Why can't pc games be traded in ?

[Omaeka]

What law would that be?

Just because existing hard copy retailers use a fixed amount system, doesn't mean a digital retailer who use account based systems couldn't keep track and offer different amounts.

I don't think there is any law that stipulates a retailer has to offer people the same values but i'd be interested if you actually had any evidence to suggest otherwise.

Well you got me on the evidence, but there is always greenmangaming, they offer trade ins for none Steam titles, but they don't change based on what the consumer paid for it to my knowledge.

It's actually quite common for retailers to charge people different amounts for the same thing based on things like coupons, membership deals etc.

Nothing that applies to preowned products though, not at least with games but you have a point. The closest thing though for pre owned games is buy x for £30 and generic deals, but the actual moneyback values don't change.

I agree, they're either going to pursue the subscription route or offer an alternative to try and dissuade direct consumer to consumer sales, such as trade in or buy back schemes.

I think regardless, they're going to lose revenue, which is why people are worried about it - as revenue falls, they'll be even more reluctant to take chances on new games and we'll end up even more inundated with yearly sequels and updates.

Exactly, the only reason I'm even bothered about all of this is because people don't seem to care what it will do, game series are already going down hill drastically, and the PC platform is just making it's way back to actually being cared about and then it gets hit by this. Consoles already survive it because of accessibility and lack of piracy (although it is there). The only thing that causes any damage is preownership, not a huge obstacle and the only real one.

I reckon the future will be one or two games on the PC that actually matter and free 2 play MMO's with micro transactions. The majority of the big games being exclusive to consoles because it's pointless supporting the PC. As much as people complain about the huge games like Battlefield 3 and Skyrim, they are still the games we all play. I'd love to see all the rage from people if TES VI is console exclusive, well it's the PC users that'll cause it, shortsightedness is a *****.

Some amazing things exist, i.e Torchlight II and Guild Wars II, that will sell a lot due to the amazing amount of content they offer for the price, that along with Steam sales are really spoiling us as it is, just looks like people want to ruin all the long term goodies for some short term money gain.

I for one don't want to leave details like this to the Corporations and Companies involved, their obligations need to be enforced by consumer law .... but it's still early days yet .... content providers of traditional media (games/film/music) are still trying to find a sales model which maximises revenue, and will do anything possible to protect their revenue streams.

We will always need something in place to protect us as consumers so it's great to see what's happening in the German courts on this issue. I'd just like to see a fair outcome for all parties. After all, games developers still need income to continue doing what we all love

I agree totally, but I don't think we'd even be allowed to be left with nothing when a company fails that didn't even sell products of it's own. (No idea about the Valve games though, but still, Steam will never die).

 

[negger]

Steam will never die.

That's a very naive view, I remember them saying the same thing about the banks

I'd love to see all the rage from people if TES VI is console exclusive, well it's the PC users that'll cause it, shortsightedness is a *****.

Console gamers are allowed to trade in pre-owned ..... so how would pc gamers be to blame if they want the same rights ?

 

[Omaeka]

That's a very naive view, I remember them saying the same thing about the banks

Hell no, Steam is immortal.

In all seriousness though, Valve are way too big and popular at the minute and if things go south they can quickly turn into a more obvious subscription service and still make tons.

Console gamers are allowed to trade in pre-owned ..... so how would pc gamers be to blame if they want the same rights ?

The digital vs physical thing has been argued to death. PC Gamers are supposed to be the adult and mature ones and should know enough about their platform to know it's already facing tons of obstacles. If they want it to face even more, they had better not start moaning when they are faced with the consequences. Money is tight for me and pretty much always has been yet I don't run around demanding to be able to sell all the games I'm finished with for some of it back, because I care enough about where gaming is going to look past myself. If everyone did that we wouldn't be constantly nerd raging over how badly companies go down south like Bioware, if there was potential in new ideas and enough padding for companies to take lots of risks they would, but there isn't due to all the revenue being lost, and here comes some more for them to lose.

Can't wait for somebody to quote that sentence with some smarmy remark.

 

[Tute]

This thread is LOL.

When you give Steam £££ for a game, you're paying for one LICENCE for that game. Steam then try to prevent trades by slipping the fact that you never own it into the EULA. Personally I think it's totally non-enforceable, and Steam know it - it's there more as a deterrant rather than a watertight solution. It'll just take someone with money and determination to break it.

I'm not sure where I stand on it sadly - whilst I think it'll mean the end of Steam sales, hopefully it might curb some of the crap we get fed as gamers, as if a game is rubbish it'll just get traded to death rather than bought.

 

[negger]

Most of my games I buy online and receive the physical media, several require steam to run anyway. So the digital vs physical thing you talk about is meaningless. If a console game can be sold pre-owned I want the same rights for my pc game. I play both formats btw, so to say pc gamers are different to console gamers is also meaningless to me.

Also that old chestnut about pc games dying out has been doing the rounds for years. If there's a demand there's always someone willing to step up and supply. Media producers ought to be more concerned about quality than bemoaning why they think falling turnover is the fault of everyone else.

Tbh I don't really care about selling my media on, but I do care about being able to access them and have them stored whenever / wherever I like.

My ideal system would be once paid for you have access for life .... if i go to the cinema, the film i pay for should be added to some database for me and i get streaming rights / cloud access for the rest of my life .... suppose we can all dream lol

 

[FoxEye]

If Sony get their way, you won't be able to trade PS4 games either. In a couple years, this discussion might be moot.

 

[Amnesia]

i dont think it will stop the steam sales totally...it will just be more competition for the companies so maybe they will put their games on sale earlier before the 2nd hand market gets flooded.

it will also help bring some games to a more realistic price, atm some of the prices on steam are ridiculous...quake 3 team arena £13.99

Also lets not forget if people can sell their steam games then it will help them afford their next purchase and they wont have to wait for a steam sale.

 

[Rozzy85]

If Sony get their way, you won't be able to trade PS4 games either. In a couple years, this discussion might be moot.

Exactly. The only thing stopping it at the moment is accessibility to the Internet. Your average console user is less likely to have a permanent connection so it would hurt sales. I don't think it will happen with the next generation but it will come. The game coming on a disc will be irrelevant because you will need to register a key that will tie to your account and let you run the game. It's already partially here with DLC.

 

[Arthur Hucksake]

No, you're not.

Then torrenting it, you are not stealing anything.

 

[~Divine~Wind~]

Wow, that's pretty incredible. Looking at it from that point of view I can kinda see the standing, but let's look at it realistically, it isn't much different to legalizing piracy, sure one person would have to buy it, but he could easily pass it around to a group of friends, i.e entire forums popping up dedicated to saving money by passing around software, that'll do tons of damage.

Rubbish.

You mean like the people that buy and sell 2nd hand console games?
Oh hang on isn't there stores that do that?

 

[Omaeka]

Rubbish.

You mean like the people that buy and sell 2nd hand console games?
Oh hang on isn't there stores that do that?

If said stores are actually internet forums where people swap digital software around when they are finished with it for free, then yes.

My comment was based on the premise that people would be able to give licenses to one another for whatever they wanted, all they'd have to do is email the CD key to somebody and it's theirs no questions asked, can't really email an Xbox game to somebody.

 

[~Divine~Wind~]

As above tho
Retail copy of game that requires steam activation, how is this different to an xbox 360 game being traded in multiple times?

 

[spoffle]

If said stores are actually internet forums where people swap digital software around when they are finished with it for free, then yes.

My comment was based on the premise that people would be able to give licenses to one another for whatever they wanted, all they'd have to do is email the CD key to somebody and it's theirs no questions asked, can't really email an Xbox game to somebody.

Where's the element of trust in all of this though?

Why is some one going to buy software and then once they're "done" with it transfer the ownership of the software to some random on a forum?

The people who are interested in that sort of thing already exist as "piracy" communities. It's going to change very little. All of your examples assume a specific stance from every person involved.

You assume that EVERYONE will be selling their games, that no one will buy new (which isn't really possible) and that a "second hand" sale means no money (which is also impossible since the developer will have been paid the first time around).

Additionally, since when has the legality of "piracy" really influenced a person's choice to do it? People who don't want to pay, don't pay, and piracy would be a far more convenient process than transferring the license of software en masse around. Obviously you're just winging it with these examples, but I have no idea why you're investing so much thought in to them. Every single example of yours is more hassle than piracy, and the people who would be likely interested in that process are probably already members of multiple piracy communities.

You also seem to be overlooking that in your examples, one license would equal one user, so only one person at a time would be able to "legally" use the software. People just aren't going to be interested in that on this massive scale that your imagining.

Also, another thing is that people have been sharing their media with friends and family for decades. Ever borrowed a book/movie/game/album from a friend?

 

[Fr0dders]

Where's the element of trust in all of this though?

Why is some one going to buy software and then once they're "done" with it transfer the ownership of the software to some random on a forum?

because thats what some people are like. The problem is, they don't just transfer ownership of it to one person, they put it on an internet site for everybody to use and then torrent it.

This is what is was like in the early days of PC gaming with games like halflife. Just download a copy from filesharing apps like kazaa, and it came with a nocd crack so no CD required, and a CD key.

This copy obviously couldn't be used for multiplayer, but this didn't bother the pirates.