That was the paper thin disguise Steam was first presented as, yes. (But for Half Life 2 alone, not The Orange Box, which wouldn't appear until 3 years later) It's true purpose, right from the start, was to provide ironclad copy-protection for the publisher's benefit at the expense of the customer's game ownership, and to eradicate the used sales market, which was huge.
That was the paper thin disguise Steam was first presented as, yes. (But for Half Life 2 alone, not The Orange Box, which wouldn't appear until 3 years later) It's true purpose, right from the start, was to provide ironclad copy-protection for the publisher's benefit at the expense of the customer's game ownership, and to eradicate the used sales market, which was huge.
No, that was a side effect, not a primary aim. The used game market for the PC was pretty small in general and vanished after Electronic Boutique was acquired by Gamestop. The piracy on pc was the huge thing, or at least it was perceived as huge and so a bunch of publishers started using starforce, limited machine activations and DRM like that, steam actually pretty much killed off the bad DRM.
That was the paper thin disguise Steam was first presented as, yes. (But for Half Life 2 alone, not The Orange Box, which wouldn't appear until 3 years later) It's true purpose, right from the start, was to provide ironclad copy-protection for the publisher's benefit at the expense of the customer's game ownership, and to eradicate the used sales market, which was huge.
No, that was a side effect, not a primary aim. The used game market for the PC was pretty small in general and vanished after Electronic Boutique was acquired by Gamestop. The piracy on pc was the huge thing, or at least it was perceived as huge and so a bunch of publishers started using starforce, limited machine activations and DRM like that, steam actually pretty much killed off the bad DRM.
Not really- publishers would still add their own DRM on top of Steam's DRM in games for several years to come. Denuvo probably being the most notorious. But it did eventually taper off, just in time for the rise of MTX.
That was the paper thin disguise Steam was first presented as, yes. (But for Half Life 2 alone, not The Orange Box, which wouldn't appear until 3 years later) It's true purpose, right from the start, was to provide ironclad copy-protection for the publisher's benefit at the expense of the customer's game ownership, and to eradicate the used sales market, which was huge.
No, that was a side effect, not a primary aim. The used game market for the PC was pretty small in general and vanished after Electronic Boutique was acquired by Gamestop. The piracy on pc was the huge thing, or at least it was perceived as huge and so a bunch of publishers started using starforce, limited machine activations and DRM like that, steam actually pretty much killed off the bad DRM.
Not really- publishers would still add their own DRM on top of Steam's DRM in games for several years to come. Denuvo probably being the most notorious. But it did eventually taper off, just in time for the rise of MTX.
Yeah, we still see Denuvo but its way less of an issue then some of those old DRM schemes were, just valve making games list the DRM on them did a huge service for helping get rid of the worst of the bunch too.
Interesting turn of events for PC users recently, though nothing can move yet with valve appealing the decision. Am putting the article words in spoiler below because my own use of words are just plain terrible most of the time;
A court in France has ruled that Steam users have the right to resell their games, following a case brought against the digital storefront giant by consumer group UFC Que Choisir in 2015.
The consumer group initially bought the case to the District Court of Paris (as reported by French websites Next Impact and Numerama) in order to contest the legality of certain clauses within Steam's Subscriber Agreement under European law. Of primary concern was UFC Que Choisir's belief that digital games should, like their physical counterparts, be eligible for resale.
Ultimately, judges agreed with the organisation, using a 2012 European Court ruling (which said that a transaction for digital goods still implies the transfer of the right of ownership) as the basis of its decision, saying that Valve "can no longer oppose the resale of this copy...even if the initial purchase is made by downloading". Valve's terms attempted to frame a sale as a 'subscription' to a product, but the court ruled that users were, in fact, purchasing licenses, enabling European law to come into play.
A number of other rulings we made in favour of the UFC Que Choisir too, with the court proclaiming that fourteen clauses in Valve's Steam Subscriber Agreement could not be enforced. For instance, judges said Valve cannot legally keep the contents of Steam Wallet funds when a user leaves the platform, and users should be reimbursed when requested. Additionally, it said that Valve should accept responsibility when software used on its platform harms a user, even if it's in beta, should reduce its claim on mods and user-created content, and must be clearer about the ways players can lose access to their Steam library for poor conduct.
If Valve refuses to abide by the ruling and post the French court's decision to Steam within a month, it will have to pay a fine of 3,000 Euros per day for up to six months.
With this success in the bag, the UFC Que Choisir says it plans to take action against other platforms and products - although it's worth noting that the case isn't yet closed. Valve still has the right to appeal and, as Doug Lombardi told PC Gamer in a statement following the ruling, that's exactly what the company plans to do.
"We disagree with the decision of the Paris Court of First Instance and will appeal it," said Lombardi, "The decision will have no effect on Steam while the case is on appeal".
This isn't the first time that Valve has been involved with courts over its perceived anti-consumer practices, of course. In 2014, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission sued Valve (ultimately with success) over its failure to comply with local consumer law by denying purchasers the right to refund their games. The ACCC argued that while Valve had no physical presence in the country, the goods it sold were still subject to local law.
Are there opinions on this ruling? Will valve be able to use their Batman-esque superpower of Infinite-Money to win their appeal? What does this bore for the future of digital games, do you think? Personally, I hope it leads somewhere cause I've always hated being stuck with a shite purchase forever that you can't even physically destroy. And steam needs a healthy tasering up the arse to jolt it out of complacency.
(Is this a games or a current events topic? If it's wrong subforum, sorry! Have generally been pretty bad at knowing what pigeon-hole to put the peg in)
If we win we at least won't have to pay for rent the next month. I've got at 30 games i'll never play again sitting on my "shelf". Then again since many of them I haven't played since 2014 and are indie games, i'll probably only make a few cents.
Come to think of it things aren't that great for us since steam has ALOT of money to lose but the individual consumer will only get their satisfaction back
I view it akin to buying a movie ticket. You pay for the game, which grants you access to see/play it whenever you like. If someone else wants to see/play it they also have to buy a ticket.
You can't sell a ticket to a movie to another person after you've seen the movie. Making it as though you can for video games is... bad. There's no way to sustain a market for that for certain types of games. This would kill single player games and we'd all move to live services or F2P/P2P games because they'd be the only type of game that can sustain itself.
I view it akin to buying a movie ticket. You pay for the game, which grants you access to see/play it whenever you like. If someone else wants to see/play it they also have to buy a ticket.
You can't sell a ticket to a movie to another person after you've seen the movie. Making it as though you can for video games is... bad. There's no way to sustain a market for that for certain types of games. This would kill single player games and we'd all move to live services or F2P/P2P games because they'd be the only type of game that can sustain itself.
It is nothing at all like buying a movie ticket. A purchased game gives you the option to replay it over and over. A movie ticket allows you a single viewing of a slice of media and that's it. No ifs or buts. That's a big, big difference.
If we win we at least won't have to pay for rent the next month. I've got at 30 games i'll never play again sitting on my "shelf". Then again since many of them I haven't played since 2014 and are indie games, i'll probably only make a few cents.
Come to think of it things aren't that great for us since steam has ALOT of money to lose but the individual consumer will only get their satisfaction back
Steam wouldn't necessarily lose a cent over this, they could just switch so that the amount of money they get from a re sell is the same as for the full price game, which is pretty easy to argue for since for them selling a new or used game is the same (take the same amount of server band witch). The first loser in this is going to be the game developer, and depending on how the ruling goes (will it affect every game service in France? what about direct download from website?) it's possible that game maker that have the option will just sell there game directly to consumer rather than steam in France to avoid that issues.
An obvious risk of this is the price of games go up, as the second hand market eats up the profits of Valve and devs, so they have to increase prices accordingly. In France, at least.
I view it akin to buying a movie ticket. You pay for the game, which grants you access to see/play it whenever you like. If someone else wants to see/play it they also have to buy a ticket.
You can't sell a ticket to a movie to another person after you've seen the movie. Making it as though you can for video games is... bad. There's no way to sustain a market for that for certain types of games. This would kill single player games and we'd all move to live services or F2P/P2P games because they'd be the only type of game that can sustain itself.
It is nothing at all like buying a movie ticket. A purchased game gives you the option to replay it over and over. A movie ticket allows you a single viewing of a slice of media and that's it. No ifs or buts. That's a big, big difference.
It's more about one person gets to see it than the number of times one gets to see it. You certainly can play it over and over again, and that would be what the price difference is for, but to be able to give someone a game over digital media like Steam would just kill it as an industry.
It'd be like a movie ticket that lasts forever and you can then give to someone else to see the movie - oh, and the cinemas are required to always be showing the film on your request.
At least with physical sales of media there's a cost involved for the seller or buyer of transportation so that gifting for free is inconvenient. Digitally gifting media? The cost is only on the original provider.
I view it akin to buying a movie ticket. You pay for the game, which grants you access to see/play it whenever you like. If someone else wants to see/play it they also have to buy a ticket.
You can't sell a ticket to a movie to another person after you've seen the movie. Making it as though you can for video games is... bad. There's no way to sustain a market for that for certain types of games. This would kill single player games and we'd all move to live services or F2P/P2P games because they'd be the only type of game that can sustain itself.
It is nothing at all like buying a movie ticket. A purchased game gives you the option to replay it over and over. A movie ticket allows you a single viewing of a slice of media and that's it. No ifs or buts. That's a big, big difference.
It's more about one person gets to see it than the number of times one gets to see it. You certainly can play it over and over again, and that would be what the price difference is for, but to be able to give someone a game over digital media like Steam would just kill it as an industry.
It'd be like a movie ticket that lasts forever and you can then give to someone else to see the movie - oh, and the cinemas are required to always be showing the film on your request.
At least with physical sales of media there's a cost involved for the seller or buyer of transportation so that gifting for free is inconvenient. Digitally gifting media? The cost is only on the original provider.
Seem to me that the understanding most people have is (and this may run counter to the actual legal position) when you pay for a digital download, you're paying for a service rather than a product. A bit like downloading a song onto iTunes, paying for a cable TV channel, or licensing MS Office or an antivirus - you're not taking receipt of a physical item, and there's no suggestion that you can transfer ownership, much less resell the digital service if you no longer want it.
It's irksome, and for a long time I was utterly opposed to digital games on this exact basis. What happens when the servers go down, what if I want to lend the game to a friend, what if my internet is cut off or the content provider arbitrarily decides to suspend my membership - in what sense do I "own" this game? I made my peace with this when I started paying for GamePass and I decided that actually I care a lot more about ease of access and the VERY low price per game, than I do about having a game sitting on my shelf that I may not play for years (or ever again) after beating it.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
