Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2013 14:15:53 GMT -5
to sell pre-owned games www.destructoid.com/valve-sued-over-steam-s-inability-to-sell-pre-owned-games-243907.phtmlThe Federation of German Consumer Organizations (VZVB) doesn't entertain the long-standing idea of digital games remaining bound to the customer. The consumer group is taking a stand and suing Valve over Steam's refusal to let users re-sell their games, something it believes should be a customer's right.
Carola Elbrecht of the group believes Steam users only "partially" own their games, with Valve's terms of service slapping restrictions on purchasers after they've forked the money over. Valve has ignored the VZVB's complaint for a few months, leading it to initiate a legal complaint. It's also tried this before, failing in 2010 to get Valve punished for blocking the ability to transfer user accounts.
This new case, however, may hold a bit more water. Last year, the European Supreme Court ruled in favor of the used game market, declaring consumers must be able to re-sell any software purchased, no matter what the product's TOS may be. Digital storefronts still cling to the belief that downloaded games don't belong to the downloaders, so it'll be interesting to see what, if anything, happens here.
The VZBV has, in the past, also threatened Activision Blizzard over Diablo III's DRM. They don't take PC game tomfoolery lightly over there!
"We are aware of the press release about the lawsuit filed by the VZBV, but we have not yet seen the actual complaint," Valve's Doug Lombardi told Gamasutra. "That said, we understand the complaint is somehow regarding the transferability of Steam accounts, despite the fact that this issue has already been ruled upon favorably to Valve in a prior case between Valve and the VZBV by the German supreme court. For now, we are continuing to extend the Steam services to gamers in Germany and around the world."
Elbrecht's argument is a lot more simple and, in the mind of an idealist, hard to refute: "If I pay the full price for a game, then why am I not allowed to do with it what I want?"
Fair statement. Very fair statement indeed. Unfortunately, it is an idealistic one. The reality, and the answer, is that publishers can basically do whatever they like in the Wild West of digital distribution. They continue to charge as much as physical media, because they can, and they continue to enforce shitty restrictions on their customers, because they can.
Companies have dreamed of being able to still claim ownership over the games they sell for years, and with their dream so close to reality, one expects they'll fight tooth and nail to keep it. The ability to dominate every point of a game's sale, extending far beyond the actual transaction of cash and product, is a power few shall be willing to give up. |
|
|
|
Post by Koda, Master Crunchyroller on Feb 3, 2013 14:23:13 GMT -5
But there isn't anything to resell!
It is all digital. You don't actually own digitally downloaded games. You are purchasing a license. Albeit a permanent license, but still a license.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2013 14:36:41 GMT -5
So if I'm understanding the lawsuit correctly - they're happy with the product and the service provided by the site, but they're unhappy with the fact that they cannot make money on the secondary market by selling something they didn't create?
I miss the days when people would just complain about a crappy product, instead of a product so good they're mad they can't re-sell it at their leisure.
But, I'm not a gamer and don't buy things off the secondary market so it's not really in my wheel house I guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman on Feb 3, 2013 14:41:31 GMT -5
At first I was thinking "of ALL the things to complain about Steam, they picked this?" but now that I think about it, it may be a step forward to making people actually own the digital copies of games they buy. See, what a lot of people don't realize is that when they buy a digital copy of a game through Steam or pretty much any other digital game provider, the EULA we don't read and have no choice but to agree with anyway actually states that we aren't actually buying the game, but a license to play the game, which they may remove at any point without having to provide a justification. Of course, this problem isn't specific to Steam, they'd have to tackle the gaming industry as a whole but if they actually manage to win this, it would create one heck of a precedent. But there isn't anything to resell! It is all digital. You don't actually own digitally downloaded games. You are purchasing a license. Albeit a permanent license, but still a license. Well, from what I understand, they'd want gamers to be able to resell that license to someone else. Or even better, actually own the digitally downloaded games. |
|
|
|
Post by Brother Nero....Wolfe on Feb 3, 2013 14:42:25 GMT -5
Well..
1)No f***ing way you are paying full price for a steam game.
2)You aren't purchasing a game, you are purchasing a license.
3)If you could re-sell digital downloads, that would be damage PC gaming to the point where it would cease to exist.
|
|
|
|
Post by Koda, Master Crunchyroller on Feb 3, 2013 14:42:39 GMT -5
What also gets me is that Steam regularly has INSANE sales that kind of negate the main crux of the secondhand game market, which is that the games are generally cheaper secondhand than buying new.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Feb 3, 2013 14:52:46 GMT -5
How would they enforce reselling a downloaded game once as opposed to making a hundred copies of it and selling it?
|
|
|
|
Post by SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman on Feb 3, 2013 15:10:07 GMT -5
How would they enforce reselling a downloaded game once as opposed to making a hundred copies of it and selling it? By removing the license from the person selling it. |
|
|
|
Post by Brother Nero....Wolfe on Feb 3, 2013 16:11:03 GMT -5
How would they enforce reselling a downloaded game once as opposed to making a hundred copies of it and selling it? By removing the license from the person selling it. Which would require DRM even in games that previously didn't have it. I can't see that being a good thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Koda, Master Crunchyroller on Feb 3, 2013 16:21:24 GMT -5
By removing the license from the person selling it. Which would require DRM even in games that previously didn't have it. I can't see that being a good thing. Exactly. DRM is already the bane of the PC gaming arena, to the point where it is legitimately scaring away some console gamers from taking that leap into PC gaming. Doing something that would require mandatory DRM on all PC games could possibly be the death of PC gaming. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Feb 3, 2013 16:38:51 GMT -5
How would they enforce reselling a downloaded game once as opposed to making a hundred copies of it and selling it? By removing the license from the person selling it. Which would mean what? Right now, the license is a completely nebulous thing. You, for all intents and purposes, own the game. Would steam be required to set up a secondary marketplace? Would they require more strict DRM to prevent this marketplace from being flooded by game copies (because you know it'd last about 12 seconds before copied games were on it). I really don't see how selling back something that you don't physically own and aren't physically able to transfer would really work. |
|
|
|
Post by xCompackx on Feb 3, 2013 16:56:22 GMT -5
I'm a bit confused as to why they specifically chose Steam for this lawsuit. The whole "buying a license" idea is something that plagues every form of software and hardware there is these days. I understand and appreciate this group's goal, but Valve is probably the least offensive company when it comes to this.
|
|
|
|
Post by darbus alan on Feb 3, 2013 16:56:46 GMT -5
Yeah, it'd pretty much make super-intrusive DRM mandatory to "protect" consumers. Not that Steam games are DRM-free, but their DRM is incredibly tolerable compared to the sort of measures needed to let consumers "own" and "resell" digital downloads.
You just can't enforce owning an intangible thing like data like you would a tangible thing like a game disc. Data isn't a scarce good. There's infinite supply. There is also ZERO difference between a new game or a pre-owned game when it comes to digital data and thus, no value in the creation of a secondary market. It's outdated 20th century thinking for a 21st century technology.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Feb 3, 2013 16:57:24 GMT -5
I'm a bit confused as to why they specifically chose Steam for this lawsuit. The whole "buying a license" idea is something that plagues every form of software and hardware there is these days. I understand and appreciate this group's goal, but Valve is probably the least offensive company when it comes to this. Presumably because their entire digital library makes it impossible to resell. |
|
|
|
Post by Ryback on a Pole! on Feb 3, 2013 18:30:51 GMT -5
I actually hope they win.
It's a stupid lawsuit yes, and their argument is a bit dumb in regards to steam but... if they win, it might stop any future potential plans by console gaming companies to come up with ways to stop the sale of used games.
Like the Sony patent that will stop used games working on other consoles. I hate that ridiculous idea and hopefully, if this group win their lawsuit, it will be a stumbling block for any future plans to end the sale of second hand games.
Hope this makes sense?
|
|
Bo Rida
Fry's dog Seymour
Pulled one over on everyone.
Got away with it, this time.
Posts: 24,162
Member is Online
|
Post by Bo Rida on Feb 3, 2013 18:33:21 GMT -5
I'm a bit confused as to why they specifically chose Steam for this lawsuit. The whole "buying a license" idea is something that plagues every form of software and hardware there is these days. I understand and appreciate this group's goal, but Valve is probably the least offensive company when it comes to this. Yeah that's what I thought, I guess it's cheaper than taking on Apple, Sony or Microsoft lawyers (or any other massive company). That said I'm all for the general idea, we shouldn't lose our consumer rights just because we buy something digital online. |
|
|
|
Post by Evilution E5150 on Feb 3, 2013 18:37:55 GMT -5
who thought this was a good idea?
|
|
|
|
Post by G✇JI☈A on Feb 4, 2013 1:34:55 GMT -5
Well you know what, I'm going to re-sell the pork chops I had for dinner tonight. There may be a bit of corn and cauliflower in there as well. Whose interested?  |
|
|
|
Post by Brother Nero....Wolfe on Feb 4, 2013 2:41:30 GMT -5
I'm a bit confused as to why they specifically chose Steam for this lawsuit. The whole "buying a license" idea is something that plagues every form of software and hardware there is these days. I understand and appreciate this group's goal, but Valve is probably the least offensive company when it comes to this. Yeah that's what I thought, I guess it's cheaper than taking on Apple, Sony or Microsoft lawyers (or any other massive company). That said I'm all for the general idea, we shouldn't lose our consumer rights just because we buy something digital online. There's nothing wrong with the general idea, but there's no feasible way to implement it right now. If we win this right, it's gonna come at a huge cost(forced, intrusive DRM in every game) and...I don't want that. Personally, I prefer to not re-sell my games if I can keep steam's non-intrusive DRM. Plus even if the DRM was not intrusive at all, it would still be a bad idea to let people re-sell their digital games. Selling physical used games is okay because there's some difficulty involved in buying/selling them, plus the "used" product isn't in perfect condition. It's a decent trade-off. Digital resales would pretty much ruin the PC industry, which would result in either a TON of DLC so pc games would still be profitable, making the games themselves pretty bare-bones, or a return to the pre-steam era. So...yeah, while I don't disagree with the idea in itself, if it was implemented the entire market would suffer and that would mean we would get games of lesser quality. I'm okay sacrificing my re-sale right in exchange for the market staying healthy, because this means I get to buy good games. Realistically, if I sold my steam games I'd get what, 100-200 dollars? That sounds like a very small amount of money in exchange for permanently limiting my choice of games in the future. This is a case where even if the people suing get what they want, they still lose. Badly at that. Again, I'm not against the idea of people having the right to re-sell their digital games. I got no moral arguments against that, it seems perfectly fair. But on a practical level, it would be insane. It's like shooting yourself in the heart to get rid of a cockroach that happens to be on your shirt for some reason. Even if you get what you want, you are losing something else that's a bit more important. |
|
