Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[fenrif]

I dont think everyone wins in a world where developers don't make deep or replayable games. I like being able to buy a game and keep replaying it years later.

[EuchreJack]

The rest of the story:

For those who have recently logged into Steam, they have been confronted with a "mandatory arbitration agreement" in order to continue using Steam.  Steam is trying to keep any future cases about its conduct outside of the courtroom, so that no similar adverse decisions can be made against them.

Two fun facts about the "mandatory arbitration agreement":

1) It doesn't apply to cases of copyright infringement, piracy, and similar.  So, if Steam wants to sue you, they can use the courts.  If you want to sue Steam, you "don't" get to use the courts, at least if Steam had their way.

2) Note that I keep putting "mandatory arbitration agreement" in quotes.  That is because "mandatory arbitration agreements" are not always enforceable.  In fact, I have serious doubts about this particular one.  But that does not mean that it won't be enforced: It is just that I can see valid arguments for this particular agreement not being enforced.

Long story short: If you want to sue somebody in court, but you signed a "mandatory arbitration agreement", I strongly suggest speaking to an attorney anyways, because the "agreement" might just be complete bull, not worth the bytes it takes up.

[Rose]

Um... the agreement has does not say anything about sueing valve, only about class-action suits. You can still sue them, but only on an individual basis, and they pay for the litigation for that weather you win or lose. It's only class-action suits which aren't allowed, which, quite frankly, I agree with, because those generally benefit the lawyers more than the people.

[Shadowlord]

I thought it was pretty ridiculous to be locked out of steam, and unable to download any of the games in my library, until I agreed to their new terms of service / agreement. They said if the service ever became unavailable we'd be able to download all our games without DRM, and it's pretty unavailable if we don't agree to their new agreement...

Side note: The agreement makes it sound like the right of first sale doesn't even apply to anything you buy over Steam, as they say you're not actually paying for the games, but for an infinitely long subscription to play the games via Steam (If I'm remembering what it says correctly). Honestly, it sounded like insane troll logic to me.

[EuchreJack]

In their defense, they state that some of their terms don't apply in the EU, for what that is worth.

Interesting thought: If the insane troll logic of game companies and distributors like Steam that games aren't owned by the player but rather are licensed for the player to use were true, then piracy would not exist.

Here is my insane troll logic: A pirate is someone that steals an item that belongs to someone else.  If games can not be owned by the consumer, but only used by paying consumers, then games also can not be stolen from makers and distributors of games, only used without license, and therefore it is impossible to steal a game.  If a consumer can not acquire title by purchase, then title also can't be stolen.

So the supposedly evil crime of "stealing" games becomes the signficantly less ominous, and likely not criminal, offense of "using a game without a license".

The EU decision actually does a lot to combat piracy, and Steam's attempts to circumvent the EU ruling in fact dilute if not destroy any standing they have to protest against piracy.  If they were smart, they would see themselves as the successors to EBgames (by which I mean, their online service is an evolution of brick-and-mortar game stores), where their rights are concrete and protected, instead of trying to give themselves godlike powers, only to risk being smited by stronger powers.

[Matz05]

Well, I may just have to move to the EU. Hopefully everyone else follows suit with actually taking a common-sense look at their software and consumer rights laws.

I really hope steam realizes they can't fight this, slaps their legal department, and sets up a "Steam Trading Repackage" service that lets you (for a small fee?) uninstall a game (over a certain age?) and make it tradeable again. Combine this with a (purchasable?) service to list your tradeables in a searchable database for offering to other users (and accepting Steam Wallet money) and Steam would be able to make a bundle off of this by:
a) Repackaging/listing fees
b) More people buying up 10 used copies of an older multiplayer game and gifting them to their friends. Some of these friends will not have Steam, and exposure to Steam will massively increase the likelyhood of them becomming customers.
c) People who resell older games will constantly have a little money in their Steam Wallet, therefore they are more likely to impulse buy games, even if they need to add a little more to reach the price.

[Catastrophic lolcats]

Honestly I'm not all that fussed about not being able to re-sell digital games. If the trade off is much easier to access games and much cheaper prices I can be content not selling them. To be fair it sounds like a nightmare for the distributiors to have a system to be able to "re-sell" digital games. I know Green Man Gaming has a system like that but I'm not sure how it works.

If publishers start seeing this as an excuses to include more DRM, that Project 10 Dollars crap, or just worse services; that's when I have a problem. That's a fault that lies with the publisher/distributior, not the fault of the system of re-selling games however.

[Matz05]

What don't they use as an excuse to add more DRM?
Good performance previous quarter? More DRM!
Bad performance last quarter? DIRTY PIRATES! MORE DRM!
...Honestly, what kind of idiots think they are hemoraging money willy-nilly whenever they realize a form of DRM exists that they don't already use?
And who would put these guys in charge of an ice-cream stand, much less a software company?

[fenrif]

In their defense, they state that some of their terms don't apply in the EU, for what that is worth.

Interesting thought: If the insane troll logic of game companies and distributors like Steam that games aren't owned by the player but rather are licensed for the player to use were true, then piracy would not exist.

Here is my insane troll logic: A pirate is someone that steals an item that belongs to someone else.  If games can not be owned by the consumer, but only used by paying consumers, then games also can not be stolen from makers and distributors of games, only used without license, and therefore it is impossible to steal a game.  If a consumer can not acquire title by purchase, then title also can't be stolen.

So the supposedly evil crime of "stealing" games becomes the signficantly less ominous, and likely not criminal, offense of "using a game without a license".

The EU decision actually does a lot to combat piracy, and Steam's attempts to circumvent the EU ruling in fact dilute if not destroy any standing they have to protest against piracy.  If they were smart, they would see themselves as the successors to EBgames (by which I mean, their online service is an evolution of brick-and-mortar game stores), where their rights are concrete and protected, instead of trying to give themselves godlike powers, only to risk being smited by stronger powers.

The problem with your logic is that piracy isn't the act of stealing anything. It's making unauthorized copies of something. Though I'm pretty sure "piracy" is just a boogaboo buzzword that actually encompasses a handfull of different crimes that all come under the same general area of "copyright based computer stuff?" I'm not a lawyer though so I could be completely wrong.

Honestly I'm not all that fussed about not being able to re-sell digital games. If the trade off is much easier to access games and much cheaper prices I can be content not selling them. To be fair it sounds like a nightmare for the distributiors to have a system to be able to "re-sell" digital games. I know Green Man Gaming has a system like that but I'm not sure how it works.

If publishers start seeing this as an excuses to include more DRM, that Project 10 Dollars crap, or just worse services; that's when I have a problem. That's a fault that lies with the publisher/distributior, not the fault of the system of re-selling games however.

I'm not really bothered about being able to sell my pre-owned games. I'm extremely bothered by not being able to give away extra copies of games I buy in a bundle. Or to give games with no replayability that I've allready finished to my friends.

[Catastrophic lolcats]

Honestly I'm not all that fussed about not being able to re-sell digital games. If the trade off is much easier to access games and much cheaper prices I can be content not selling them. To be fair it sounds like a nightmare for the distributiors to have a system to be able to "re-sell" digital games. I know Green Man Gaming has a system like that but I'm not sure how it works.

If publishers start seeing this as an excuses to include more DRM, that Project 10 Dollars crap, or just worse services; that's when I have a problem. That's a fault that lies with the publisher/distributior, not the fault of the system of re-selling games however.

I'm not really bothered about being able to sell my pre-owned games. I'm extremely bothered by not being able to give away extra copies of games I buy in a bundle. Or to give games with no replayability that I've allready finished to my friends.

Thanks for making those points, it's two I very much forgot about when making the post. 
At this point with Steam and it's system of trading I find it pretty unacceptable that you don't get copies from bundles. There might be some legal bullshit slowing that whole process down but it seems unlikely to me. 

As for the "regifting to friends" thing I'm sorta on the fence on that. It would be nice to help a friend out and/or get rid of that game I didn't really like. On the other hand it could form "grey markets" for used games which depending on your point of view is either a good or bad thing. Needless to say if the distributor decided to try and police those markets it would be very costly for them.

[lordcooper]

Thing is, would anyone actually buy any firsthand copies of games that are older than a month or two if they could pay a hell of a lot less for an identical 'preowned' copy?

[fenrif]

Yes, for two reasons:

1) people still buy pre-owned everything else. You can go and buy pre-owned box copies of games anyway, and you can buy pre-owned books, movies, music, and all kinds of non-media things. Obviously with actual physical objects you have the chance of some deterioration or wear through use, but you can still get things like-new if you look around. It's also worth noting that with an entertainment product like games things like age play a huge part in their value. It's why GOG.com games are usually 3-6 pounds instead of their original retail value (obviously an extreme example, but you get what I mean). People want to play the next new thing when it's new. It's also worth taking into consideration things like multiplayer servers still being active, or a game having a multiplayer community at all. As anecdotal evidence I just bought Transformers: War for Cybertron on steam in the midweek sale and the multiplayer community is pretty dead. Definatly lost some value waiting to get it on the cheap there.

2) The idea that people wont buy brand new games if they can get cheaper pre-owned copies is kinda rendered moot by the fact that people still buy brand new games even though they can just pirate them for free. Put this down to supporting developers, favorite franchises, or genres I guess? Again, I know it's not a direct comparison with pre-owned games, but I think the concept is pretty similar.

Some people are just always willing to buy new, regardless of what other options there are.

[lordcooper]

1) It was blatantly obvious that I was referring to games that aren't brand new.  I don't doubt that people would still fork out the cash to get games at launch, but a month or two later there's gonna be shed loads of second hand keys floating about that function identically to firsthand keys.  Joe Bloggs is probably gonna choose to pay £5 rather than £30 nine times out of ten, regardless of what that'll do to the guys who actually made the game and won't be gaining a penny from this.

2) Apples and iguanas dude.  A lot of people choose to purchase over pirating because it's legal and less likely to be filled with malware.  Secondhand keys don't have these issues at all.

3) Yes, some people will always buy new.  Probably less people though, which means less money for developers and potentially less game getting made.

[Matz05]

At least malware in pirated stuff is picked up by scanners. In "legit" software it's called DRM and is ignored, though it can be almost (but not quite) as bad.

[Catastrophic lolcats]

2) Apples and iguanas dude.  A lot of people choose to purchase over pirating because it's legal and less likely to be filled with malware.  Secondhand keys don't have these issues at all.

With today's DRM bullshit like SecuROM it might actually be safer to pirate games. What a mad world.
EDIT: Ninjas