Print

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

[MasterFancyPants]

Why do people always point out physical degradation? I really don't see how it's relevant.
I mean: Plenty of people still have working copies of GTA I&2 and TES 1&2 and those games are now free. Thus, we have the technology to keep things long after they lose their initial worth.
Plus, if data is moved enough it degrades too; Steam could just force people to DL the game from the sellers computer. Though this would be silly since as I said above, degradation isn't really an issue.

Has anyone here ever had trouble finding a "like new" copy of something? I haven't.

[fenrif]

There's a difference between used physical sales and used digital sales. Physical sales have the restriction that they might be damaged (Though they often aren't, they still have this perception with a lot of people), whereas digital copies are always in perfect state.  Then there's also the fact that physical resale is harder to do than digital. (Depending on how excrutiatingly complex they make it, anyway). It is after all, near impossible for me to sell one of my games to another bay12'er living on the other side of the world, for example. This will mostly collide with the different pricings in different countries. One might buy were it is cheap and then sell it. Third there's the fact were it might negatively impact the sales.

Given these problems, we can devise a number of solutions

A) Evade the ruling, somehow
B) Divide steam on a per pricing group basing, each with it's own shop and such
C) Automated checking to see if no'one abuses the system for profit. This happens with the gifts system already
D) Pass a rule that you can only sell a game for the price you bought it or lower. This will prevent mass exploits to make money of the system, and possibly discourage lending games to friends for no money, as they would be worthless afterwards.
E) Take a share of the resale price
F) Go for Singleplayer +/ multiplayer only in game. You can pass a singleplayer game between friends and all get the same experience, but the same doesn't count for a multiplayer game.

Also, it might cause steam to go for an Always online DRM. After all, otherwise you could buy games on one computer(A), install them on another(B), and sell them on computer A. Meanwhile, as long as you don't let steam connect to the internet on computer B, you can play your games indefinitely.

G) Allow people to sell or trade their used games as they see fit (this is the correct choice)

I think at this point i should preface all of this with the fact that I'm not sure what's going on with this ruling. Most of the stuff early in the thread was conjecture based on everyones (probobly flawed) perceptions of what it meant. Steam certainly hasn't done anything about it so far, and I think I read a statement somewhere from them saying they weren't going to change their buisness practices at all. Though that may be why they slipped that class action suit in there (we're gonna ignore your rights because they're inconvenient, but you totally cant all gang up on us with a lawsuit!) Though that's probobly tin-foil hat territory. This is basically just a thought excercise at this point, but it's worth doing because I think people are far, far too willing to side with wealthy buisnessmen against their own interests for no reason other than "video games."

A, D, E, and kinda F would all be illegal under this law. F would be kind of illegal only because if you made multiplayer games some sort of subscription based service it would circumvent the ruling I think? But if it's a multiplayer game like say COD, or TF2 then you'd be well within your rights to sell them on or trade them.

B) I don't really understand. Do you mean like region pricing divisions? If so that'd be against the ruling aswell, and as such a violation of consumer rights.

C) Again, this is completely a violation of the rights as I understand the ruling defines them. I only singled it out because the entire basis of a capitalist economy is that you can buy low and sell high. The idea that you are somehow doign something wrong by selling a game you own at a profit over the original price you paid for it is insane. If you translated this idea into literally any other area of commerce you'd have entire industries failing overnight. Every single retail shop/store/outlet/whatever would have to close up. You'd have to buy everything straight from the manufacturer. Hope you live near a farm, or no eggs for you!

I'll say it again, because I'm worried every few posts are going to be someone new exclaiming "Yeah but physical copies degrade and the poor poor video game publishers need mo' money!"

Video game publishers do not need special protection from consumer rights laws. The idea that they do is thinly-veiled propoganda designed to make you feel sorry for the really cool dudes who bought the company that makes the games you like. Stop pretending that the multi-billion dollar international entertainment industry-running buisnessmen are delicate flowers that can't make money unless they get special exemptions from laws and rules that have existed since the founding of our civilisation.

Unless you can provide some sort of evidence that game publishers are running on like the thinnest of razor thin profit margins (you wont find any proof of this. Don't waste your time trying. They make a lot of money. Like A LOT of money) then don't try to excuse their horribly predatory buisness practices and steadily waged war on their own customers freedoms.

Don't be ok with trading away your own bloody rights for an entertainment product. Thing's like this are a lot harder to get back once you've lost them.

[Catastrophic lolcats]

A) Evade the ruling, somehow

I believe Steam has already managed to evade the ruling because the ruling is extremely vague and mostly covers "software" rather than "entertainment". I believe they got around it by changing their EULA so it no longer reads "digital product" and changed it to "subscription", or something along those lines.

B) Divide steam on a per pricing group basing, each with it's own shop and such

It already does this with price regions. As far as I know there's "five" regions including: Oceania/SEA, European Union Tier 1, European Union Tier 2, Russia, America/"rest of world". Some games in the Russian store have trading restrictions with other regions.

[alexandertnt]

You're arguing that its good for less games to get made?

I said less games getting made is not bad per se. That does not imply less games being made is good.

You're arguing that a digital copy of a game being resold is like a car being resold?

Sort of. If my car lasted forever I would be thrilled and would never buy another car again. But games are not tools, they are entertainment. People get bored of them and want something new. I was comparing second hand games sales to a car to the extent that a certain number of copies can only exist in the market palce. That is if there are 300 cars purchased, than only 300 cars would be on the road. If there were 300 games purchased, than only 300 copies available at any one time.

And are you're arguing that people will buy as many firsthand games as they do now when the secondhand ones are cheaper?

No. Where did I say that?

I like games. The more the merrier. That way there might some games that I might like.

Many games exist. Unless you exist in some sort of time-anomoly you woudn't have enough time to play a fraction of those games. Restricting second-hand sales because "the more the merrier" seems like a poor reason.

[G-Flex]

I like games. The more the merrier. That way there might some games that I might like.

Many games exist. Unless you exist in some sort of time-anomoly you woudn't have enough time to play a fraction of those games. Restricting second-hand sales because "the more the merrier" seems like a poor reason.

Right, and if anything, if you want to encourage large publishers to produce better games, you certainly don't do it by diminishing your own rights within the market. You do not, as a general rule, get better product from companies by having fewer rights as a consumer.

[10ebbor10]

B) Divide steam on a per pricing group basing, each with it's own shop and such

It already does this with price regions. As far as I know there's "five" regions including: Oceania/SEA, European Union Tier 1, European Union Tier 2, Russia, America/"rest of world". Some games in the Russian store have trading restrictions with other regions.

I meant dividing resale system in multiple groups, so that no resale can take place between them.

There's a difference between used physical sales and used digital sales. Physical sales have the restriction that they might be damaged (Though they often aren't, they still have this perception with a lot of people), whereas digital copies are always in perfect state.  Then there's also the fact that physical resale is harder to do than digital. (Depending on how excrutiatingly complex they make it, anyway). It is after all, near impossible for me to sell one of my games to another bay12'er living on the other side of the world, for example. This will mostly collide with the different pricings in different countries. One might buy were it is cheap and then sell it. Third there's the fact were it might negatively impact the sales.

Given these problems, we can devise a number of solutions

A) Evade the ruling, somehow
B) Divide steam on a per pricing group basing, each with it's own shop and such
C) Automated checking to see if no'one abuses the system for profit. This happens with the gifts system already
D) Pass a rule that you can only sell a game for the price you bought it or lower. This will prevent mass exploits to make money of the system, and possibly discourage lending games to friends for no money, as they would be worthless afterwards.
E) Take a share of the resale price
F) Go for Singleplayer +/ multiplayer only in game. You can pass a singleplayer game between friends and all get the same experience, but the same doesn't count for a multiplayer game.

Also, it might cause steam to go for an Always online DRM. After all, otherwise you could buy games on one computer(A), install them on another(B), and sell them on computer A. Meanwhile, as long as you don't let steam connect to the internet on computer B, you can play your games indefinitely.

G) Allow people to sell or trade their used games as they see fit (this is the correct choice)

I think at this point i should preface all of this with the fact that I'm not sure what's going on with this ruling. Most of the stuff early in the thread was conjecture based on everyones (probobly flawed) perceptions of what it meant. Steam certainly hasn't done anything about it so far, and I think I read a statement somewhere from them saying they weren't going to change their buisness practices at all. Though that may be why they slipped that class action suit in there (we're gonna ignore your rights because they're inconvenient, but you totally cant all gang up on us with a lawsuit!) Though that's probobly tin-foil hat territory. This is basically just a thought excercise at this point, but it's worth doing because I think people are far, far too willing to side with wealthy buisnessmen against their own interests for no reason other than "video games."Note that that would almost certainly result in mass exploiting of sales by automated programs buying lots of copies to sell them later at a profit. Though I doubt Valve cares much about that.

A, D, E, and kinda F would all be illegal under this law. F would be kind of illegal only because if you made multiplayer games some sort of subscription based service it would circumvent the ruling I think? But if it's a multiplayer game like say COD, or TF2 then you'd be well within your rights to sell them on or trade them.I meant switching to singleplayer + from a game design perspective. Trading a singleplayer game between friends in fun for all, but you can't play a multiplayer game together without all owning the copy.

B) I don't really understand. Do you mean like region pricing divisions? If so that'd be against the ruling aswell, and as such a violation of consumer rights.I meant restricting trade between the different pricing divisions, and I know this in effect already for several games. (Restrictions placed on the gift system among others.) A similiar system counts for physical resales. If a game or DvD has a region limititation, selling it to someone outside that region will still result in the device being non functional.

C) Again, this is completely a violation of the rights as I understand the ruling defines them. I only singled it out because the entire basis of a capitalist economy is that you can buy low and sell high. The idea that you are somehow doign something wrong by selling a game you own at a profit over the original price you paid for it is insane. If you translated this idea into literally any other area of commerce you'd have entire industries failing overnight. Every single retail shop/store/outlet/whatever would have to close up. You'd have to buy everything straight from the manufacturer. Hope you live near a farm, or no eggs for you!However, thanks to the wonders of digital distribution, you don't need subretailers. Any subretailers would just prove to be a strain on the system.

I'll say it again, because I'm worried every few posts are going to be someone new exclaiming "Yeah but physical copies degrade and the poor poor video game publishers need mo' money!"

Video game publishers do not need special protection from consumer rights laws. The idea that they do is thinly-veiled propoganda designed to make you feel sorry for the really cool dudes who bought the company that makes the games you like. Stop pretending that the multi-billion dollar international entertainment industry-running buisnessmen are delicate flowers that can't make money unless they get special exemptions from laws and rules that have existed since the founding of our civilisation. Trying to use real world mechanics on digital distribution doesn't always work. Besides, rules that have been in place since the beginning of civilization might rather be called outdated than useful.

Unless you can provide some sort of evidence that game publishers are running on like the thinnest of razor thin profit margins (you wont find any proof of this. Don't waste your time trying. They make a lot of money. Like A LOT of money) then don't try to excuse their horribly predatory buisness practices and steadily waged war on their own customers freedoms.

Don't be ok with trading away your own bloody rights for an entertainment product. Thing's like this are a lot harder to get back once you've lost them.I was just worrying about the implications.

Physical sales have the restriction that they might be damaged

...
When you buy a game used from either Best Buy or GameStop in the USA, you have a week in which you can return it, for example, if it doesn't work or is a terrible game.
(When you buy a game new, you have a month if you don't open it, or more if it was bought during the holiday season (at least with GameStop - I didn't look up Best Buy's policy to double check but I think it is similar). On Steam, you can never return a game even if you never install it.)
Stop Quoting things out of context. I was talking about the perception quite a lot of people have that they might be damaged.

Then there's also the fact that physical resale is harder to do than digital. (Depending on how excrutiatingly complex they make it, anyway). It is after all, near impossible for me to sell one of my games to another bay12'er living on the other side of the world, for example.

...
What. Go in store. Sell game to store. THAT WAS EASY. Alternately, go on amazon.com, sell game to them, and they will pay for your shipping. You can always give/trade/sell games with your friends in real life, and if you really want to sell a game to someone in another country, it's really your own fault for making it difficult. I'm not sure why you would pick that one rare case and use it to compare to digital resale (which does not exist with Steam or Origin (as far as I know*), and even the services that do have it only allow you to sell games back to the service like real-world retailers do, not to sell it directly to other people, AFAIK).

1. They take a share of the profit. This will not be allowed in the case of digital distribution. (Because within five minutes some community hosted site will spring up where people can sell their games for free and stuff.)
2. Amazon takes a share of the profit. This will not be allowed in the case of digital distribution
3.Because with steam this can happen much more often. Using digital distribution there's no reason not for things like digital gamelibraries to pop up or something.
4. Those services and steam will, if the ruling is interpreted as it should be, forced to allow sales between other people.
*The entire thread is hypothetical about what the implication would be were steam and origin forced to do resales, as per the European ruling.

[alexandertnt]

Right, and if anything, if you want to encourage large publishers to produce better games, you certainly don't do it by diminishing your own rights within the market. You do not, as a general rule, get better product from companies by having fewer rights as a consumer.

Companies have fewer rights Have you read the EULA's?

I sort of feel this argument breaks down into the "More money to company = better company" argument, which does not consider that a company primarily improves themselves to earn more money, not because suddenly more money is available.

Note that that would almost certainly result in mass exploiting of sales by automated programs buying lots of copies to sell them later at a profit. Though I doubt Valve cares much about that.

No, it would encourage businesses to stop price discrimination. Considering I live in Australia that is a wonderful thought for me, since most companies are like "Hey its Australia, lets pretend we have to pay higher shipping costs and charge ~40% more".

I am curious, if such a thing were to be implemented in Steam, how hard it would be to sell a second hand copy outside of the EU.

1. They take a share of the profit. This will not be allowed in the case of digital distribution. (Because within five minutes some community hosted site will spring up where people can sell their games for free and stuff.)
2. Amazon takes a share of the profit. This will not be allowed in the case of digital distribution

Removing middlemen is a good thing. Amazon not being needed to take a share of the profit for second hand sales does not seem like a bad thing, especially given such a system could make Amazon's second-hand reselling redundant.

3.Because with steam this can happen much more often. Using digital distribution there's no reason not for things like digital gamelibraries to pop up or something.

There are laws against this, just like you can resell books but can't start up your own library (Though this does differ between juristictions).

4. Those services and steam will, if the ruling is interpreted as it should be, forced to allow sales between other people.

This is a point I am quite interested in. Will the laws require Valve to change the Steam program, or only to stop actively trying to block reselling of digital goods?

[10ebbor10]

Note that that would almost certainly result in mass exploiting of sales by automated programs buying lots of copies to sell them later at a profit. Though I doubt Valve cares much about that.

No, it would encourage businesses to stop price discrimination. Considering I live in Australia that is a wonderful thought for me, since most companies are like "Hey its Australia, lets pretend we have to pay higher shipping costs and charge ~40% more".

I am curious, if such a thing were to be implemented in Steam, how hard it would be to sell a second hand copy outside of the EU.
Probably quite easy. Sadly you wouldn't actually be able to use it. (Note that you can try to use proxies to get cheaper games, but watch out for region limititations). I doubt compagnies are going to give up on them easily though. Often it also has to do with different taxes and such.

1. They take a share of the profit. This will not be allowed in the case of digital distribution. (Because within five minutes some community hosted site will spring up where people can sell their games for free and stuff.)
2. Amazon takes a share of the profit. This will not be allowed in the case of digital distribution

Removing middlemen is a good thing. Amazon not being needed to take a share of the profit for second hand sales does not seem like a bad thing, especially given such a system could make Amazon's second-hand reselling redundant.It's a good thing for the customer, but not for the middle men(like steam and such), who are going to have to set up the trading system without getting anything back.

3.Because with steam this can happen much more often. Using digital distribution there's no reason not for things like digital gamelibraries to pop up or something.

There are laws against this, just like you can resell books but can't start up your own library (Though this does differ between juristictions).

4. Those services and steam will, if the ruling is interpreted as it should be, forced to allow sales between other people.

This is a point I am quite interested in. Will the laws require Valve to change the Steam program, or only to stop actively trying to block reselling of digital goods?
It all depends on how you interpret it. Technically they should change steam to allow the reselling of digital programs. (Same counts for all other programs.). However, it seems they might get out of it by using subscriptions instead of licenses)
[/quote]

[fenrif]

(horrible mess of a post)

Seriously? Embedded, full quoted, and with coloured text? Just write a post that's actually readable and I don't need a pair of tweezers and a map to read and respond to.

No, it would encourage businesses to stop price discrimination. Considering I live in Australia that is a wonderful thought for me, since most companies are like "Hey its Australia, lets pretend we have to pay higher shipping costs and charge ~40% more".

I am curious, if such a thing were to be implemented in Steam, how hard it would be to sell a second hand copy outside of the EU.

By my understanding of the ruling it'd be just as easy to sell/trade pre-owned games to someone in Australia as it would to someone next door. You'd just get sent the CD-key, install file, or steam trade or whatever. Though obviously steam decided it just didn't like this law, and they've got more money, so I guess get used to paying ridiculous markups because poor impoverished publishers want all the benefits of digital copies for themselves without passing any of them on to their customers.

[G-Flex]

Right, and if anything, if you want to encourage large publishers to produce better games, you certainly don't do it by diminishing your own rights within the market. You do not, as a general rule, get better product from companies by having fewer rights as a consumer.

Companies have fewer rights Have you read the EULA's?

I sort of feel this argument breaks down into the "More money to company = better company" argument, which does not consider that a company primarily improves themselves to earn more money, not because suddenly more money is available.

In case you can't tell, I'm agreeing with you here. Consumers, especially of digital/licensed products like video games and movies, get screwed over more than enough as it is. Hell, we barely have rights.

[alexandertnt]

Right, and if anything, if you want to encourage large publishers to produce better games, you certainly don't do it by diminishing your own rights within the market. You do not, as a general rule, get better product from companies by having fewer rights as a consumer.

Companies have fewer rights Have you read the EULA's?

I sort of feel this argument breaks down into the "More money to company = better company" argument, which does not consider that a company primarily improves themselves to earn more money, not because suddenly more money is available.

In case you can't tell, I'm agreeing with you here. Consumers, especially of digital/licensed products like video games and movies, get screwed over more than enough as it is. Hell, we barely have rights.

Oh. I apologize then, I thought the post was written from-the-publishers POV.

[EuchreJack]

No, it would encourage businesses to stop price discrimination. Considering I live in Australia that is a wonderful thought for me, since most companies are like "Hey its Australia, lets pretend we have to pay higher shipping costs and charge ~40% more".

I am curious, if such a thing were to be implemented in Steam, how hard it would be to sell a second hand copy outside of the EU.

By my understanding of the ruling it'd be just as easy to sell/trade pre-owned games to someone in Australia as it would to someone next door. You'd just get sent the CD-key, install file, or steam trade or whatever. Though obviously steam decided it just didn't like this law, and they've got more money, so I guess get used to paying ridiculous markups because poor impoverished publishers want all the benefits of digital copies for themselves without passing any of them on to their customers.

I'd also imagine that the ruling is limited to the EU.  At the very least, Steam can restrict anyone outside of the EU from reselling games, as the EU doesn't apply to them.  At most, Steam might restrict anyone outside the EU from buying resold games as well.

So far, Steam seems to have interpreted the law as: Don't act to prevent gamers from reselling steam keys if the gamer selling the key is located in the EU.  So, I guess it means that buyer needs to download the game itself from somewhere else (Steam is not obligated to help in any way in these transactions, at least that seems the position they are taking).

Although restricting the purchase of second-hand keys to the EU doesn't seem in spirit with the ruling, without reading the ruling myself, it is hard to say if such a restriction would violate the narrow issue that the ruling actually decided.

[fenrif]

I think at this point Steam is going with the "we'll ignore it untill someone kicks up a fuss, then actually think about maybe re-reading it possibly" strategy.

[Sergius]

I like games. The more the merrier. That way there might some games that I might like.

... So anything that drives up the price to the consumer is good? You haven't considered the possibility that some of the people who buy used games can't afford them new, that people who resell their old games now have money to buy other games themselves, or that, just maybe, people have the legal right to resell them, which would trump this entire argument?

Seriously, if you don't see how being able to resell something you bought is good for the consumer, not bad, there's a problem here. Unless you think the people actually reselling their old games somehow fail to benefit from this. If I can sell my old games, that gives me money to exchange for new games. That sort of flexibility is good for you whether you're buying or selling them.

Also, potentially, the fact that people can resell their games would encourage publishers to make games that have more than limited novelty appeal, that people actually want to keep.

Seriously, you might as well say that selling books second-hand should be illegal, or has somehow ruined the publication industry there.

Don't forget the incentive to buy more new games knowing that you'll be able to sell them later.

[EuchreJack]

I think at this point Steam is going with the "we'll ignore it untill someone kicks up a fuss, then actually think about maybe re-reading it possibly" strategy.

Agreed.