German Consumer Group Hopes To See Valve In Court This Year

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

SajuukKhar:
The reselling of digital products simply makes no sense.

Reselling, trading, and all other forms of swapping, only work because, when those things were created, all products they dealt with were physical, and thus could decay, and wear down, making it to where people HAD to eventually go out and buy new versions of the product, and thus prevent infinite trading, which would destroy any and all product makers because they wouldn't be able to sell enough of their product in order to recoup initial expenses, and make a profit to spend on making more products.

Digital products however dont wear down, unless you slap some artificial decay mechanism on them, like digital books did, which people screamed bloody murder about being unfair, despite it being TOTALLY fair. So trading digital products simply isn't feasible because it would mean only one person had to buy a product ever, and then they could just trade forever with other people, and no company can survive like that.

Not being able to trade digital products is a result of them NOT being physical products, and not having the same flaws as physical products, which means they shouldn't be treated the same.

You get a product that lasts forever, but at the same time cant be resold, that's the trade off, that's the balancing factor that makes digital products on the same level of fairness as physical products.

people keep on saying that as if the value doesn't decay as with every other product known to man kind. Would you spend $50 dollars on a 10 year old game. No, doesn't matter if it is digital or not.

Still love it when people use "the corporations are not making enuf" argument. Mind baffling.

Ok I love Valve and all but they need to update the DRM and their client to support used games. This group also needs to target Sony, MS, and EA, not just Valve. It's digital goods as a whole that need to transform, not just one company.

Gearhead mk2:
Hopefully people will actually read this article and not defend Valve just because they're Valve. It's about time that digital rights actually gave people some friggin rights. And I'm fairly certain that those EULAs that Steam and Origin and other such systems use are illegal in Europe anyway.

People shouldn't really see it as an attack on Valve in the first place. The issue of digital rights goes beyond Valve and Steam. Valve is the easy target because Steam is so widely used and accepted.

Steam is not perfect because no EULA concerning digital distribution clients (and digital rights) is.

SoulChaserJ:
Ok I love Valve and all but they need to update the DRM and their client to support used games. This group also needs to target Sony, MS, and EA, not just Valve. It's digital goods as a whole that need to transform, not just one company.

Looks like this guy beat me to it.

Valve is gonna win this easy. They can afford the expensive lawyers, and in the end that's what matters. Although it is nice to see not everyone here is rushing to defend Valve.

Richard Allen:

Cecilo:

Richard Allen:

Why don't you go sell Diablo 2 for full price, then come back and explain how digital content's value doesn't depreciate. It does make sense, and yet fools will still argue it as if developers are somehow entitled to the special market where they get to sell everything twice.

Except I cannot go resell my Diablo 2 copy, especially not at full price. No one would buy it at full price. Blizzard still sells their Diablo 2 online, for 10 dollars. PC Gamers have not been able to resell their games to retailers for a long time, to other people sure.

But honestly, the major point towards reselling is that I can get a cheaper than full price copy from someone else. But for steam, you don't need that thanks to their Steam Sales. There is no good arguement towards selling things to other people on steam, other than not having to wait until Winter/summer.

In which case. Suddenly you will see a influx of people buying games in the Summer/Winter. Then selling their extra copies at a higher price but still discounted from current price, to people between Summer and Winter. And yea.. Steam isn't going to do that. So as I said Earlier, if Germany decides people can resell their games from steam to other people, Germany will probably not be seeing many or any sales from Steam at all. Or Steam just moving away from Germany all together.

So your entire point for not reselling digital is that steam won't make enough money. Got it now. Maybe you should put "doesn't' make sense for [insert corporate entity here]", because digital sales certainly make sense from a customer point of view. The only reason they are allowed to do this is because of bull crap eula/ licensing laws, which lawsuits like this aim to get rid of.

I'm sorry I don't buy the we don't make enough money argument when screwing me over.

No the point isn't that they wouldn't be making as much money. The entire point of steam sales is to offer people a better service. They offset the idea that you can't trade your games like you can for consoles with massive sales. If we get the right to trade in games or trade games to friends for free then they have no incentive to give people sales.

I personally would rather have the sales, that is just how I feel about it. Hell. You wanna pay more money for games, go for it. Valve isn't going to complain about you paying 60 dollars for a game you would wait till Winter/Summer to pay 10 dollars for. Especially if you want to play with friends on a multiplayer game. 120 dollars for 2 games as opposed to 20? Pft yea. Valve is gonna be so heartbroken that they cant give people sales.

Ofcourse, then people will complain about how Trading got rid of their sales, and maybe it will revert back and then back and forth. Fickle consumers.

Richard Allen:
people keep on saying that as if the value doesn't decay as with every other product known to man kind. Would you spend $50 dollars on a 10 year old game. No, doesn't matter if it is digital or not.

Still love it when people use "the corporations are not making enuf" argument. Mind baffling.

Value decay is largely irrelevant to the point, because even after value decay, that 10 year old, 90% discounted, item still makes companies money, whereas trading digital games doesn't.

And I love it when people ignore things like
A. Video game development costs are, and have been, skyrocketing year after year.
B. Video game companies hardly make enough money to payback the multi-million of dollars needed to make a game in the first place. Which is why most companies only produce sequels to established IPs like CoD, because its the only thing they know will be able to get them their money back.
C. There have been more video game companies closing in the last 3-5 years then the last decade before it, showing just how bad of a state video game companies are in, despite all of the supposed "MASSIEVE PROFETS" people claim they are making.

People love to only look at how much video game companies make from a game, while totally ignoring how much they actually made after they pay back everything the spent to make the product in the first place.

kind of hope valve wins this tbh, not for valves sake though , for mine. Sure it sounds great on paper the ability to trade our digital games freedom to buy cheap second hand games that are as good as new whats not to like?

simply put this will take more money out of the market than piracy ever could , thats going to mean a lot of devs going out of business and a lot less games coming out.

it will also drastically affect the way games are marketed, we can expect to see the end of single up front payment it just wont be viable, everything will be rental , subscription, or expensive as you like (commonly miss named free to play)

BigTuk:

Cheaper price (due to lower production costs)
Always available (since quantities are relatively infinite)
Ability to install or uninstall freely.
No Disk swapping.

Trade off:

Inability to resell

Cheaper price (due to lower production costs)
Except games on Steam cost more at release than a physical copy.
Always available (since quantities are relatively infinite)
Except when the cd keys run out.
Ability to install or uninstall freely.
Except when the DRM prevents it.
No Disk swapping.
This one is true.

teh_gunslinger:

-Except games on Steam cost more at release than a physical copy.
-Except when the cd keys run out.
-Except when the DRM prevents it.

-Except they don't? Games on Steam are the same 60 USD both in retail and on the Steam store.
-Which has happened like once? The only time I recall a game running out of cd-keys was Prey, a game that wasn't on Steam at release, and only added later, which is why it had a cd-key system in the first place. Also, most games dont use CD-keys anymore, since, you know, they are on Steam.
-Which Steam doesn't so.....

Good, keep going, folks. They're not above the law. And before some Valve-defender jumps on me: Just because you're fine with it or just because they can do that to customers in your country doesn't mean they should or will get away with it here. Consumer protections are a high good in Europe in general and Germany in particular. Blackmailing your customers is simply not okay.

SajuukKhar:

teh_gunslinger:

-Except games on Steam cost more at release than a physical copy.
-Except when the cd keys run out.
-Except when the DRM prevents it.

-Except they don't? Games on Steam are the same 60 USD both in retail and on the Steam store.
-Which has happened like once? The only time I recall a game running out of cd-keys was Prey, a game that wasn't on Steam at release, and only added later, which is why it had a cd-key system in the first place. Also, most games dont use CD-keys anymore, since, you know, they are on Steam.
-Which Steam doesn't so.....

A Steam game is 50€ which is roughly 375 DKK, as I live in Denmark. A new release will run in at 300-350 DKK depending on where I buy it. There is a world outside the US and here Steam is generally the expensive option. Tier 1 Euro countries in general.

Personally I've had it happen 3 times that a game ran out and I had to wait days for a new batch. And I'm aware that it's happened more that.

Steam happily smothers games in DRM. Any number uses GFWL, StarForce, SecuROM and TAGES. There is no real point in arguing that as it's a fact.

Alcom1:
What change in ToS? I don't remember noticing one.

It was late last year, check this thread: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.384228-Accpet-Steams-New-EULA-or-Say-Goodbye-To-Your-Steam-Account-UPDATED

I did a short analysis of some of the more burning changes and it wasn't about "Class Action lawsuits" at all so this article is misleading.

The German lawsuit is happening because:
1) They denied people that didn't accept their new "Subscriber Agreement" access to all of their games, I believe they have already changed this after talks with the VZBV though:
2) Valve disallowing Digital Resales.

I wish they'd have taken more of a "consumer rights" angle to it though. It's pointless to fight over Resale rights as long as Valve and other major Digital Retailers don't even acknowledge that you actually own what you buy and don't "subscribe" to it if you pay full price or even if you buy a game from a shop and have to activate it on Steam.

This wasn't the only change coming with the new Subscriber Agreement (I couldn't find much changed with the Privacy Agreement on a first look-through, they just formulated some things differently or moved it around)
You can still find the old one here: http://web.archive.org/web/20110716134311/http://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/
I used a compare tool to check against the new version: http://www.text-compare.com/

The main change for the EU as far as I could see involves founding "Valve S.a.r.l." in Luxembourg and everyone residing in the EU now being a customer to them instead of Valve Corporation in the US, although I don't particularly know what that entails legally.

There was also a bit that seemed like a response to the new EU ruling in Section 1:

"nor may you sell, charge others for the right to use, or transfer any Subscriptions other than if and as expressly permitted by this Agreement (including any Subscription Terms or Rules of Use)."

And in response to people demanding refunds based on EU/UK laws in Section 3:

"ALL CHARGES INCURRED ON STEAM, AND ALL PURCHASES MADE WITH THE STEAM WALLET, ARE PAYABLE IN ADVANCE AND ARE NOT REFUNDABLE IN WHOLE OR IN PART, REGARDLESS OF THE PAYMENT METHOD, EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT.

IF YOU ARE AN EU SUBSCRIBER YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO WITHDRAW FROM A PURCHASE TRANSACTION FOR DIGITAL CONTENT WITHOUT CHARGE AND WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASON UNTIL DELIVERY OF SUCH CONTENT HAS STARTED OR PERFORMANCE OF THE SERVICE HAS COMMENCED. YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO WITHDRAW FROM A TRANSACTION OR OBTAIN A REFUND ONCE DELIVERY OF THE CONTENT HAS STARTED OR THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SERVICE HAS COMMENCED, AT WHICH POINT YOUR TRANSACTION IS FINAL. YOU AGREE THAT DELIVERY OF DIGITAL CONTENT, AND THE ASSOCIATED SUBSCRIPTION, AND/OR PERFORMANCE OF THE ASSOCIATED SERVICE, COMMENCES AT THE MOMENT THE DIGITAL CONTENT IS ADDED TO YOUR ACCOUNT OR INVENTORY OR OTHERWISE MADE ACCESSIBLE TO YOU FOR DOWNLOAD OR USE."

A new change in regards to the usage of VPN/Proxies, similar to this article: http://steamunpowered.eu/valve-taking-action-against-gifts-from-usa-and-russia/ ...
It's always good to know that companies reserve their rights to make full use of globalization (buy materials and use support staff where it is the cheapest etc.), but when it comes to the consumers using the same advantages they are suddenly "not allowed", GoG also manages to offer the same price Worldwide just fine.

"You agree that you will not use IP proxying or other methods to disguise the place of your residence, whether to circumvent geographical restrictions on game content, to purchase at pricing not applicable to your geography, or for any other purpose. If you do this, we may terminate your access to your Account."

Section 6 regarding "User Generated Information" (e.g. chat, forum posts, names, usage data and others) has been changed from "you expressly grant Valve the complete and irrevocable right to use" to "you expressly grant Valve and its affiliates the complete and irrevocable right to use" (in two places), which means they might share that data with 3rd parties without your consent now.

A clarification of Valves rights towards terminating your account in TERMS AND TERMINATION in Section 10 instead of a longer version granting more rights previously:

"Valve may cancel your Account or any particular Subscription(s) at any time. In the event that your Account or a particular Subscription is terminated or cancelled by Valve for a violation of this Agreement or improper or illegal activity, no refund, including of any Subscription fees, will be granted."

And of course, if you don't agree with any or some of that your only recourse is apparently to "terminate your account" and lose all the games (e.g. they are holding your games hostage to agree to their new terms), while they have the right to change or amend the "Subscriber Agreement" at any point in time for any reason according to Section 9:

"Your failure to cancel your Account, or cease use of the Subscription(s) affected by the amendment, within thirty (30) days after receiving notification of the amendment, will constitute your acceptance of the amended terms. If you don't agree to the amendments or to any of the terms in this Agreement, your only remedy is to cancel your Account or to cease use of the affected Subscription(s). Valve shall not have any obligation to refund any fees that may have accrued to your Account before cancellation of your Account or cessation of use of any Subscription, nor shall Valve have any obligation to prorate any fees in such circumstances."

There was also a over 300 pages long discussion of this on the Steam forums where Steam Moderators were merging every thread or outrage into it to "contain" the amount of people that even know about it, then they locked the thread (and any threads that were attempting to talk about the EULA changes or any recent development) although a lot of people still filed official complaints and it came to this lawsuit in Germany: http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2848908

On topic: More consumer rights is always good.
Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V (gesundheit) you have my moral support (not that it will do much good though).

Kind of off topic.
Easy way to make reselling possible. You get like 10% (or less) from the price of the game when you bought it (so you will get more money from a game you bought at the release date than at the summer sale) to take away the game from your library. If you want to play the game again you have to buy it again. The publisher can choose to make it so that the money you get from trading in your game can only be used to buy other games from that publisher (trading in Fallout 3 will give you money to buy Skyrim). This way it's more tempting to buy a game when it's expensive and when you're done with it you will get some publisher money that will entice you to buy another game from the same publisher.

Dexter111:
There was also a over 300 pages long discussion of this on the Steam forums where Steam Moderators were merging every thread or outrage into it to "contain" the amount of people that even know about it,

Actually, they did it to prevent the forums from being spammed with 500 repeats of the same topic.

The same reason mods on the Bethesda forums merge all threads that talk about stuff people want for Fallout 4 into the "Fallout 4 suggestions" thread. By your logic Bethesda is trying to "contain" people's knowledge of what other people want for Fallout 4.

How do you sell a Digital game to fucking begin with? What would be the point? Why would ANYONE buy brand new then? Also if you do not agree with the term of the service, do not use that service. I do not accept them Deactivating accounts and removing their contents, but still - don't like the service, do not use it. Vote with your wallets.

Also I do not like the idea that germany wants to go and fucking rule how Europe and it's residents should live... Specially when they have few times bent the rules for their own favor, but that is a different discussion.

This should fail. Because the ramifications of this would hurt the industry I work in.

And would someone explain to me how do you sell used digital license. There is nothing to trade over. IF it is just mere tick box in your account.

SajuukKhar:

Dexter111:
There was also a over 300 pages long discussion of this on the Steam forums where Steam Moderators were merging every thread or outrage into it to "contain" the amount of people that even know about it,

Actually, they did it to prevent the forums from being spammed with 500 repeats of the same topic.

The same reason mods on the Bethesda forums merge all threads that talk about stuff people want for Fallout 4 into the "Fallout 4 suggestions" thread. By your logic Bethesda is trying to "contain" people's knowledge of what other people want for Fallout 4.

They did it to limit the spread of the information about what just happened, what customers could (even legally) do against it, any new developments and shut down any criticism in regards to Steam in one of the places where it potentially would have gotten the largest spread to be able to make informed decisions or file complaints about it by customers.

The Steam forums are especially adept in that way, since they are being moderated by the biggest voluntary Steam fanboys that you could ever imagine and they will not "tolerate" any sort of criticism of the platform whatsoever.

It's funny that you can apparently discuss serious problems about a gaming platform you are directly affected by anywhere else but said platform itself, since that is where Mods try to silence everyone about it.

In the end they also locked said thread since apparently it "wouldn't die" and locked any subsequent threads regarding the matter, even when new News came out about it stating:

Thanks for keeping the discussion level headed for this long but it's been agreed upon to close to this thread. Legal matters wasn't what the forum was meant for.

If you wish to leave feedback for the new Eula you can do so at this link.

http://store.steampowered.com/ssa_feedback (The link was actually in the news article of the new Eula too)

Please don't make a new topic on the subject too.

If anyone was to go to either Steam forums and post about this new development they'd likely immediately have their Thread locked too as has happened to me previously even though I translated most of the German text about the VZBV complaint itself: http://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/0/864958451452333900/

Posting:

Here is the Original Press Release by the VZBV btw. (tried to translate it roughly): http://www.surfer-haben-rechte.de/cps/rde/xchg/digitalrechte/hs.xsl/75_2546.htm

Valve locks itself away from resale of used software

Partial success in EULA-changes

The injunction against Valve Software from September lead only to partial success. At least Valve has committed itself to allow the use of the Steam platform without automatically making it dependent from players consenting to the amended terms and conditions. Valve will be introducing new mechanisms after 31.01.2013 other than the pop-up window, which fell under criticism previously.

Valve insists on a lifelong forced marriage with Steam

There was no agreement achieved in regards to the coupling of a game to the Online platform Steam and the non-transferability of playing privileges/accounts to third parties. Valve continues to hold fast to its business model and prohibits the transfer of the account to a third party in its Terms of Use. This has the consequence that, while the purchased game can be passed on or sold, the associated account cannot necessarily, which is essential for the use of the game.
In this context, it does not matter whether the consumer buys a game on a disk or by download - he cannot actually sell it. The vzbv has for this reason in January 2013 filed a lawsuit against the manufacturer Valve to achieve the goal that consumers may continue to sell used games.

Full purchase price and only half the ownership?

For consumers, the difference of use between game software as opposed to board or card games are incomprehensible. For both, the consumer pays the full purchase price. As the owner of a board game he can give it away, sell it easily or allow others the right to use it. These possibilities are often denied for game software. Technical hurdles, the prohibition of transfer and prevention of sale hinder the purchaser of a game software to proceed using his property as he wishes.

ECJ ruling strengthens the rights of consumers

In the opinion of the VZBV, Valve undermines the acquired consumer ownership rights by prohibiting the transfer of the account. While the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) ruled in an action brought by the VZBV before the court in early 2010 that it was permissible that an account required to use a software product is not transferable. Due to the judgment of the ECJ, which affirmed the resale of used software, the VZBV now sees an approach by the courts and possibly the BGH, to reassess the situation. Thus, the consumer rights would also be strengthened in the online games market.

A nice Idea would be to have the option of trading the old games back to valve for "steam money" with which i could buy new games.
Valve would give me some credit, like a buck or something per game and if i trade in many old games i'd have enough to get me some new games next steamsale.
This would put valve in a monopoly of sorts over the trade ins of the games of the steam platform. Then again they'd fulfill the obligation to enable people to trade their old games.
And that would be the only way they would do that. Maybe they'd give you less money per game, about 5 cent or something.

albino boo:
A class action by definition is one where the all the plaintiffs are not named.

Incorrect. You're not a lawyer so you shouldn't be practicing law. I've been "represented" in a class action lawsuit before, and in each, and every, one every last plaintiff was named. Just because the US allows for plaintiffs to be unknown in a class action lawsuit doesn't mean they are always unknown. All a class action lawsuit is where you have a sufficient number of plaintiffs to warrant a class action lawsuit. If enough people bring the same complaint about the same company a Judge can have them bundled into a class action to simplify the ruling and court time.

SinisterGehe:
How do you sell a Digital game to fucking begin with? What would be the point? Why would ANYONE buy brand new then? Also if you do not agree with the term of the service, do not use that service. I do not accept them Deactivating accounts and removing their contents, but still - don't like the service, do not use it. Vote with your wallets.

Also I do not like the idea that germany wants to go and fucking rule how Europe and it's residents should live... Specially when they have few times bent the rules for their own favor, but that is a different discussion.

This should fail. Because the ramifications of this would hurt the industry I work in.

And would someone explain to me how do you sell used digital license. There is nothing to trade over. IF it is just mere tick box in your account.

I hope for someones sake you aren't a developer. The amount of ignorance is astounding. The first step is to read the article to understand what the suit is actually about. But no, that's too difficult.

DVS BSTrD:
How to get people to sue you: tell them they can't.

They're not saying you can't sue them. They're just saying that you can't get a collection of people and lawyers together and sue them as a GROUP. If you felt wronged by Valve for whatever reason you could go down to the courthouse right now and for the cost of filing fees and all the other legal bullshit that goes along with it take Valve to court individually for whatever wrong you think they may have committed.

In a way I agree with policies that prevent class action lawsuits as they stand now. The only people that win in a class action lawsuit are the lawyers that file them because they soak up most of the money paid out in damages and the people that are supposed to see the benefit of the suit get fucked.

Just look at that plane crash in San Fransisco a couple of weeks ago. Some ambulance chasing law firm in Chicago is filing a lawsuit against Boeing on behalf of the passengers on the plane, none of whom contacted this law firm, and the claim is that there's a slight possibility that there could have maybe been a mechanical failure with the autopilot that caused it to disengage early. This law firm doesn't want to help the people in that plane crash, if their lawsuit were to succeed and Boeing was forced to pay out money the people on that flight wouldn't see a penny of the money, a bunch of blood sucking lawyers would take it.

major_chaos:
Valve is gonna win this easy. They can afford the expensive lawyers, and in the end that's what matters. Although it is nice to see not everyone here is rushing to defend Valve.

You dont really know how german courts work do you? If they violate german law then you could have the most expensive lawyer in the world and it wouldnt change a damn thing.

There is no jury you can influence in germanm courts... no joe smoe from the street that has absolutely no idea about laws in the first place is going to decide in germany if someone did or did not break a law. If its illegal... it is illegal and will be ruled that way. Sure it might take years, german courts are notorious for taking way to friggin long... but in the end it doesnt matter.

Also the Verbraucherzentrale is not a small run rag tag troupe of some people fighting the good fight.

They are a nationwide organisation, well organised by the way and they have excellent lawyers themselves.

Also in this case its very easy to proof that Valve is violating german law because they themselves have written down their EULAs for everyone to read... its not like the Verbraucherzentrale has to search for proof because the proof is in plain view.

Karadalis:

Cecilo:
Snip"

Auction house style?

I mean that would be the most obvious solution that doesnt have steam dictate a price and still have steam benefit from it by taking some auction fees?

Oh I can see it now. It will be just like World of Warcraft, account hacking will become a thing, they can sell all the games in your library to a second account for mere pennies and resell them for actual profit.

There will be stories of people making thousands of dollars buying and selling in the steam auction house. People will buy guides on how to make money and end up losing tons of money on games they cannot get rid of. Valve will be even more loaded from a small 5% auction house cut. Bad games won't make anywhere near as much money as these people won't be buying up tons of copies to resell, Good games will make oodles as people will buy more copies than they can get rid of and be stuck with them.

Uhm.. isnt account hacking allready a thing? I mean there are allready ways of making money through steam with trading TF2 items and now the new collectible cards.. allbeit pocket change true.. but money none the less

AC10:
I hope the Germans come out on top of this one! It would be a windfall for the rest of the world against US corporate bullying.

How is it a windfall? Valve is a private company, and I don't see them take on real corporations that hurt the customer like EA.

Frankly used digital is a stupid idea pushed by people who don't understand how digital works. There is no such thing as used in digital, its a license.

Do we see depreciation when a corporation sells an IP saying its "used"? Fuck no, licenses don't depreciate when "used." The only people I see push selling used digital are console gamers who are so reliant on used games that they can't see anything else.

Catface Meowmers:
This is clearly a case of the Old Ways vs. the New Ways.

In terms of how we've understood the concept since its inception, there's no such thing as a used digital game. The whole point of a "used product" is that it has depreciated in value, and therefore it's not the "same" product that was purchased initially.

A licensed digital copy of a game is not the same kind of "product" as anything else that gets sold "used", so the old rules do not apply. Your purchase of the game license does not affect its value or depreciate it. I don't see why this is such a big deal.

This. Brick and mortor ideas do no belong in a digital world anymore. This isn't a book, car, or electronic device. This is bits of data is the same and stays the same forever.

"used" means fucking nothing, especially when there is no one game that you own.

Do you own that cloud of 1s and 0s? Or is it THAT could of 1s and 0s that you just re downloaded? How the fuck do you own anything to the point you can say with a straight face and say its used?

If digital is used, then steam is selling used games because everyone is using the same data.

Karadalis:
Uhm.. isnt account hacking allready a thing? I mean there are allready ways of making money through steam with trading TF2 items and now the new collectible cards.. allbeit pocket change true.. but money none the less

Not with unusual traders, those guys make hunddreds if not thousands on a single trade. Tf2 trading is not as low stakes as people think, and i think DOTA is getting up there too.

Ultratwinkie:

Karadalis:
Uhm.. isnt account hacking allready a thing? I mean there are allready ways of making money through steam with trading TF2 items and now the new collectible cards.. allbeit pocket change true.. but money none the less

Not with unusual traders, those guys make hunddreds if not thousands on a single trade. Tf2 trading is not as low stakes as people think, and i think DOTA is getting up there too.

Really? I didnt knew that market was so lucrative, especialy since atleast the trading cards are most often not more worth then a couple of cents. Well in this case i am pretty sure there allready is a lot of hacking going on.

Also you make an interesting and possibly conflicting point here.

It is not okay to resell the entire game... but it is okay to resell bits and pieces of games.. in this case TF2 items.

Even thought according to you the game and therefore everything inside it does not belong to you in the first place because its all digital and just 1 and 0s.

And yet according to you people make large sums of money by selling digital content that doesnt really belong to them... with valves blessing...

Crazy world...

EDIT:

Also this argument is not about the term "used"

It is about reselling the license/CD key/Activation key or whatever you need to activate the software you bought. Once you sell that you can not use the software on your machine anymore.

Ofcourse logic dictates that if you resell software you have to sell it at a lower price then the store price because no one would buy it otherwise.

This has less to do with the word "used" and more to do with the fact that you would have no customers if you dont undercut the store price.

Yes there is no "used" in the digital world.. but CD keys and Activation keys are a reality, and by their very nature limited, and thus should be tradeable.

Karadalis:

Ultratwinkie:

Karadalis:
Uhm.. isnt account hacking allready a thing? I mean there are allready ways of making money through steam with trading TF2 items and now the new collectible cards.. allbeit pocket change true.. but money none the less

Not with unusual traders, those guys make hunddreds if not thousands on a single trade. Tf2 trading is not as low stakes as people think, and i think DOTA is getting up there too.

Really? I didnt knew that market was so lucrative, especialy since atleast the trading cards are most often not more worth then a couple of cents. Well in this case i am pretty sure there allready is a lot of hacking going on.

Unusual hats have to be, you could spend hundreds of opening crates to find just one.

A good in demand hat with a good in demand effect I seen go for 700$, I even seen some rumors of thousands of dollars for the extremely rare ones.

Its like winning the lottery, and I seen some traders sell nothing but unusuals and making money hand over fist. Its the level of steam trading everyone wants to be at.

And no its not conflicting. items are drops and are MEANT to be marketed. Its MEANT to be sold.

Valve hired economists to make sure the "TF2 economy" keeps chugging. Its an INTENDED economy valve made possible and encouraged players to take part in.

Even then, the guns are not the game itself. They are commodities within the game's own in game economy. An economy that is MEANT to be there.

Trading now is just as crucial to the game as shooting is.

Ultratwinkie:

Karadalis:

Ultratwinkie:

Not with unusual traders, those guys make hunddreds if not thousands on a single trade. Tf2 trading is not as low stakes as people think, and i think DOTA is getting up there too.

Really? I didnt knew that market was so lucrative, especialy since atleast the trading cards are most often not more worth then a couple of cents. Well in this case i am pretty sure there allready is a lot of hacking going on.

Unusual hats have to be, you could spend hundreds of opening crates to find just one.

A good in demand hat with a good in demand effect I seen go for 700$, I even seen some rumors of thousands of dollars for the extremely rare ones.

Its like winning the lottery, and I seen some traders sell nothing but unusuals and making money hand over fist. Its the level of steam trading everyone wants to be at.

.... really? 700$ For a bloody digital hat for a FPS?

As i said before: Crazy world.. wich leads back to my argument.

Its not okay to sell a game license... but its okay to sell game content for absurd sums of money... and remember: According to steam you dont own a single thing in your steam account.. including said hat that just went away for 700 dollars.

That is one gigantic double standard.

Karadalis:

Ultratwinkie:

Karadalis:

Really? I didnt knew that market was so lucrative, especialy since atleast the trading cards are most often not more worth then a couple of cents. Well in this case i am pretty sure there allready is a lot of hacking going on.

Unusual hats have to be, you could spend hundreds of opening crates to find just one.

A good in demand hat with a good in demand effect I seen go for 700$, I even seen some rumors of thousands of dollars for the extremely rare ones.

Its like winning the lottery, and I seen some traders sell nothing but unusuals and making money hand over fist. Its the level of steam trading everyone wants to be at.

.... really? 700$ For a bloody digital hat for a FPS?

As i said before: Crazy world.. wich leads back to my argument.

Its not okay to sell a game license... but its okay to sell game content for absurd sums of money... and remember: According to steam you dont own a single thing in your steam account.. including said hat that just went away for 700 dollars.

That is one gigantic double standard.

An incredibly rare status symbol, yes.

And no its not conflicting, since valve WANTS the TF2 economy to be there. In fact, they encourage the economy to be there and for good reason and that's to help the game's community and allure.

The economy is meant to be there, and its there for a reason. Of course since valve makes money one way or another from the economies they create, the economy benefits valve the most.

Trading is a big part of TF2, its an intended feature. Not something players made up.

Karadalis:

.... really? 700$ For a bloody digital hat for a FPS?

As i said before: Crazy world.. wich leads back to my argument.

Its not okay to sell a game license... but its okay to sell game content for absurd sums of money... and remember: According to steam you dont own a single thing in your steam account.. including said hat that just went away for 700 dollars.

That is one gigantic double standard.

That is how licensing works, "License" by definition is to give permission. So you buy permission to use the games and if you do something that is not liked they take your permission away.

So nowadays you just rent games for an upfront fee, that you don't have to return until the owner wants it back.

obstructor:

Karadalis:

.... really? 700$ For a bloody digital hat for a FPS?

As i said before: Crazy world.. wich leads back to my argument.

Its not okay to sell a game license... but its okay to sell game content for absurd sums of money... and remember: According to steam you dont own a single thing in your steam account.. including said hat that just went away for 700 dollars.

That is one gigantic double standard.

That is how licensing works, "License" by definition is to give permission. So you buy permission to use the games and if you do something that is not liked they take your permission away.

So nowadays you just rent games for an upfront fee, that you don't have to return until the owner wants it back.

And that exactly is not how it works in europe.. according to the european court...

So it doesnt matter how its handled in the US or elsewhere in the world... you want to do business in the EU you have to play by EU rules.

You would expect the same of a EU company doing business in the US

It really doesnt matter what anyone thinks... the law is the law *shrugs*

Also i dont see why licenses can not be resold.. and infact in other industries licenses are resold all the time.

OK, obvious question: how the everloving FUCK would used digital games even work? Data can be copied infinitely, and the only way a used market works is if the person reselling the item doesn't also get to keep it. Sure, you could revoke a given steam account's ability to play the game, but steam DRM is child's play to circumvent, and it would be easy to copy all the game data into another directory before "selling" it. Having your cake and eating it too isn't exactly healthy for the cake industry.

Ultratwinkie:
And no its not conflicting, since valve WANTS the TF2 economy to be there. In fact, they encourage the economy to be there and for good reason and that's to help the game's community and allure.

The economy is meant to be there, and its there for a reason. Of course since valve makes money one way or another from the economies they create, the economy benefits valve the most.

Trading is a big part of TF2, its an intended feature. Not something players made up.

You're not making a whole lot of sense. In fact you seem somewhat confused, so it's "okay" to sell TF2, DOTA 2 items and whatnot because "that is what Valve wants!" and "they employ economists", but reselling games you own shouldn't be allowed because Valve doesn't want that?

Do you believe that Valve should be allowed to make up their own laws as to what constitutes ownership in regards to what you pay money for and what not and what a financial transaction entails, instead of... I don't know, the state?

And what if Valve suddenly wants to, does your belief system suddenly change to reflect that? http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/19/4445844/valve-steam-game-sharing

obstructor:
That is how licensing works, "License" by definition is to give permission. So you buy permission to use the games and if you do something that is not liked they take your permission away.

So nowadays you just rent games for an upfront fee, that you don't have to return until the owner wants it back.

The moment you buy a product (even if it is software) in a store you own said product (obviously within limitations of Copyright law, you don't own the code or can replicate and sell it, but that one specific copy), Valve can claim whatever it wants in said EULA, they can claim that what you are buying is just a "subscription" like they are doing or they might claim that what they are selling is actually blueberries. This will matter little to European courts and the binding purchase and sale agreement.

Especially since the highest European court (the ECJ) ruled just that: http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-07/cp120094en.pdf

"An author of software cannot oppose the resale of his 'used' licences allowing the use of his programs downloaded from the internet."

Dexter111:

Ultratwinkie:
And no its not conflicting, since valve WANTS the TF2 economy to be there. In fact, they encourage the economy to be there and for good reason and that's to help the game's community and allure.

The economy is meant to be there, and its there for a reason. Of course since valve makes money one way or another from the economies they create, the economy benefits valve the most.

Trading is a big part of TF2, its an intended feature. Not something players made up.

You're not making a whole lot of sense. In fact you seem somewhat confused, so it's "okay" to sell TF2, DOTA 2 items and whatnot because "that is what Valve wants!" and "they employ economists", but reselling games you own shouldn't be allowed because Valve doesn't want that?
Do you believe that Valve should be allowed to make up their own laws as to what constitutes ownership in regards to what you pay money for and what not, instead of... I don't know, the state?
And what if Valve suddenly wants to, does your belief system suddenly change?

obstructor:
That is how licensing works, "License" by definition is to give permission. So you buy permission to use the games and if you do something that is not liked they take your permission away.

So nowadays you just rent games for an upfront fee, that you don't have to return until the owner wants it back.

The moment you buy a product (even if it is software) in a store you own said product, Valve can claim whatever it wants in said EULA, they can claim that what you are buying is just a "subscription" like they are doing or they might claim that what they are selling is actually blueberries. This will matter little to European courts and the binding purchase and sale agreement.
Especially since the highest European court (the ECJ) ruled just that: http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-07/cp120094en.pdf

"An author of software cannot oppose the resale of his 'used' licences allowing the use of his programs downloaded from the internet."

Its like saying "you can't sell liquor without a license, so you can't defend a game where you sell liquor."

The difference is that one is not the same as the other, the other is IN A GAME whose entire purpose is to do that to bring in players trying to make their fortunes (they wont).

Are we suddenly going to say anyone who hates crime must not like Grand Theft auto? That's the problem, you can't equate "used" digital game sales to a free to play trading game who's biggest products are incredibly rare hats that only .001% of the player base find.

They are not the same, its like saying real surgery and surgeon simulator 2013 are the same thing. They are not.

Ultratwinkie:
Its like saying "you can't sell liquor without a license, so you can't defend a game where you sell liquor."

Are we suddenly going to say anyone who hates crime must not like Grand Theft auto?

They are not the same, its like saying real surgery and surgeon simulator 2013 are the same thing. They are not.

You should really try to find some better analogies, I'm afraid to tell you that the ones you've used so far didn't do much.
The main difference between a game and a "hat" or "trading card" as far as the Steam store goes is that the one says "Not Marketable" and the other says "Marketable".

Now if you'd ask me I'd forbid Valve from being allowed to sell "hats" or "trading cards", similar to how Japan did to a few gaming companies with a similar system: http://www.serkantoto.com/2012/05/09/kompu-gacha-dena-gree-history/ since these items are virtual, have near to no inherent worth and don't require more than a few dozen man-hours of work.
Especially when they are bound to some sort of complicated randomized drop system and a scheme to make money off of that fast with near to no work for them. Or I would at least put these practices under stringent gambling laws, since that is what they boil down to, but that is a discussion (and hopefully legal ruling) for another time.

As far as games go, I'd like the same laws that apply whenever I buy a game or other similar product in a store and enter a purchase agreement to apply to Steam and other Digital storefronts too despite what Valve may be fantasizing about since my money isn't worth any less in that case, and I hope the courts will rule in favour of consumers worldwide and enforce that.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here