I think that if this really happened we would only buy an "used" digital key clean from everything from the previous owner. After all when we buy a game we are also only buying a digital key and that key is what allow us to download the game. Also the argument about royalties are a non issue because when we buy a physical good and we sell it the companies that made the product also doens´t get anything from it. That´s what happened before Steam and companies didn´t die from it... Personally i have little interest in selling used games because i buy 80% of my games on sale so they are worth very little used. But i like that courts are trying to put limits on what companies can do because they wnat to abuse in every way possible. For example, speaking fo gaming and digital games i really hate the BS that we don´t own a game only a licence of it, licence chained to a no end of clauses that almost make me feel that i´m only renting the game i purchased... I also hate the fact that we are "forced" to use a digital store front to play the games we have bought. So it´s goof that someone is standing up to this kind of stuff.
Why should they? The world doesn't owe anybody a salary, you know. We all want things. But just because you want something doesn't mean the world has an obligation to make that happen for you. Of course if you have infinite money and can bend the rules, then you'll get what you want. Which is what will probably happen here. I buy something, I should be a able to sell it. That's common sense and is the rule with pretty much anything you own. But the rules are getting circumvented and will continue to be circumvented because very often whoever has the money can either screw with the rules or rewrite them to fit their needs, not yours. The sad part is that selling these products hasn't been possible for so many years now that people consider that normal. When you take something away from people for a long time, many of them will think that's normal.
Can't wait to dump "No life sky". I'm sure someone would enjoy it, just not the game for me...............
...every time i see your avatar........i.., ..i... ...i.... ...nothing.....let it be.... Spoiler: De-noised https://i.**********/7wQ0cRTz/De-noised.jpg
I have over 800 games on my steam account and about 80% i have never even played, so i am all up for this happening, hell i don't even need to get cash for them, i will happily trade them for steam store credit to accumulate towards games i might actually play at some point rather then grabbing stuff on steam sale year after year after year just because they were on sale. lol
AHMAGHAD... What a fluffy mittens! Btw, jaggerwild promised to lift one hand if he gets many likes in one certain thread, and he got all the likes, and hands are still there... As for reselling the games, I am sure Valve will get several percents from each resell, so I don`t think it will be against...
If it's anything like gamestop preowned sales, you buy the game for $60, they give you..... 60 cents!
I don't agree with it, individuals and companies should be free to sell their products however they wish - including the licensing terms. How would game developers get paid for their work if they had to compete on pricing with their own customers?
So if this does indeed go through, will the resale happen through Steam? They will certainly add a surcharge.
Valve will never allow this. Allowing users to sell games to one another will impact their bottom line in a major way - this is a very pro-consumer ruling, and Valve will fight tooth and nail to ensure it doesn't happen. My guess it that they will appeal it all the way to the top. Even if they lose, they won't comply, as the financial penalties are peanuts compared to what they're making.
I seriously can not understand peoples joy of this possibility. People want better games, better games cost money. Reselling "used" (as if "used" can even be used to define digital assets) games means less money. Less money for the developer equals less quality products, or higher cost for initial game, or less sales, or less percentage of discounts on games, or both. Consumers lose out in the end due to lower quality or more expensive games. If i as a developer/publisher currently am selling 30,000 copies of a game at $59.99, what should i do when only 10,000 copies have been sold at $59.99, yet statistical information shows that 50,000 people have legally played my game due to reselling of games that provides no additional income to me as a developer? Only 10,000 people paid me(company) for my product yet 50,000 people played it. I have 1/3rd the revenue yet more people then ever are playing my game. Increase the price? $99.99 for the game? Lower the quality/amount i spend on the game? And this isn't even including incentivized sales. How do companies like Humble Bundle exist with the ability to resell "used" games? How do publishers/developers justify selling their game at %50-80 off knowing the less profit they get from doing so will only allow many more possible "used" sales undercutting even further their regular MSRP pricing? We already have less "amazing" sales since refunds started, as companies don't feel it's justifiable to put their product up for %70-90 off sales as often if people are simply going to refund it because they didn't like their couple dollar game. So now this is a possibility? Time to look forward to retail (not digital) sales! Which generally suck. The best place to get physical discs are typically the used market, and they are generally not as good as the sales we have had on steam, a good popular game MSRP and regular sales stay high and the resell market stays just below that making, in general for popular games, never a time to get them cheap. Just look at many of nintendos games. The only way i can see this happening is if the developer/publisher gets a cut of every single used sale, which they should. They made the game, they deserve to get money for people playing it. But mostly all i see here so far is people being shortsighted and seeing dollar signs in their eyes looking at their current library and thinking "How much money could i get for all of this!?" Without thinking about the long-term affects of this. All those games you have, that you got very cheap, and don't play much if at all and are now looking at selling? Yeah, you have all those games at the massively lower price you paid for them BECAUSE you can't sell them. So if this is the way the industry goes, good luck consumerism at forcing prices to stay high for your short-sighted dollar signs in your eyes. And if someone asks "Are you a developer/publisher?" No, i just can see the long-term affects, as it's already happened before with physical copies. There is absolutely no way my steam library, not counting uplay, origin and the like, could get to its current 1756 games if we still relied on how physical copies of games were sold. To anyone who actually lived in the physical-only era of video games, i ask you this: Could you imagine back then getting at least one AAA game and 4-6 other games of varying quality for $12 a month, guaranteed by a company, each month, shipped to your door? Could you imagine paying $7.50 for 10-20 games shipped to your door? No? Think about that for a moment while everyone gets excited about being able to sell their "used" games.
this all stupid there is "legit" reason for why physical copies of games actual get resold, there will most likely never be reprints of the stuff ever and more time goes buy hard and hard it will be to get that stuff and more expensive I get that, but when places like say gamestop resell physical game thats still in print over and over and over again I can see why publisher and developers are upset and not seeing money from it. Digital dont have that issue, seeing all it is basically key that allow you access to games data to download it. so now they want to say it legal for people to sell there key far less then actual sold new or on sale, and people buy the use key get "new" games are digital available and will be till said servers are lost and the data is gone while the publisher and platform that managing this seeing nothing of it? Used games/music/dvd sales is what start this DRM crap and it still going strong and if digital resale of games happen there gona use that as excuse to increase DRM some more. I get that people want to be able to sell there stuff there own but, that line is really blurred on digital when really only thing you bought was right for the key, you dont actual own the game cause you dont actual physical own copy of the game. my Digital collections from steam,gog, etc still is only about 350 which nothing compared to 500+ games I have physical on disk (5 1/2,3.5, cd, dvd, bluray) and I can easly sell them if i want to (never will cause I learned that hard way when I sold my ps1,turbo graphix/cd and game collection that I can get back with out play way more then i pay for im first place) But Digital? you don't actual own the game you own key to the game which can be argued you do own the game cause you have key. but sell the key some else so they can "new" digital copy of the game from said platform/publisher for far less give me break and they dont see dime of it?. if that goes threw they gone use that as excuse to raise prices on digital games. Use game sales make since it on PHYSICAL DISC that you physically own.
I agree that this could hurt the industry if it's not done correctly. I agree that if this is done that the devs should get a cut of the profits and the same thing applies to the publishers as well. Also another issue is DLC that has been purchased how does that play into this? In my mind I don't see this working with games with purchasable DLC that has been purchased.
I can't even see how this would work. Would Valve stay out of it and people are on their own trading credit card details with strangers for games that may not exist. Could Valve setup a pre-owned store on Steam, but they have control of the pricing and essentially give you pennies for your game while also making the pre-owned game no cheaper or even more expensive than the "new" one thus making the whole store pointless.
this will not end well the industry or end user industry will increase price which in turn pass on to end user and then they will complain about that price increase, while I under stand use sale of physical games disc. it did hurt industry or well atlest the developers and publishers there work is just geting resold over and over while they see thing. Same crap wont happen with digital with out them actual seeing piece of those resales. it will hurt the end user in the end when they raise prices for new.
Yes, developers see less money, which means consumers can keep more of theirs. That's why it's pro-consumer. You could say the exact same thing about DLCs and microtransactions. Stopping microtransactions and loot boxes results in less money for developers, meaning lower quality or more expensive games. The bottom line is, why can't we sell or trade our digital assets? Why can't I sell or transfer my games, music, movie or e-book from my account to someone else's? We do this with physical media, so why can't it be done with digital licenses?
There has to be a balance though, if a "pro consumer" move results in the prices of all games increasing then it's bad for us all. Thinking about it more, i wonder if Valve could just let you sell games but only if Valve and the publisher receive the same money they would from a new game. So essentially a $60 game would need to be sold for $60 plus what you want for the game. Valve have complied by letting you sell your game, but no one will actually buy it.
Short-sighted pro-consumer, long-term anti-consumer and anti-developer/publisher. I do not look forward to the days when big sales no longer exist, again. Digital era of games have been the best for deals for PC consumers, can't talk for consoles, since they have a monopoly to a degree, but even then, humble bundle has Playstation bundles. Wouldn't be possible with physical, or digital re-sellable content. The middle ground is giving the devs a portion of the resell, and possible a minimum sale requirements on games decided by the dev/publishers, but consumers still lose out in the end as even this would prevent the massive sales we still get, they just won't be as bad as past physical-only "sales" (Woo! 10-20%...........)
Again, you could say the same thing about MTXs and loot boxes, yet everybody wants to get rid of those. The ability to sell or trade games was something that was lost with the arrival of digital games. This was great for developers but was bad for consumers. Now the EU/French are trying to restore that ability and you rail against it? You are basically arguing that we need to continue to restrict consumer rights to their digital products to protect developers' profits. If that's not anti-consumerism, then what is?
