IceDoesntHelp
Banned
I'm in the same boat.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Valve sued by French consumer association
- Thread starter Spirited
- Start date
I'm in the same boat.
The percieved value of them isnt because games degrade though. I mean second hand games are usually sold just slightly cheaper than brand new. Second hand Game Blurays arent going to have a degraded experience. The experience is divorced from the physical media that it is printed on. It either works or it doesnt. I havent heard or seen of any physical game that has degraded or rotted away(although I'm sure there are some but that's not part of peoples value equation). You dont haggle in shops over "This disc has 16 scratches I want 5 subtracted from the price".
Second hand games arent valued by the number of people whom have used it previously it's just whether they value the digital content on the disc and whether it works or not.
And people dont get rid of games because they are worth less, they get rid of them because they are worth a lot. And they can exchange that towards a new game or whatever they want.
If people could sell their digital games then everybody wouldn't suddenly only start buying second hand games. For there to be second hand games people first have to buy new games to distribute in the second hand market. As I said as long as you arent able to duplicate them then there would be no problem(except of course in their profit margins).
Effigenius
Member
I think people make too big of a deal about this. I can buy a game, never open it and resell it, despite it not degrading at all. In this case its in the exact condition that I bought it. I can buy a digital game, never play it and I'm stuck with it. It is possible to buy something used that is pristine and in exactly the same condition as new. If I buy something, I should be allowed to sell it. Period.
soul creator
Member
bah, edit: I misread the license transfer text here and didn't see the disc-based part, lol. Never mind.
jshackles
Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the capability to make the world's first enhanced store. Steam will be that store. Better than it was before.
I think everyone here agrees on that. What's at fault for the argument on both sides is that in this case when you give Steam money, you're not actually buying anything. You're entering into an agreement that says you'll have access to a digital game. You're essentially entering into a contract with Valve to provide service in perpetuity. Their contract specifically states that it's non-transferable.
What's being argued here is that even though the contract you entered into says it can't be transferred, you should be allowed to sell the remaining term of your contract (forever) to someone else and that Valve and/or the publisher should be required to uphold it's original agreement with a person of your choosing, without further compensation. In this instance (again, legally speaking) the renegotiation of the terms of your contract have to be agreed upon by both you and the other party.
From a legal standpoint, that's pretty messy.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
Being able to sell digital games would more or less end long tail indie gaming hits. Probably obliviate the need for steam sales as well.
Sell what? A license? Give me a break. You don't own the game.
CarbonFire
Member
Would this right to sell your ownership of digital products/licenses apply to in-app purchases as well?
Super Wario
Banned
Thumbs up. Keep pushing for consumer rights.
That is already a major issue. It doesn't need to be exacerbated further.
Effigenius
Member
Sure. Sell the license. Why not? I can sell a physical game which is also technically just a license, so why not digital? I dont want my access to the game any more, I want to sell it so someone else can use it. Very logical.
The reselling of license is an open topic for discussion but things like banned accounts losing all money is straight up anti-consumer. Currently people buy their games knowing that they won't be able to re-sell those in the near future but nobody anticipates getting a ban or hacked account.
Effigenius
Member
Let the market decide that, not corporations.
They should allow you to list your games for sale on the market as you can for items. That would be awesome.
Good man.
jshackles
Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the capability to make the world's first enhanced store. Steam will be that store. Better than it was before.
This is true. And honestly, I can't believe that Valve still won't refund wallet money to banned accounts since it's essentially tantamount to theft. One of the reasons companies like for you to put money into their ecosystem is that it gives them liquidity and/or the ability to essentially draw interest from that money as a whole. Once someone has been banned they're outside of your ecosystem and you've had the benefit of being able to use their money for an amount of time. Not being required to return those funds should absolutely be illegal.
Of course just like the issue of reselling licenses, there are some big companies who don't want to see a precedent like this be set. Should Walmart be required to refund your gift card balance if you're kicked out of the store? Obviously a different scenario (since the balance is transferable in this case) but not too much of a legal leap.
Market cannot control itself in the slightest. It needs regulation.
And I would say Creator is a better word than Corporation (which you clearly use to highlight the negative connotations despite many makers not falling under that umbrella). Independent games have been more adversely affected than major titles by the downward spiral.
Mithos
Member
+1000 on this.
wanderjahr
Banned
Not ever sure why Valve became the folk hero for so many for so long. They are just as much, if not more, greedy than the usual reviled names in the gaming industry like EA and Ubisoft.
I guess a lot of where you stand on the idea comes down to how and when you consume games. For me with a backlog of games going back generations (on top of everything else in life) I've a habit of waiting a spell before playing the majority of releases - because why buy it now when I'll be playing it maybe a year down the road and could get it 50% or more off (there are exception of course, indies being a major one). It ends up being more economical for me than if I had bought a game at near full price and resold it later on anyway, even if that isn't my primary aim. I don't see any way you could straight up have a two-tier of pricing for a game on a digital platform without having some other violation of customer rights - bonuses are a dodgy thing far to closely related to pre-order dlc and other garbage of the like. And I doubt any publisher would be happy with Valve taking back a key and reselling it before a first-time key that lines their wallets - I doubt that would even factor in with how many keys Valve probably have. Smaller and Indie devs would definitely feel it the most and I'd hate to see great creative talent die because of a lack of support - personally, I'd nearly always be willing to pay them full price if I had an interest but that's neither here nor there in the greater scheme of things. All this is of course my personal thoughts and I'm glad I'm no where near the legal debate on this.
Regardless, from the 5 points in original post I'd put this at no. 4 (above the user-created content - not to diminish it) on the important consumer rights that need to be tackled when it comes to Steam.
Pokemaniac
Member
Some of that stuff in the OP makes sense to challenge, but used digital products simply don't make much sense. With physical games, what you're actually buying and selling is the physical media, which does deteriorate over time, albeit slowly. With digital games, there is objectively no difference between a used license and a new one. While I can totally get why people would want to sell digital licenses, it will reduce new sales the games significantly. This entire thing just seems like trying to fit a square peg through a round hole.
Hamster Plugin
Member
This probably won't do good for the prices on Steam in Euros, which is already insanely high. Why the fuck do games cost 60€ on Steam when retail PC copies are 45€ or lower?
It has even made most sale events a joke. Holiday sale, game is now normal price!!
It has even made most sale events a joke. Holiday sale, game is now normal price!!
Uh, because steam essentially saved PC as a gaming platform.
And some of those challenges are legit, but some--like being able to resell your digital games--is silly.
Not only does it push publishers and Valve toward more effectively customer-unfriendly practices, it only really works if Valve gets to set the price.
NullPointer
Member
Lead the way Europe. All of that sounds completely reasonable.
No more than trying to place artificial restrictions upon digital goods. We do need to re-examine the way this all works, and so far the default has been to hold software to similar standards as physical goods, though with no accountability from the seller or service provider. If that's the default lens to view digital transactions, then transferring ownership and selling those goods should be a given.
flaxknuckles
Member
But if they let you sell Steam games wouldn't it be a race to the bottom and hurt new game sales? Steam trading cards are freakin worthless because everyone lowballs eachother. Damn, go at another digital service first and make sure this works before you tank Steam.
When the American company stops selling in Europe?
Which they wouldn't do, they like money too much. (as a business should)Anyway I won't get into the topic of digital sales and transferring licenses via sale/trade as the topic is already messy enough (though that buy back program someone mentioned earlier sounds like a good idea though it allows Valve to decide on how much things can be 'bought back' for, etc)
but ignoring that, the rest of this sounds absolutely fair and I would add that people should be able to keep access to their games should they get banned though they will no longer be allowed to buy games on the storefront.
Regardless, the rest of it sounds perfectly good and I hope they win the case for those.
When the American company stops selling in Europe?
Anyway I won't get into the topic of digital sales and transferring licenses via sale/trade as the topic is already messy enough (though that buy back program someone mentioned earlier sounds like a good idea though it allows Valve to decide on how much things can be 'bought back' for, etc)
but ignoring that, the rest of this sounds absolutely fair and I would add that people should be able to keep access to their games should they get banned though they will no longer be allowed to buy games on the storefront.
Regardless, the rest of it sounds perfectly good and I hope they win the case for those.
I forgot to add /s to my post. I'm 100% behind this decision, the customer needs more agency in what they do with games purchased, physical copy or not.
Hcoregamer00
The 'H' stands for hentai.
Nice, now go after Sony, MS, and Nintendo.
We need more pro consumer protections.
We need more pro consumer protections.
Haha, I knew it was /s I just felt like posting that since I'm sure some people would bring up the "They will just stop selling there then" which is quite a ludicrous argument. (which I've seen posted whenever X group/person sues company due to something in their EULA/T&C/etc)
To stop selling in an area they are selling in means less income. I don't know many businesses that would consider that unless pulling out would somehow give them a bigger profit than if they stayed in said region.
potatohead
Member
Yep.
lowhighkang_LHK
Member
Good. Always with pro consumer rights.
derExperte
Member
I'm all for more consumer rights but this got be exploited easily, they'd need to implement harder limitations than the refund system has and then they maybe would get sued again and so on. Difficult.
If it's the one I found via a quick search you haven't logged in in almost a year and you'd get around 15€. Why bother? Not even meant snarky.
If it's the one I found via a quick search you haven't logged in in almost a year and you'd get around 15€. Why bother? Not even meant snarky.
Stallion Dan
Member
Why so protective of companies. Fuck them.
I paid for a license, it belongs to me. I should be able to sell it to whoever I want for whatever they are willing to pay.
Companies got an issue with that? Make a game worth keeping.
A second hand market place hasn't killed the gaming industry after 40+ years. Will not kill it now.
I'm all for consumer rights, and I actually agree with almost all the points the group has made with the exception of the reselling. I see that ending VERY badly for both consumers and valve/gaming companies.
Indie and mid-tier developers who focus on single-player games will suffer heavily, and if people think the multiplayer only/microtransactions/games as a service issue is bad already, I'd imagine it'd get much worse.
Nasty subject to try to discuss about.
Indie and mid-tier developers who focus on single-player games will suffer heavily, and if people think the multiplayer only/microtransactions/games as a service issue is bad already, I'd imagine it'd get much worse.
Nasty subject to try to discuss about.
There are a metric fuck ton of small developers on Steam now that this could hurt and who knows how many unforeseen consequences it could unleash.
Smaller devs will take the hit and probably won't survive. Big companies will survive by abandoning Steam. In the end, if it goes south, consumers probably won't need protecting from Valve.
I'm all for calling Valve out on some of its shit, but they do provide my hobby. Harming them or the devs on Steam really doesn't seem worth it to me. That may not be the intention of these lawsuits, but I don't believe they are well thought out.
Smaller devs will take the hit and probably won't survive. Big companies will survive by abandoning Steam. In the end, if it goes south, consumers probably won't need protecting from Valve.
I'm all for calling Valve out on some of its shit, but they do provide my hobby. Harming them or the devs on Steam really doesn't seem worth it to me. That may not be the intention of these lawsuits, but I don't believe they are well thought out.
While it would be nice to be able to resell games, in long term I don't see this as win as it would mean big-loss for publishers (much more than physical copies, since they are still tied to one place).
This would kill traditional single-player games, since those can be completed in days. Also publishers would need other models to in addition of upfront payments and I doubt those would be in gamers interest. Also it would give incentives to shutdown any online servers early and release new version.
(Agreed on other points, thought)
This would kill traditional single-player games, since those can be completed in days. Also publishers would need other models to in addition of upfront payments and I doubt those would be in gamers interest. Also it would give incentives to shutdown any online servers early and release new version.
(Agreed on other points, thought)
Pellegri Testament
Member
Just wondering, how do some of you guys think some of these smaller companies would do if the majority of copies sold were "pre-owned" and not from the publisher? Just fuck em if it means you're getting money and not thinking about what kind of an effect it would have on them? Many of these smaller publishers survive because of their sales on Steam. Opening up "pre-owned" sales means many of them are now selling a fraction of what they did before, making Steam nonviable and giving them few others place to turn to, especially when the same laws get passed elsewhere. "Letting the market dictate" things doesn't work either since people are always wanting the best deal, people will always undercut the publishers, even knowing that they are hurting their business.
The only way a system on Steam could actually work is if both the publisher and Valve got a significant cut of whatever it is you're selling, giving you pennies in the end. Would some of you be fine with making 10% or less back from a game you're selling (meaning the other % goes to Steam/publishers so they can still make a profit)? Because if you actually expect to make the full amount you paid back since there is no "used" in terms of digital sales, then I hope you're fine with many of these publishers going under or dropping Steam altogether. Digital resale does not work the same way as physical. The moment you open the floodgates on digital resale is the moment you kiss many of your favorite developers/publishers goodbye.
The only way a system on Steam could actually work is if both the publisher and Valve got a significant cut of whatever it is you're selling, giving you pennies in the end. Would some of you be fine with making 10% or less back from a game you're selling (meaning the other % goes to Steam/publishers so they can still make a profit)? Because if you actually expect to make the full amount you paid back since there is no "used" in terms of digital sales, then I hope you're fine with many of these publishers going under or dropping Steam altogether. Digital resale does not work the same way as physical. The moment you open the floodgates on digital resale is the moment you kiss many of your favorite developers/publishers goodbye.
Phoenix944
Member
Being able to sell your digital games is a bit crazy if you think about it... I have the feeling this will make more problems publishers, especially small publisher that put their niche console games on Steam. It may just result as less port to Steam...
Do you think regional pricing for digital goods is a bad idea for customers?
You going to support it too?
As a victim of region lock abuse this post responates with me.
There's no guarantee of anything. These small games might even sell more! When consumers know they can then sell on their games after they've played them they might buy more. Or even be more willing to experiment and risk their money on some of the more obscure games. It could increase the total sum of the money in Steam and increase the places it goes to.
It's not really risking your money since you can Steam refund games after a couple of hours of playing.
It "could" increase the total sum of the money in Steam, but in practice it seems far more likely to REDUCE the total sum of the money in Steam. Take the logical steps in order. Imagine Valve allows reselling licenses. The next time you want to buy a brand-new singleplayer game, would you buy it at full price from Steam, or at a reduced price from a reseller, potentially after 1-2 days? If the answer is at a reduced price, how much of a reduced price are you willing to pay? Follow the logic chain from there.
hobblygobbly
Member
Except in the EU you do own it. You may resell the "license" and make backup copies for example as well. At first sale in the EU the copyright holder forfeits exclusive right to distribution, meaning that once the sale is made the owner may resell it if they so please. The EU does not allow personal property to be controlled by the copyright holder of what can be done with it. This is covered in EU copyright law. The case involving Oracle in 2012 also set a precedent to this issue.
If you want to sell your products in the EU then you abide by EU law. They can simply not operate business in EU, but Europe and the EU is Valve's main market, they will never do that. It's better to ask when will American companies respect EU law and stop taking advantage of the region? Everyone including Americans benefits from Steam's new refund policy because of the pressures of EU consumer protection.
Yup, Europe suffers a lot from this stuff, so it's nice to see someone doing something about it.
This would be further push publishers to focus even more on day 1 and preorder culture as those would be the only sales they could rely on. With no long tail sales to count on in this model far fewer games will be able to make a profit and we could be back to an AAA only hell.
Any short term positives for the users will likely be outweighed by the long term negatives to the industry with a less diverse output and only surefire day 1 sellers released.
Any short term positives for the users will likely be outweighed by the long term negatives to the industry with a less diverse output and only surefire day 1 sellers released.