The amount of people on these forums blinded by their love of Valve is astounding sometimes. Not that I think they're evil, they're a company just like any other. Just better at manipulating their consumers.Nimzabaat said:
German Consumer Group Sues Valve
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Ultimately it comes down to a fundamental difference: Valve is selling single-user nontransferable licenses, which in the PC world is the accepted method of selling pretty much all non-game software, so applying it to games isn't much of a stretch. Therefore accepting what Valve does and how they handle things is easy. EA tends to do limited single-user nontransferable licenses in a bid to further limit the existing system, which is the source of most of the anger.RedDeadFred said:
True, but that is what I mean. While I think that it should be right to be able to sell your used games I am almost certain that there will be a backlash for us gamers.Falterfire said:
When big companies lose money they start flailing their arms in a violent manner. It is hard to predict what they will hit when they do it.
Aside from the criticism to EA (which I think is just the same as valve when it comes to this specific matter), the statement in bold is exactly what I feel.Falterfire said:
You know, we've had most software available to general public in the form of nontransferable licenses ever since the invention of the personal computer. How come this only became a problem after digital distribution came by?
The EULA was written by someone who charges £700-£1000 an hour and they more about EU law than you do. They are not bypassing national law so much as using the single market rules and the internationally accepted principal that parties to a contract can choose what jurisdiction they use.Bostur said:
why the fuck do you need used digital games it make's no sence and if it goes forward all the steam sales will stop
As worried as I am that this sort of case could bring the whole cheap PC gaming bubble crashing down, I want to see them at least make a little headway.
- All that $1 gets you is a shiny badge that says you did it and a chance at a unique cosmetic
- You only have to spend that $1 the first time you do that mission, then it's free
- It's trivially easy to start your own server with those missions, you just don't get the tick on your badge or your cosmetics
All you lose out on by not paying is cosmetics, what's the problem?
The MVM thing isn't a problem for a few main reasonsZeckt said:
- All that $1 gets you is a shiny badge that says you did it and a chance at a unique cosmetic
- You only have to spend that $1 the first time you do that mission, then it's free
- It's trivially easy to start your own server with those missions, you just don't get the tick on your badge or your cosmetics
All you lose out on by not paying is cosmetics, what's the problem?
As much as we all love the functionality of Steam and all the things Valve does, VZVB winning this can only do good.
Why not? Isn't the company that distributes it limiting your sales?Braedan said:
There is an actual company that allows you to trade in game, though that still is not transferring the license, it at least shows that some companies already allow at least a trade in for a lower value. It is still not perfect forcing a consumer to have only one choice in who to sell it but again the retailer is the one selling you the game.
If you buy a washing machine for example and it breaks the retailer is responsible for the warranty, it has to deal with the shipping, giving you a replacement, etc. for a period of time.
When we get into the License bullshit it gets even more illogical. So we are buying a License to use the game, why can I not sell this license to someone else? Because it is non-transferable, why not? Because we say so. But the license is nothing more than a CD key tied to my account that you CAN revoke whenever you want to, so that already shows the ability to take away license keys, so they are capable of being transferred they just don't allow us.
Now we have a Supreme court judgement that they should be transferable so Steam should do one of two things, pack up and fuck off out of Europe or adjust the services they offer by allowing license transferals. The publishers are not the ones operating as retailers in this case so they have nothing to do with it. The retailer is forced to offer certain services and the publishers have to abide by those services if they wish to sell on a certain market.
I doubt publishers are going to stop selling their games in Europe seeing as that is a good third of all videogame sales worldwide.
On top of that games are not advertised as licenses but as games "Add this game to your cart, buy this game, get this game now!" Do you see "License to this game" anywhere, no that stuff is tucked away in the EULA so that it doesn't scare off new customers?
"Buy a license to this movie, buy a license to this car, buy a license to this piece of chicken." Doesn't sound quite right don't you say?
Thank you for your soul. We here at Valve corp. value these very much as they allow us to sustain the God-Emperor Newel.Zeckt said:
Seriously? RUIN digital downloads? Bit dramatic there. Greenman gaming already has a sort of used digital download market and it hasn't ruined anything has it? They even pull the same shit as you are afraid of. They buy back a digital key and then sell it for full price again.
OH DOOM DEATH AND DESTRUCTION!!!
Please, drama queen much?
More consumer rights and less License bullshit is all the better in my eyes.
I doubt God-Emperor Newel will cut of Germany as it is one of the largest gaming markets of Europe. I think God-Emperor Newel will take the used game trading hit and keep selling his other games to the German masses.
Though seriously thanks for that delicious soul.
So did you just talk yourself out of your own argument?R.Nevermore said:
OT: Good. Consumer rights have taken a major hit in the ditigal era.
I'm certainly no expert in international law, or EU law for that matter. But for other products I know there are certain rights that I can't sign away. What international trade is concerned I had the impression that it is the laws of the country where the product is marketed that applies. So a US company selling something in Italy would have to comply with Italian law for instance.albino boo said:
Of course if nothing is sold - as EULAs tend to claim, then that may be the technicality that makes the difference.
But whatever the case. This is a political topic for me, more than a legal one. And I hope the German case will add some publicity to what I believe is a murky area for consumers. I'm certainly not happy about Valve or Microsoft making up their own rules. And signing a complicated contract for buying a product worth 40 Euro or less is just ridiculous.
I get why Valve doesn't have resale yet. It's not like most of the pubishers whose software is sold through Steam were weting themselves with glee about the prospect of used game sales.
But the software licensing model of game distrubution is hardly a flawless edifice worthy of our eternal gratitude. Actually, it's kind of bullshit. Especially given that any book, movie, or CD I purchase, which are also creative products with a market value that tends to drop off after its initial release period, can be resold. The digital versions of these things cannot, granted, but that's why I don't buy the digital versions.
One could make a decent case for the license model of game distribution being a bad thing. Being able to sell one's old games allows people to purchase new games at a lower effective price while still giving the publisher full price for the new game. Price of game for the user becoming stickerprice - resale price.
But the software licensing model of game distrubution is hardly a flawless edifice worthy of our eternal gratitude. Actually, it's kind of bullshit. Especially given that any book, movie, or CD I purchase, which are also creative products with a market value that tends to drop off after its initial release period, can be resold. The digital versions of these things cannot, granted, but that's why I don't buy the digital versions.
One could make a decent case for the license model of game distribution being a bad thing. Being able to sell one's old games allows people to purchase new games at a lower effective price while still giving the publisher full price for the new game. Price of game for the user becoming stickerprice - resale price.
I thought the ruling stated that resale of digital good was allowed in Germany but Valve and others don't have to provide any utility to do so.
Meaning you could sell your entire profile (which is against the TOS) and be allowed to do it. I would be okay with that.
Meaning you could sell your entire profile (which is against the TOS) and be allowed to do it. I would be okay with that.
I dunno, I think the main reason people accept what Valve is doing is because there's not really any good alternative. You can buy the hard copy but that's getting harder and harder to do. I don't really need to state why Origin isn't a good alternative.Falterfire said:
For me, it boils down to: if I buy a game on my PS3 or 360, once I'm done with it, I can sell it or give it to a friend. You can't do that with Steam even though you are paying the same price (usually). I have no idea how they could make this work so that you can give/sell your used games to you friends but I'm sure they could figure it out if they wanted to and if enough of their users bothered to ask. This won't happen though because nobody seems to think there should be an alternative. This is what happens when Valve gets to have a monopoly over the digital retail of video games for such a long time. Even though Origin isn't all that great right now, I still think it's a good thing because it introduces more competition. Valve needs more competition or else they have no reason to change.
It would be handy is if Steam would allow reselling games on Steam itself: Valve could still get a percentage of the transaction, DRM wouldn't be a problem given it's still all on Steam and people may be more likely to spend 60$ on a pre-order if they knew they can get some back when they resell it.
I can imagine editors wouldn't be too fond of that however.
I can imagine editors wouldn't be too fond of that however.
I don't care. They would ruin digital downloads for everyone with their greed and then constant reselling of more then one copy and it has to be stopped. If they want their games for free then they can make their own. And if you think you can tell me they would not abuse it like that then that's bullshit, because that's the way consumerism works. If it can potentially be abused it WILL to the absolute worst way possible. Losers making profit by selling it for a $, or giving it away for a penny THOUSANDS OF TIMES.Zachary Amaranth said:
Good. Anything that gives more rights to customers is A-OK in my book.
Ah! And already the corporate apologists run to the defence of the people who've been screwing them over for years.
Ah! And already the corporate apologists run to the defence of the people who've been screwing them over for years.
To sell a game digitally all you have to do is have the key that lets you play the game detached from the account service and transferred to another individual. That's not the same as copying software: without the key you can't play the game (unless of course you crack it, but that can be detectable using a client side service.) So yeah, it's possible to resell digital software.
The exception would be completely DRM free games that lack keys, but those are primarily the domain of Good old Games, which are at this point torrented like crazy. It sounds like either I missed something on the story, or people in this thread are making some rather strange assumptions about the claims and how this would actually work...
The exception would be completely DRM free games that lack keys, but those are primarily the domain of Good old Games, which are at this point torrented like crazy. It sounds like either I missed something on the story, or people in this thread are making some rather strange assumptions about the claims and how this would actually work...
