Yea, probably. From a legal point of view, a licence is a licence no matter the transport media. For example, if I buy a retail copy of World of Goo from Tesco then I'm free to play it and then trade it in (and therefore transfer the licence). If I buy a digital copy then I should be allowed to transfer the licence to another person as well. I think this is what the EU ruling was trying to address.
Valve Slammed By Consumer Protection, Issued Cease And Desist On Anti-Consumerist EULA
- Thread starter Divinious
- Start date
Yea, probably. From a legal point of view, a licence is a licence no matter the transport media. For example, if I buy a retail copy of World of Goo from Tesco then I'm free to play it and then trade it in (and therefore transfer the licence). If I buy a digital copy then I should be allowed to transfer the licence to another person as well. I think this is what the EU ruling was trying to address.
That's exactly what the EU ruling is trying to address.
You've then got games in the middle, ones that you can buy at a shop, but are then locked to a Steam account by way of a serial.
The problem is that the EU ruling was so vague it made it almost worthless to be put into practice in its current form but time will tell.
It is debateable what long term effects the ruling will have on the industry and consumers if it stays as is, which I personally doubt.
Last edited:
I think what he was getting at was Steam can't just transfer 'Game' from 'Account A' to 'Account B' just because 'Account A' tells them to, you mentioned external payment methods like PayPal so how would Steam know that 'Account B' had purchased anything?They are ALL assumptions, I don't even know how or why you would make those assumptions. You know, keeping it simple and all, you'd be trading the existing key.
Why would you even talk about new keys, them being free and how valve have no control over issuing free keys? Why do new "free" keys need to be issued, why wouldn't the existing key for the game already owned be traded, and how the hell did you expect me to know you were talking about that?!
They don't need to do any of that at all. It's their platform, they can control how everything is implemented.
Wut
Steam could very well implement that if they wished to or were forced to.
As for the paypal thing, my point was that within Steam, it would be simple transfer of ownership between accounts, if the people involved want to involve money, they they could do so by using PayPal for example.
Look, I am not trolling you or trying to annoy you but what you are saying is simply not true.
I have said it, someone else has said it but you still believe to the contrary.
The Steam distribution agreement does not give Valve ownership of content to do as they please.
Do you believe that E.A and Activision will sign away their games to Valve to do as they please? Of course not.
One paid transaction entitles Valve to distribute one key/license for that game, as per the distribution agreement.
Also, it is OK the EU saying "Do this" but who foots the bill.
Even if publishers were to agree to allow Valve to do this (Which I doubt) the admin costs alone would soon rack up, who will pick up the lawyer bills for all of the distribution agreements which will need to renewed for EVERY game?
Last edited:
Saying it isn't really enough though is it?
I'm not implying Valve do have ownership of the content. That's not the point here.
If Valve are told they have to allow people the ability to sell games that are associated with their account, Valve will have to do something about it, and in turn developers will too.
All this nonsense about new free keys makes absolutely no sense, because if they are legally obligated to allow people to sell or at least transfer their games to other people, then they have to implement something to facilitate that.
Which leads me on to the other point I made where Valve CAN implement such a process if they were required to. We are talking about single serials here, not control of the actual game, just a serial, taken from one account and moved to another.
The developers need have absolutely no input or gain from that process, as the EU ruling stated, they exhaust the rights of control after the first sale.
Since their rights of control of said serial key have been exhausted after the first sale, nothing else really needs to be done. No new distribution agreements since these keys won't be "distributed".
It could work exactly like the current Steam inventory works now, Valve don't even need a direct hands in involvement past implementing it as part of Steam if they were required.
When did gaming get so complicated? Christ, in the 80's you could go to WH Smith, buy a NEW Spectrum game for 1.99 (yes, 1.99 - and many of them were fantastic!) on audio tape, copy it for all your mates using a couple of tape decks, and the world actually didn't end. In face, I seem to remember it thriving quite nicely. Now you need a law degree just to understand what it is you're actually buying.
Yes, yes, I know things are different now. Just thinking back to those days makes all this Steam controversy seem kind funny, that's all
I personally like Steam a lot but haven't got the time or inclination to give a rats about the EULA. I only really buy sale stuff. But it's absolutely essential that other people DO give a rats about it, and I absolutely agree with Steam getting a slap on the wrist occasionally if it keeps them honest. If somebody felt strong enough to boycott Steam then good for them. That's how it should work.
Yes, yes, I know things are different now. Just thinking back to those days makes all this Steam controversy seem kind funny, that's all
I personally like Steam a lot but haven't got the time or inclination to give a rats about the EULA. I only really buy sale stuff. But it's absolutely essential that other people DO give a rats about it, and I absolutely agree with Steam getting a slap on the wrist occasionally if it keeps them honest. If somebody felt strong enough to boycott Steam then good for them. That's how it should work.
It does not matter, you cannot sue them anyway
What if Valve decide the EU is too much hassle and just pull out of the territory, what happens then?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 16 May 2005
- Posts
- 31,297
- Location
- Manchester
This sounds so far outside of the realms of likelihood than I'm not even sure why you're mentioning it to be honest.
Yup, they'd lose a massive slice of their customers, more pc gamers in europe than there is in America for one. Not a chance of that happening.
In my opinion, so is being able to swap games with mates on Steam but that seems to have been discussed in a fair amount of detail. Nothing wrong with adding it to the debate, regardless of the possibility.
Nothing is known for certain at this point so were all taking a "best guess" based on some half ***** EU ruling.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 16 May 2005
- Posts
- 31,297
- Location
- Manchester
Given the recent rulings, the possibility of being able to swap games on Steam is certainly that - a possibility.
Valve suddenly cutting off half of their customer base because it is "too much hassle" really isn't in the same realm.
Really not trying to be offensive but you seem to have lost the plot a bit on this one to be honest.
I was purchasing from Steam when they sold games in Great British pounds.
Pulling out of Europe does not mean consumers cannot purchase from them. What I meant was not actively offering store items in GBP and Euros.
Would the EU ruling apply to anyone selling to a person in Europe, for example, an American company selling to a European in US dollars?
Last edited:
I don't see valve throwing out games for sale before theyre finished, something EA excels at.
No offence taken, it is just something I am interested in as the implications for EVERYONE are HUGE on many many levels.
Not just games, but ALL consumable media and going forward, I personally think this will stump growth, especially in the field of digitally distributed movies which still has not took off.
I have no problem with a lifetime subscription model which is mine and mine only for as long as I need it, I see sense in that and think it is the most workable.
I am not saying everyone has to agree, I am aware others prefer a different approach, which is fine.
Last edited:
Lost the plot sums it up quite nicely.
It comes across to me as complete denial or something, it seems like he's even acting like the EU ruling never really happened.
There hasn't yet been one compelling argument as for why this is wrong or a bad idea.
All the arguments tend to appeal to emotions, use a lot of emotional language, and make massive assumptions about things seemingly made up on the spot.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 20 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 7,297
- Location
- Tamworth
Trading or selling used games through Steam is never going to happen. If the EU keep pushing then the publishers will change the way in which games are sold and played. They could quite easily move to a similar business model as cable TV. You pay a monthly fee for access to certain games channels. You could have payment tiers that meant the more you pay per month the more channels you get access to. So having access to older games would be a basic subscription and then you pay a premium to access new releases.
They could even say that the games you already have are your Freeview channels and anything else you want to play will be a monthly subscription.
They could even say that the games you already have are your Freeview channels and anything else you want to play will be a monthly subscription.