There's a difference, we like valve's business practice of not ruining franchises...Nimzabaat said:
German Consumer Group Sues Valve
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I don't understand why people keep missing this point. It's so obvious. There is no difference between digital games and other transferrable real world items like books. If you were to sell your game on steam, then steam would revoke your key and you would not have the game anymore. If you were to crack it, then you might have a playable game, but this would a) only be single player, and b) be no different to what you can already do immorally. You would still be breaking the law, and you would still be immorally playing a cracked game. You also couldn't sell the same game more than once, because you would really be selling the game-key, with the downloads and other services that steam offers with it.Colt47 said:
I should preface this that I like what steam has done, with their sales they've introduced competition that has been much needed in the game industry. That said I still disagree with them on this one issue. Really the only even remotely reasonable defense for steam's actions is that it allows for these cheap sales, and they wouldn't be able to sustain them with used game sales. Even so I think this should happen, as consumer's rights are more important than cheaper games (and would probably result in cheaper games anyway).
I think it would be pretty cool if Valve allowed players to sell their used digital games for funds for their Steam Wallets. They already have the marketplace on Steam to sell items. It could work for games too. If Valve is worried about profits they could easily make it so that they get 15% of what the sale makes.
Question. WHy dont they jsut remove the restriction from their TOS but just not have a feature to enable it? Then say
"Oh its perfectly legal to transfer or sell games to someone else, but sadly we just havent implemented that feature yet"
Seems easy to do..
"Oh its perfectly legal to transfer or sell games to someone else, but sadly we just havent implemented that feature yet"
Seems easy to do..
yea when it comes to valve, people here are baised, if this was related to Ea or any other ccompany really there be all for the customer, not the company, but no its valve and there "the best company Eva!"Nimzabaat said:
ugh...
Before you edited this, it sounded like you were talking about Valve. XDZeckt said:
Strawman.
Yes. Ignoring the fact it hasn't happened elsewhere in other cases and the model you proposed is completely unsustainable it WILL happen, because...Ponies, I guess.
All of this hyperbole to try and attack people for going after monopolistic and totalitarian behaviour.
Two different audiences.Nimzabaat said:
EA was restricting a common - even traditional - action and console gamers were ticked because of it.
Personally, it didn't bother me. If that's what it takes to keep AAA extravaganzas cheap, then so it goes.
Steam, however, is for the PC crowd. We haven't had a used game market for YEARS. The lack thereof doesn't bother me either, partly from "this is how it's been for all of recent memory" and partly from the fact that I don't like selling my things. Combine this with my inherent dislike of suing, and yeah, I feel perfectly justified in siding with Valve. Why poke more holes in their rights management (reselling digital is a hell of a thing to regulate) and risk losing tons of their great deals because a few people (and yes, it IS just a few, or else this would have come up long ago) want to resell their stuff because they couldn't be bothered to adequately research it/manage their spending better?
EDIT: Accounting for people who want it because "I <3 user rights" and such, but don't actually want to sell their games, I guess it is more than a few, but basing off of that, it's not really grounds for suing as far as I'm concerned. It's grounds for not buy Valve-distributed goods.
If you do business in Germany you are bound by German law and German courts. Despite what companies try to tell you there is nothing to circumvent that.albino boo said:
Apart from the small point the valve Europe in based in the UK. So you might be in Germany but you are doing business in the UK which under the single market rules is perfectly permissibleNiceJobBreakingItHero said:
If the EU legal system is in the business of severing contracts between valve and their customers on judicial whim, I think valve should sever all the contracts with all the EU users, denying them the ability to use their steam accounts from then on. Their sovereign decided to terminate their contracts after all.
You can't do business with people that change the rules on the fly, can you play a game with someone that creates and modifies house rules in mid play?
This is legal plunder. If Valve turns around and burns the German Or EU customers I will continue to support them.
You can't do business with people that change the rules on the fly, can you play a game with someone that creates and modifies house rules in mid play?
This is legal plunder. If Valve turns around and burns the German Or EU customers I will continue to support them.
Here's what Valve should do, in my opinion. Make selling of games work on steam, but only under these terms:
-Price is 90% the full value of the game
-25% of the sale price goes to valve, 25% goes to the game creator/publisher.
-50% goes to the user.
I mean lets face it, you get shit value when you trade in physical media, and this would benefit everyone, while still keeping steam sales valid.
-Price is 90% the full value of the game
-25% of the sale price goes to valve, 25% goes to the game creator/publisher.
-50% goes to the user.
I mean lets face it, you get shit value when you trade in physical media, and this would benefit everyone, while still keeping steam sales valid.
I'd love an ability to sell digital games, but lets be frank, you buy a ability to play the game, not the game itself, so you dont actually "own" anything.
P.S. god, so many people here dont even understand what the consumer group wants to achieve and imagine that you somehow can sell million of copies. you people dont deserve to pay less for games, because you dont seem to be able to use your brain anymore.
-Price is 90% the full value of the car
-25% of the sale price goes to company that you bought the car from orginally, 25% goes to the car manufacturer.
-50% goes to the person.
Ridiculous proposition is ridiculous.
i udnerstand having a, say, 1dollar charge per transfer for costs of server work to do it and whatnot, but beside that, nope. just like you got charges for formal papers when selling any other object.
No. You would sell your license to play this game, not the actual data, which means that you loose the ability to play it and he gains it.Falterfire said:
P.S. god, so many people here dont even understand what the consumer group wants to achieve and imagine that you somehow can sell million of copies. you people dont deserve to pay less for games, because you dont seem to be able to use your brain anymore.
I think we should make a law that when you sell a used car, only such terms can be used:Shikua said:
-Price is 90% the full value of the car
-25% of the sale price goes to company that you bought the car from orginally, 25% goes to the car manufacturer.
-50% goes to the person.
Ridiculous proposition is ridiculous.
i udnerstand having a, say, 1dollar charge per transfer for costs of server work to do it and whatnot, but beside that, nope. just like you got charges for formal papers when selling any other object.
Why don't they introduce some kind of digital wallet, like steam credits. And if you wanted to "sell your game" you could, which means the game license is picked from your library, and in turn you are given a small amount of steam credits, which can be used to pay, or partially pay for other games or even in-game items.
On the one hand, I think Valve needs a little bit of a push. There are things the company does that I'm not altogether fond of.
On the other hand, this really isn't what I would have chosen to attack them on.
Now the whole, "agree to our terms of service or lose access to ALL YOUR GAMES! BWAHAHAHAHA!" that one, I would like to see them called to terms on.
On the other hand, this really isn't what I would have chosen to attack them on.
Now the whole, "agree to our terms of service or lose access to ALL YOUR GAMES! BWAHAHAHAHA!" that one, I would like to see them called to terms on.
That is the thing the consumergroup is fighting for and stema refuses to give. i think that is the best solution, but its one they dont want to give us.nymz said:
Actually, there was a EU supreme court ruling stating that digital games must be re-sellable. or rather that anyone buyign digitally has a right to resell their games.A Smooth Criminal said:
And you are completely wrong, as many others, who think those people want to pirate. they already can do that without sueing valve. what they want is to be able to sell their license to play the game. you sell the game you can no longer play it, somone else can.
You can't choose the jurisdiction in a contract if one party is a consumer (§32 ZPO) and according to a decision from the european court of justice (C-190/11) it is irrelevant where the company is based as long as it aimed for doing business in another country.albino boo said:
Putting a label doesn't make it legal you know. If I put "use at your own risk" sign on a product, it won't stand up in court if somebody gets hurt using it.Braedan said:
