Steam users may be able to resell their games in the future!

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by H83, Sep 20, 2019.

  1. Redemption80

    Redemption80 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    18,333
    Likes Received:
    184
    GPU:
    GALAX 970/ASUS 970
    No. People need to understand they don't own it, they are just paying for the right to use it.

    They might not agree with that part, but that is a different discussion.
     
  2. D3M1G0D

    D3M1G0D Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,952
    Likes Received:
    1,249
    GPU:
    2 x GeForce 1080 Ti
    You could say the same about a physical game - you don't own the game, you only own a license to play. And yet, people sell and trade that license all the time. Why should digital licenses be any different?

    Also, I remember people here were complaining about services like Stadia taking away ownership of a game. Are you saying that Steam is already doing that?
     
  3. Redemption80

    Redemption80 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    18,333
    Likes Received:
    184
    GPU:
    GALAX 970/ASUS 970
    My views include physical copies of games too, but while it's small you can at least argue for degradation compared to the original. You also are not asking for the original content owners to be involved in the resale.
    Er....yes of course they are.

    There has to be a balance between the corporation and the consumer, if it swings too far in one direction it's bad for everyone.
     
  4. RealNC

    RealNC Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,107
    Likes Received:
    1,337
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX 980 Ti FTW
    People should own it. It's not renting. Either rent it, or sell it. Corporations want the benefits of both and the drawbacks of neither. If I only pay for the right to use it and don't own it, then charge me on a time basis until I cancel my subscription. You know, like I did in the past when renting a game over the weekend, played it through, return it on Monday. But no. They charge you the same as when selling the game, but then claim they don't sell the games, they only rent them. Bitch, please.

    It has already gone too far towards the corporations. They want everything, give away nothing. That's not how it works in any relationship. If I give you my money, you give up some of your rights to that one copy I bought. That's the whole point of buying something. You don't get to charge me full price but then claim I only "rented" it. I hope the law will put a stop to this.
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2019
    carnivore, yasamoka and D3M1G0D like this.

  5. Dribble

    Dribble Active Member

    Messages:
    66
    Likes Received:
    29
    GPU:
    Geforce 1070
    You could argue you want the rights of owning it, but only at the price of renting it and for existing games you bought them under the understanding they weren't transferable. If you want to be able to sell it on then you get to buy at console prices ($60 for a game) and you can sell it on.

    Steam could set it up that way - either buy it cheap with no rights to transfer it, or spend more and get that right. That's a lot of hassle for steam however, and as most people will just buy it cheap I can understand them not being too keen on supporting that.
     
  6. RealNC

    RealNC Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,107
    Likes Received:
    1,337
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX 980 Ti FTW
    Digital sales of console games also cost $60 but you can't sell them either. This issue isn't PC-specific. It's a general "digital goods" issue. They charge you in a way that is consistent with selling a product to you, but then weasel out with some BS legalese fine print that basically says "I you agree to these ToS, then that means we now have the right to break the law." You have to admit that this sounds at least shady.

    I hope this attempt at forcing Valve to allow resale works out, since that could pave the way to do the same with other digital resellers.
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2019
  7. D3M1G0D

    D3M1G0D Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,952
    Likes Received:
    1,249
    GPU:
    2 x GeForce 1080 Ti
    Degradation has nothing to do with being able to sell a license. The original content owners also has little to do with this - physical goods can be resold directly or via a third party, and the same should apply to digital goods.

    Okay then. I never want to hear another person complain about ownership of games on Stadia ever again.

    What do you think the current situation is? It's one that is heavily skewed towards game creators. Consumers have traditionally had the right to sell a game but this right was taken away from us and there is nothing wrong with trying to get it back. This isn't some new, overly heavy-handed move that will cripple game companies; it's trying to bring things back to where it was.

    A pro-consumer ruling is always one that benefits consumers at the expense of the producers. What I find amazing is how many are actively defending corporate profits at the expense of their own rights - as if they're afraid of offending game companies or that game companies need this money to survive.

    Either Steam needs to adopt a true subscription-based model to their business (flat fee per month, no ability to buy games) or they need to make games sellable. There is no middle ground here.
     
    carnivore likes this.
  8. Redemption80

    Redemption80 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    18,333
    Likes Received:
    184
    GPU:
    GALAX 970/ASUS 970
    Degradation matters though. A second hand digital game is identical to a "new" one. Why would anyone buy a new copy when they can get an identical version for potentially much less?
    Digital re-selling is also so much easier as you do not need to visit a store or mail anything out.

    I'm all for giving people the right to sell it on, but if it's via Steam then you can't actively compete against the full price game so it needs minimum pricing.

    I'm defending the content creators and the people who fund games to do what they want with their own product. If consumers don't like it then don't buy it.

    People generally find it amazing that i was raised in a lower class family, but i'm anti socialism. It's a similar situation here.
     
  9. D3M1G0D

    D3M1G0D Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,952
    Likes Received:
    1,249
    GPU:
    2 x GeForce 1080 Ti
    Eh? This has nothing to do with socialism (how is this even relevant?). It's about consumer rights, about the ability to sell something you own. If you can sell or trade a physical license (like a game on a DVD) then you should also be able to sell or trade a digital license. The idea that they need to be treated differently is wrong, since game creators want them treated exactly the same when it comes to all other aspects (such as copying and distribution). They only want them being treated differently if it benefits their bottom line - it's all about what makes them more money, at the direct expense of consumers.

    If Steam needs to compete against second-hand sellers then that's a good thing, as it means more choices and lower prices for consumers. You seem to be hell-bent on protecting corporate profits for some reason - as if sucking up to game companies will ensure good games and discounts. Many gamers want to ban microtransactions and loot boxes - something that can generate massive amounts of money for developers - and they rail against DLCs and expensive pre-release bundles, yet reselling games is a mortal threat to game companies and must be curtailed and compensated for?

    We don't owe the game companies anything, and it does no good trying to protect their bottom line. The additional revenue they get comes at the expense of our rights and we are under no obligation to compensate them for it.
     
  10. Stormyandcold

    Stormyandcold Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,212
    Likes Received:
    145
    GPU:
    MSI GTX1070 GamingX
    If money was to be de-valued after being digitized when put it into a bank account people would go ape crap.

    Imho, physical and digital games are one and the same. Games.

    The digital version is not worth less than the physical version. In-fact, we pay a premium for digital compared to physical for all the benefits of digital-only.

    In the music making program world, we can already transfer/sell our digital copies of things like vst effects and instruments to other users. We're waiting for games to catch-up.
     

  11. RealNC

    RealNC Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,107
    Likes Received:
    1,337
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX 980 Ti FTW
    Well, that's the point. That one copy is not theirs anymore if they sold it to me. That's why I paid them: they give up some of their rights and I compensate them for it.

    If they don't like that, they should only put their game in subscription services like Origin Access. Yes, they would get less money from that, but they retain full rights. You cannot sell copies of your game and then claim you didn't sell them. Then you go in front of your investors and start the "we sold 5 million copies of this game" presentation. These are sold copies, OK? They are not "temporary subscriptions." They are treated like sales by everyone, including the developers and publishers themselves. That's how they call them, because that's what they are: sold copies.

    You can't have your cake and eat it too, you know. Consumers have rights too.
     
    carnivore likes this.
  12. Redemption80

    Redemption80 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    18,333
    Likes Received:
    184
    GPU:
    GALAX 970/ASUS 970
    When did they sell it to you though, is that not what is being disputed? If they gave up their rights this would not be a discussion.

    FYI i'm not 100% anti consumer, even if they do irritate me. I just believe heavy handed government regulation will lead to worse conditions for consumers in the long run, hence the socialism comment.

    Do people want games to go 100% subscription only? I don't buy games anymore and only use subscriptions services as it's better value for me, but i thought the ownership people were against that.
     
  13. RealNC

    RealNC Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,107
    Likes Received:
    1,337
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX 980 Ti FTW
    But you just said:

    "When did they sell it to you though, is that not what is being disputed? If they gave up their rights this would not be a discussion."

    So according to what you said, games are already 100% subscription only. You don't own the copies you bought, because you didn't buy copies. You only buy subscriptions. Very expensive subscriptions. As expensive as buying an actual copy.
     
    D3M1G0D likes this.
  14. Dribble

    Dribble Active Member

    Messages:
    66
    Likes Received:
    29
    GPU:
    Geforce 1070
    This attitude of "we deserve it all and the big rich devs can go spin on it" if they don't like it doesn't sit well.

    Most of the devs aren't rich because for every game that succeeds several fail and they all have to be paid for. If we can resell and it costs the devs a lot of sales then what are they going to do? They can put the prices on new games up by 50%, not good for us who buy new. They can only make free-to-play micro transaction style games, not good if you like single player games, or don't want to have to keep spending money to play, or don't like pay to win. They can make everything subscription - not good as you have to keep up your subscription to play.

    Be careful when you essentially demand something for nothing, there will be a cost.
     
  15. Yxskaft

    Yxskaft Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,339
    Likes Received:
    74
    GPU:
    GTX Titan Sli
    Supply and demand will always be a key no matter the market. If there are 100k used copies available and 200k purchasers, prices will be brought up. If there are 20 million used copies available, the company has income from having sold all those copies new.

    I don't get why everyone seems to believe that the used copies would be sold for just a few dollars. Both the seller and purchaser wants to get his money worth. And it's not just about wear and tear compared to used either, try selling a Steam code for 50 USD if the new game costs 60 USD, no one will buy it.
     

  16. RealNC

    RealNC Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,107
    Likes Received:
    1,337
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX 980 Ti FTW
    Don't forget that selling old games also allows people to buy new games. It's one of the reasons they sell them. So being able to sell games also provides extra revenue to game devs because people will buy more new games than they otherwise would be able to.

    The publishers and digital stores can still tap into used game sales revenue. Make it convenient for people to sell by adding such functionality into the stores and keep a percentage of the sale. It works like that for other digital-only goods already (like skins and in-game items.) People sell their old ones in order to be able to buy more new ones. The majority of people use the convenient way to buy and sell, which is in-store. They don't set up their own channels outside the store. Some do, but most don't.
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2019
  17. D3M1G0D

    D3M1G0D Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,952
    Likes Received:
    1,249
    GPU:
    2 x GeForce 1080 Ti
    When you click the "Purchase" button on the game! It is very clear that you are buying the game, just like any other digital product that you buy, and just like any physical copy of a game. You are not renting or subscribing when you purchase a game - this was Steam's argument and it was thrown out by the court (and rightly so).

    If Valve wants to treat Steam as a subscription service then they should act like a subscription service - pay a flat monthly fee to access any game in the Steam library. Steam can send a notice to all users informing them of the chance and give them an option to subscribe if they want continued access to all their games. Problem solved.
     
    RealNC likes this.
  18. RealNC

    RealNC Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,107
    Likes Received:
    1,337
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX 980 Ti FTW
    Bingo. This is the main reason I have exactly zero sympathy for them. They want all the benefits of selling subscriptions instead of copies, but make all the money that selling copies gets you.

    If I'm only buying a subscription instead of an actual copy of the game, then what's the point? Look at movies, for example. What would be the point of buying a movie, if you were then told you didn't buy it, you only bought a subscription to it? I'd just use Netflix then. Same thing, but VASTLY cheaper.

    You know why there's no true Netflix equivalent for games? Like imagine Steam where you get access to every game on there for $10 per month? Because it turns out you can overcharge people for subscriptions by lying to them and telling them you sold them copies. You make them think they "own" that one copy they bought. But when they want to be treated as customers who actually bought that copy, you tell them to go shove it because "we only sell subscriptions" and point them at some BS fine print.

    Sorry, but again, zero sympathy from me. They shouldn't be able to have it both ways and enjoy the benefits of both but suffer the drawbacks of neither, but make us get the benefits of neither and enjoy the drawbacks of both. That is not fair and should be illegal.
     
    D3M1G0D likes this.
  19. Redemption80

    Redemption80 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    18,333
    Likes Received:
    184
    GPU:
    GALAX 970/ASUS 970
    Firstly, I never suggested games are already 100% subscription only.
    It's a one off payment, so 100% not an ongoing subscription.

    You are essentially purchasing a "lifetime" license to use the game, not own it. They just need to make that clear at point of purchase and if that is the case then I have zero issue with it. People then have the choice to not pay if they do not get true ownership.

    There are three Netflix equivalents for games. Define true equivalent as it's not like Netflix has anywhere near 100% of movies/tv shows.

    I'm also slightly confused as it seems some are stating MS/EA/Ubisoft are the good guys for offering subscription gaming, while Valve are the greedy bad guys for not. I'm no fan of Valve, but that does seem like an alternate reality view.

    Is making gaming 100% subscription the only way to solve this? I much prefer it but thought there was opposition to it.
    If publishers don't want digital good resold, and consumers don't want to purchase digital goods unless they own them this might be the only solution.
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2019
  20. D3M1G0D

    D3M1G0D Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,952
    Likes Received:
    1,249
    GPU:
    2 x GeForce 1080 Ti
    That's basically what buying a game is! Nobody is talking about gamers outright owning the game and all its rights as if we're the ones who made it - we're obviously talking about buying a license to a copy of the game. This has been the case since videogames were invented - a physical game is also a license to a copy, although you can sell that freely. The only thing we want is to be able to do the same with a digital license.
     
    RealNC likes this.

Share This Page