distributor controlls trading in and reselling lisenses comply with these regulations? Or are they all going to be able to simply side-step them by moving to subscription services?
So for example, anyone can trade in their Steam game back to Steam and it disappears from their library. Of course Steam only gives you Steam Store credits for this ensuring future sales. Steam can then re-sell the 'used' license for more than they gave out when it was traded in. In other words exactly what existing second hand stores do.
Of course they dont actually sell new and used licenses side by side for different prices like a physical store, because that doesn't make sense for a digital software license. Instead though the price of buying the title would simply vary based on how many licenses have been traded in - i.e. supply and demand. So what would happen would be a new popular game would have loads of people buying and few traded in licenses which would set the price very close to a typical rrp today. An old/**** game would have had loads more licenses traded in therefore setting it's price low. Again - essentially what already happens in an existing second hand stores.
The end result could simply be that for a given number of people who end up playing the game (at some point), yes there would be far less licenses sold overall than under current rules because many would be effectively buying traded in 'used' lisenses, but the distributor has made more money per license through multiple profitable sales of one lisense. Maybe there's no difference in the end?
The question is, would a scheme like this where the distributor controlls trading in and reselling lisenses comply with these regulations? Or are they all going to be able to simply side-step them by moving to subscription services?
Don't we have the word another?
Administration fee, providing an after-sales service/facility to sell games?
Two of the inarguable selling points for releasing games on the PC are the digital sales and the lack of a second hand market. PC gaming isn't dead but I don't think it can afford to lose any of the things it has to attract developers/publishers.
The first place blame is laid when I buy a turd of a game is right at my own feet and this isn't for the purposes of an argument, it's how I deal with it. I have all the tools and information so I either rushed into it, bought on misplaced faith, didn't ask the right questions, or something similar. If you bought a duffer, you learn and move on.
The first place blame is laid when I buy a turd of a game is right at my own feet and this isn't for the purposes of an argument, it's how I deal with it. I have all the tools and information so I either rushed into it, bought on misplaced faith, didn't ask the right questions, or something similar. If you bought a duffer, you learn and move on.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,043
- Location
- Surrey
I wish people would stop comparing buying digital products to buying physical products. Like cars for example, if you buy a car the value depreciates over time.
If I buy a game, complete it in a week then sell it on the person buying it has no reason to buy new. There is no advantage to buying it new in the case of a digital product.
I think this move could massively harm the market, especially in the case of short (but no less brilliant) games like Limbo for example. It's not too ridiculous to look at companies 'fluffing' the gameplay (like with Far Cry 2 which was an average shooter but took about 6 times longer because of all the ridiculously travelling)
If I buy a game, complete it in a week then sell it on the person buying it has no reason to buy new. There is no advantage to buying it new in the case of a digital product.
I think this move could massively harm the market, especially in the case of short (but no less brilliant) games like Limbo for example. It's not too ridiculous to look at companies 'fluffing' the gameplay (like with Far Cry 2 which was an average shooter but took about 6 times longer because of all the ridiculously travelling)
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
of course the possible outcome is that it will increase the push towards subscription based games which will have nothing to transfer except a ongoing debt or just the title deed if the subscription for 12 months is paid...
Of course games depreciate over time. The actual game stays the same, but the technology around them advances very fast. Who would argue that a game bought in 2001 is worth the same as games bought in 2012, when their graphics are so poor, and you might have a bitch of a time trying to get them to run?
Those saying that small devs or PC only developers (CD Projekt for example) will suffer need to remember that they generally don't release games with DRM (Humble Bundles anyone?), which means that they could always be sold second hand anyway. This ruling/law will only really affect the bigger publishers. Obviously the effect it will have could be debated to the ends of the earth, but I think that the issue is far too complex to make sweeping statements as many have. Try it and see perhaps...
I do think it will push more companies towards the F2P model, but then again, with all the DLC and "Elite/Premium" services, they were going that way anyway. The few remaining big single player games will be those it's most likely to strongly effect, and it'll be interesting to see how it pans out. As I said before though, The Witcher doesn't have DRM and can be resold, but CDPR have done pretty well out of it and the Xbox version, which can also be resold.
I do think it will push more companies towards the F2P model, but then again, with all the DLC and "Elite/Premium" services, they were going that way anyway. The few remaining big single player games will be those it's most likely to strongly effect, and it'll be interesting to see how it pans out. As I said before though, The Witcher doesn't have DRM and can be resold, but CDPR have done pretty well out of it and the Xbox version, which can also be resold.
It's a good ruling, no reason why digital products should be treated any different to physical products in this regard. With the ever increasing profits of game developers and the correspondingly ever increasing prices, being able to transfer licenses helps protect the consumer.
Currently the only way to transfer the licence of some games is through piracy or hacks because of limited activations, these drm systems will need to be removed.
Currently the only way to transfer the licence of some games is through piracy or hacks because of limited activations, these drm systems will need to be removed.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 4,840
i really hope it wont change sales or it get gtfo!
Depreciation is not simply based on physical degredation, the fact that products are old results in depreciation in and of itself, that's why newly released digital download games are expensive and old digital download games are cheap (often the same price as second hand ones in fact).
Besides there is virtually no difference between new and second hand dvd based games, yet they are still bought new.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 6,678
I think if this went ahead though,Game prices would go through the roof.
Agree
You need to read the FAQ matey, your sig is against forum rules
All these people talking about selling on turd games, Why would anyone else wanna buy a **** game. I think this is bad times for PC gaming, they should introduce a massive admin fee to resell games or a fee that goes to devs.
Let's put it this way you think you get bad ports now, wait until sales start dropping due to the second hand market.
Let's put it this way you think you get bad ports now, wait until sales start dropping due to the second hand market.
Last edited:
I dont get the arguments saying that selling second hand games will kill off the PC market! NOT being able to sell the games if they are **** is what put me off buying full price games years ago!
The console market is booming and they have a second hand market and can sell/buy used copies. Explain that one in your logic about why it wont work with PC gaming? A game is a game. How come the developers don't moan about it happening on consoles?
Despite the large second hand market for consoles, look at the sales of Call of Duty each time they release a new version. The second hand market doesnt stop it from being a top selling product when brand new. If people want it they buy it.
The console market is booming and they have a second hand market and can sell/buy used copies. Explain that one in your logic about why it wont work with PC gaming? A game is a game. How come the developers don't moan about it happening on consoles?
Despite the large second hand market for consoles, look at the sales of Call of Duty each time they release a new version. The second hand market doesnt stop it from being a top selling product when brand new. If people want it they buy it.