Lawsuit Demands The Right To Resell Steam Games

go hire a programming team, license a 3D engine, create a game. It will cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars minimum, but you then could say you own the game and have "the right to resell it and do whatever I damn well please with it". Otherwise you are not/never buying the work, you are buying the right to use an instance of that work.
 
go hire a programming team, license a 3D engine, create a game. It will cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars minimum, but you then could say you own the game and have "the right to resell it and do whatever I damn well please with it". Otherwise you are not/never buying the work, you are buying the right to use an instance of that work.

Congrats, you drank the koolaid. Sorry I and quite honestly a not insignificant portion of the consumer base aren't willing to let devs put that particular genie back int he bottle.
 
Congrats, you drank the koolaid. Sorry I and quite honestly a not insignificant portion of the consumer base aren't willing to let devs put that particular genie back int he bottle.

ok, so you are saying if one day you have a clever idea for a android app, sell it for $1, then people should automatically get complete rights to it, including resale after they are finished using/playing it.

Like if you are a photographer and someone pays for the right to put your photo on their website, after they are finished using it they then should be able to sell that right to someone else...

What I would like to know is if someone produces a work product and licenses it specifically to you, and you use it, then why would you expect to be able to sell and transfer that license? If you did not actually "use" the work product, ok, that is reasonable. But assuming you did use it to completion.
 
ok, so you are saying if one day you have a clever idea for a android app, sell it for $1, then people should automatically get complete rights to it, including resale after they are finished using/playing it.

Like if you are a photographer and someone pays for the right to put your photo on their website, after they are finished using it they then should be able to sell that right to someone else...

What I would like to know is if someone produces a work product and licenses it specifically to you, and you use it, then why would you expect to be able to sell and transfer that license? If you did not actually "use" the work product, ok, that is reasonable. But assuming you did use it to completion.

Not complete rights, but yes, they should be able to give the app to someone else, if they remove it from their device.

And for the second example, if the license is not time limited, then it would be only fair if I was able to re-sell it if I no longer need it.

There is no such thing as "use it to completion" unless the license was for a limited time to begin with. As games are sold without an expiry date I expect them to be transferrable to someone else, if nothing else, to my beneficiary if I die.
 
Not complete rights, but yes, they should be able to give the app to someone else, if they remove it from their device.

And for the second example, if the license is not time limited, then it would be only fair if I was able to re-sell it if I no longer need it.

There is no such thing as "use it to completion" unless the license was for a limited time to begin with. As games are sold without an expiry date I expect them to be transferrable to someone else, if nothing else, to my beneficiary if I die.

You talk about "should", "not time limited", etc. If you look at the licensing agreement of most any software you will see exactly what you are purchasing and what the limitations are. Nobody is making you buy or use software. You don't need to play the latest games right when they come out. You can use your consumer power to buy software that is consumer friendly, whatever that is. Using the legal process to modify optional contracts is not the way to do it.
 
You talk about "should", "not time limited", etc. If you look at the licensing agreement of most any software you will see exactly what you are purchasing and what the limitations are. Nobody is making you buy or use software. You don't need to play the latest games right when they come out. You can use your consumer power to buy software that is consumer friendly, whatever that is. Using the legal process to modify optional contracts is not the way to do it.

What they write in the EULA of a software is ultimately meaningless. The actual laws always take precedence. They can only diverge from what the law requires in favor of the customer.

That's how customer rights work in my country.

They try to spin it as if you were a subscriber and not a customer, but that just wouldn't stand for a physical software product you pick off the shelf in a store.
 
So what's next? Go to the theater and watch a movie and demand the Blu Ray copy because I paid for it?

I'm sure you can find a better analogy.

Because, you know... you can resell Blue Ray copies. But you can't resell computer videogames because they are tied to your Steam account. At the same time, you can resell console video games non stop.

So why can't I sell my steam games when everybody else can sell their shit?

As for video games, they are priced for individual ownership, this is why we see games being priced as they are, the price coming down after awhile, and they go on sale too. If people can easily trade them online with a few clicks, it will affect the market because we'll be in a situation where a large portion of users obtain their games through used market, due to how easy and accessible online reselling is.

As a result, the industry will be forced to react. We may see games moving towards online F2P, cloud gaming, we'll no longer see games going on sale, the industry may even be discouraged to make their games available on PC platform.

Except you are wrong.

The console market is far far far bigger than the computer one, regarding videogames. Its also growing... AND you can resell anything you want.

See the flaw in your argument? How is it different to go to Gamestop and trade your console Call of Duty copy than to trade your Steam Call of Duty copy? It isn't... well, shit, it is because the Steam copy can't be resold. And should ever Steam crap out we have lost the game and all our libraries.

This will go absolutely nowhere. Before you join Steam and BEFORE you play the games you purchase on steam you have to agree to a licencing agreement. You give up your "digital rights" at that moment.

In the USA, you might.

In Europe, EULA and TOS can't ever collide with local law, or they are nullified.

Many game that had a cd key (even back in the 90's) that had any sort of multiplayer it used the cd key to tie it to that and check it.

So if you bought a game like say, Half life for instance, you used the cd key to go online and things.

If you then sold it to someone else and they used the same cd key you had used, it wouldn't work.


At least that's how I remember them working.

ONe of the reasons stores like gamestop/babbages wouldn't take them back, because they had no way of knowing if you had used the key or "copied" it down and thus if they resold it to someone else they might not even be able to use it because you used it.

You remember it wrong, then.

I know because my copy of Half Life is second hand. And so is my copy of Warcraft 3: the frozen throne. both second hand, both working, though if you want to play some multiplayer with half life you have to use steam. Suffice to stay that I registered the serial for my 2nd hand half life and had no problems with it.

I would agree but.... that's why most software are now running on the licenses, so you aren't buying it, you are eliciting a service. And sure, you could make the first sale doctrine apply to software, but then software will be close to "priceless" making it not a viable way to make a living.

Software was always license based. IE you owned the disc, not the software itself.
 
People buy used computer games?

Sure. Ever heard of Gamestop?

Me, I don't care either way. The point of Steam for me is to get games at dirt cheap prices when they're on sale. You won't ever catch me paying $49 or $69 for games. Hell, I haven't bought games over $12 for a very long time.
 
I'm definitely on the side of reselling Steam games and have been since the beginning. This whole issue of eliminating the doctrine of first sale over the last decade by making everything a "limited license, not a purchase" is customer-hostile. Digital game resales could be a success for everyone, customer included, if it was done right and Steam is likely the best place to start. Secondary sales is where Steam (and developers) should make some additional cash, not paid mods!

Steam has an account system, large user community, APIs like Steamworks, gifting, and even user-offered item marketplaces. All they would need to do is enable the ability to "deauthorize" a game from a player's Library and allow it to be "repacked" into their inventory. Once there it could be unpacked/authorized onto the account again and consumed, or gifted/sold. The user could then put the item up for sale on the player/secondary market, which would be visible from the primary game sale page (similar to how Amazon/Newegg show both local prices and those from third party sellers). When a sale is made, the sale price is split with the majority going to the seller, with cuts going to Valve and the game's developer.

This system benefits all involved if done right, but there are a couple of issues to take into consideration as well. First of all is third party keys/DRM/accounts. Valve can and should mandate that those who publish on the platform without any other DRM/accounts or use Steamworks, make their games "deauthorize" compliant. This is mostly up to Valve as there isn't anything else to contend with. However, those titles that have third party account systems will initially be an issue, but the Steam resale ecosystem will encourage devs/publishers to adapt their in-house accounts to be deauth-compilant. Ideally, this would help if Steam reported when a game that has a third party account system was deauthed, so that the third party could easily deauth it on their system as well (ie. Steam user A has deauthed Game A, so Steam's API contacts Dev A and says "User A with game key XYZ for Game A has deauthed, so rescind key XYZ and make it usable again ") Ideally, with an API to do this automatically, if a developer is willing to build in this module support into their account system, not unlike how third parties already use the SteamAPI and share info securely. Likewise, both Steam and third parties can still maintain region locks on given keys and this info will be listed in public when making a sale. While at first there may be some titles that don't support resale, this could be a push the industry needs to publish with resale in mind.

Some will claim that reselling isn't in the interest of the developers/publishers but I think current circumstances provide strong evidence to refute that. There is plenty of evidence that many titles make great profits not simply during the release window but later on,especially during sales. The volume at sale prices meets and often exceeds full-price new revenue which is one reason that Steam, Humble, GoG and others have been so viable. Thus, the concern about secondary sales cannibalizing primary ones is unlikely for a number of factors. Furthermore, it will give another avenue. If a gamer doesn't want to pay $60 for that AAA title at release, now they have to either wait for a sale or go to a third party avenue of purchase (find someone with discount keys, promo codes, international resellers etc). However, with user-based resales, they're a chance they'll find something at their price point eventually and a portion of that sale will benefit the developer/publisher!

The last element there is at the core of the issue: allowing resale will enable developers (and Valve) to profit over and over again from the same item. Note that this is a BETTER deal than most physical resale conditions. Consider stores like Gamestop that pretty much act as middlemen, where you can sell your used games to them at a pittance, which they then mark the hell out of it and resell themselves - developers/publishers get nothing, users get near nothing, and the middlemen take it all. Thus, it is lucrative for Steam (and others) to do it right AND the user community hold them to it. Users should definitely get at least 75% of the sale price of a game, with Valve and the developers taking a share of the remaining 25%. Valve could also give up some/all of their share if users agree to be paid via Steam Credit (since said credit is going to be used for further purchases on Steam) or use transaction methods with little to no processing costs like Bitcoin/DASH. I think the players will be onboard with such an arrangement, and most likely Valve too (provided they not demand a larger slice). Publishers need to look past a small percentage and realize that they're tapping into a huge market and essentially selling the same item (that costs nothing to duplicate yet its scarcity is intact due to the key only being held by one person at a time) over and over again in perpetuity!

If done correctly, such a marketplace will be beneficial to all involved and would transform resale of digital goods.
 
Are you insane? Profit over and over from the same item? It is a digital good. There is no "item". The costs incurred are the same for them whether they are getting full price on a first sale, or allowing the second buyer to download the game again. What you are saying only makes the slightest sense if you are talking about a hard copy.

It will not be done right. It can not be. Used sales of digital goods, even if you are giving the dev a cut, does one thing only, reduce revenue for the dev compared to full and even sale pricing on steam. Beneficial to Steam and some consumers in the short term at best, as some devs inevitably decide that they will not make enough to make it worth their time to bother and move on.
 
You know what, Steam should agree to this. Then, make it so they can only download it once and have it locked to their computer. Then if they delete it, it's gone for good. If their computer gets corrupted, it's gone. What? move it or copy to a new computer, sorry it's locked.

Want to treat it like a product? Then go all the way.
 
I don't care about reselling Steam games because I'm not one of those chodes buying new releases for 60 bucks.
 
Are you insane? Profit over and over from the same item? It is a digital good. There is no "item". The costs incurred are the same for them whether they are getting full price on a first sale, or allowing the second buyer to download the game again. What you are saying only makes the slightest sense if you are talking about a hard copy.

It will not be done right. It can not be. Used sales of digital goods, even if you are giving the dev a cut, does one thing only, reduce revenue for the dev compared to full and even sale pricing on steam. Beneficial to Steam and some consumers in the short term at best, as some devs inevitably decide that they will not make enough to make it worth their time to bother and move on.

Of course there is an item involved.

And no idea why many people talk about reduced revenue when console games can be resold... and games like GTA V have sold more than 45.000.000 units. I'll say it again: 45M, and the game can be resold without a hiccup.

Are you that sure that resale affects overall sold units? I'm pretty certain in the big scheme of things it doesn't.

All in all, for now, courts have decided that although digital software should be resold... they can't enforce the companies to modify their DRM systems in order to allow that. But time will come when the first sale doctrine will be enforced along the whole spectrum.

Or... on the other hand, everything will be license based. Do you imagine how fun it would be to be sold a car that is license based? "Oh, you own the car, but not the software that makes it work, so you can't resell it". Well, this is the same as with the digital games and the computers: a huge pile of bullshit. And let me tell you something else: revenue will not hurt one bit from it. On the other hand, we will hugely benefit.
 
Truly what it the difference between, art, software, car, or house. Why should one item have a different rights then another product. Someone still has put their time and design ideas into the product. You should have the ability to resell and object after you purchase it.
You sell your house or car when you are done using it or want something different. Why shouldn't you be able to sell your software that you purchased and no longer have a use for it.
 
Of course there is an item involved.

And no idea why many people talk about reduced revenue when console games can be resold... and games like GTA V have sold more than 45.000.000 units. I'll say it again: 45M, and the game can be resold without a hiccup.

Are you that sure that resale affects overall sold units? I'm pretty certain in the big scheme of things it doesn't.

All in all, for now, courts have decided that although digital software should be resold... they can't enforce the companies to modify their DRM systems in order to allow that. But time will come when the first sale doctrine will be enforced along the whole spectrum.

Or... on the other hand, everything will be license based. Do you imagine how fun it would be to be sold a car that is license based? "Oh, you own the car, but not the software that makes it work, so you can't resell it". Well, this is the same as with the digital games and the computers: a huge pile of bullshit. And let me tell you something else: revenue will not hurt one bit from it. On the other hand, we will hugely benefit.
Well your point on the restrictive DRM bullshit is definitely valid, but I'm not convinced it will have no impact at all. Afterall, I think that's what's behind games on Steam being so cheap. For people buying buying games new, it probably doesn't make much difference, but for people looking for deals, it makes a big difference.

If you buy a game that used to be $60 a couple years later for $2 on sale, that's still $2 more than the developer was making before. If you buy a recently used game for $40, the developer makes nothing from that. It's kind of win-win really. Consumers get cheaper games, developers make more money.

The part that is NOT good, as you mentioned DRM determining if you can play your game or not. Outside of protecting initial sales, that crap just needs to die.
 
Truly what it the difference between, art, software, car, or house. Why should one item have a different rights then another product. Someone still has put their time and design ideas into the product. You should have the ability to resell and object after you purchase it.
You sell your house or car when you are done using it or want something different. Why shouldn't you be able to sell your software that you purchased and no longer have a use for it.
One is a physical item that used limited resources to make. The other one is intangible and can be reproduced into infinity. This isn't an argument for physical media though. Physical PC games ironically are just pretending to embody the qualities of a physical product, when functionally no different from digital DRM copies.
 
Well your point on the restrictive DRM bullshit is definitely valid, but I'm not convinced it will have no impact at all. Afterall, I think that's what's behind games on Steam being so cheap. For people buying buying games new, it probably doesn't make much difference, but for people looking for deals, it makes a big difference.

If you buy a game that used to be $60 a couple years later for $2 on sale, that's still $2 more than the developer was making before. If you buy a recently used game for $40, the developer makes nothing from that. It's kind of win-win really. Consumers get cheaper games, developers make more money.

The part that is NOT good, as you mentioned DRM determining if you can play your game or not. Outside of protecting initial sales, that crap just needs to die.

Well, with Steam we could very well argue that publishers save a ton of money because:

a) You avoid ever printing the game on a disc, and the box, and the case.

b) You avoid logistics.

c) You avoid intermediaries.

To me, that must be a ton of money. And all in all... Steam games are... what? $10 cheaper than retail?

Still, I can tell you I have never resold a game. I still have games such as Mafia, Half Life and many others that I have no intention to sell. And I believe many people does the same. I don't know. It would be interesting to check the console market (cause everything can be resold) to analyze what % of total sales is ever resold. Though I doubt we will ever find such statistic. But I doubt its a very important %.
 
Well, with Steam we could very well argue that publishers save a ton of money because:

a) You avoid ever printing the game on a disc, and the box, and the case.

b) You avoid logistics.

c) You avoid intermediaries.

To me, that must be a ton of money. And all in all... Steam games are... what? $10 cheaper than retail?

Still, I can tell you I have never resold a game. I still have games such as Mafia, Half Life and many others that I have no intention to sell. And I believe many people does the same. I don't know. It would be interesting to check the console market (cause everything can be resold) to analyze what % of total sales is ever resold. Though I doubt we will ever find such statistic. But I doubt its a very important %.

Of course a lot of the time, especially when they're new, Steam games cost the exact same as a retail copy - and of course there's the increasingly common phenomenon where you buy a physical copy of a game in a physical store and all you get is a steam code anyway.
 
You do realize you can create a custom list and hide the game to that list. I do it all the time for things I haven't played in years. Or set the view of your library to only show things that are "installed"

That doesn't help me, though. I don't want the games tied to my account anymore, at all, in any way, shape, or form. I want them gone from the history of my purchases, never to be ever uttered as being owned by me, ever. Why? Because they are that horrible in my personal opinion, that they aren't even worth trying for a very belated refund.


Thank you so much. You saved two kittens from being thwomped.
 
Still no answer lol. No worries, people who have been following this know you're a special little snowflake. If you think you've won inside your tiny mind, then there's no arguing with you. Night night, potato.
 
Of course there is an item involved.

And no idea why many people talk about reduced revenue when console games can be resold... and games like GTA V have sold more than 45.000.000 units. I'll say it again: 45M, and the game can be resold without a hiccup.

Are you that sure that resale affects overall sold units? I'm pretty certain in the big scheme of things it doesn't.

All in all, for now, courts have decided that although digital software should be resold... they can't enforce the companies to modify their DRM systems in order to allow that. But time will come when the first sale doctrine will be enforced along the whole spectrum.

Or... on the other hand, everything will be license based. Do you imagine how fun it would be to be sold a car that is license based? "Oh, you own the car, but not the software that makes it work, so you can't resell it". Well, this is the same as with the digital games and the computers: a huge pile of bullshit. And let me tell you something else: revenue will not hurt one bit from it. On the other hand, we will hugely benefit.

Using a game like GTA 5 as a benchmark isn't necessarily a true reflection of the market ... most games sell thousands, tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of copies, not millions ... it doesn't take much of a market shift for that model to become unsustainable (look at the denigration applied to indie titles by so many gamers) ... also, a game like GTA5 cost in the vicinity of 200 million to make and market (they need lots of sales to recover those costs)

As to the analogy of true physical sales (cars, boats, houses, etc) those items have a built in DRM system (I can't sell you my car and continue to drive it as the ownership has completely transferred) ... if we could come up with a physically keyed DRM system that allowed a complete physical ownership transfer then we might be able to develop a viable digital rights transfer system
 
While reselling Steam games is great for consumer, I really don't think it's fair for the studios and publishers. It's like selling your movie ticket to somebody else after you've already watched it and redeemed 100% of it's value. The only exception I can see with games is if the player has under 2 hours or so.
 
While reselling Steam games is great for consumer, I really don't think it's fair for the studios and publishers. It's like selling your movie ticket to somebody else after you've already watched it and redeemed 100% of it's value. The only exception I can see with games is if the player has under 2 hours or so.

Yet you can do the same thing with a Blu-Ray you bought from Walmart. Would you argue that people shouldn't be able to sell those, either?

By all means, sell your movie ticket to someone else though. As the movie has ended and movie tickets entitle the holder to see a specific movie at a specific time on a specific day, it won't allow the person you've sold it to to do anything at all...so if you can find someone dumb enough to buy a used movie ticket, sell them as many as you can for as much as you can :p
 
Yet you can do the same thing with a Blu-Ray you bought from Walmart. Would you argue that people shouldn't be able to sell those, either

Good point... this is why it's easier if all multimedia was just license-based. When you buy that Blu-Ray, you are buying rights to the movie where it may be streamed in any quality you desire and to any device. If they insist on reselling used Steam games, they need to enforce some kind of regulations like only allowing resale 12-16 months after the purchase when the market value is much lower. Even then, the system right now works especially with Steam family/friends sharing. I don't see reason to change it.

Perhaps there is room for a market of both digital and physical multimedia. For consumers who want to burden themselves with a physical disc can go right ahead and resell. You do see the harm though if digital goods can be resold? I could buy a $60 game, beat it, then sell it for $60. This would be disastrous to any entertainment industry.
 
anon said:
You do see the harm though if digital goods can be resold? I could buy a $60 game, beat it, then sell it for $60. This would be disastrous to any entertainment industry.

The only harm I see is inherent to the fact that there's no value to be had outside of the game itself...such that a used copy is no different to the end user than a new copy. I'm not sure how to solve that problem when it comes to digital goods but I also don't see how it's anything but a problem that publishers have created themselves. I remember when buying a "collectors edition" meant getting more than a few jpeg "posters"(which probably can't be printed at poster-size because they're too low-res) and an mp3 "soundtrack".

Regardless, I don't see that it would be "disastrous". The only games it would be "disastrous" for would be the ones that aren't worth holding onto for longer than one play through...the games that make you think "Time to get rid of this shit for something better" and not "That was great, maybe I'll play it again sometime". If those games faced some sort of disaster, well, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.
 
adjusted -
You do see the harm though if lamps can be resold? I could buy a $60 lamp, use it, then sell it for $60. This would be disastrous to any illumination industry.

Still missing how a product being digitally delivered makes it different from anything we've bought/sold before. Except now we have the ability to add this DRM to make it possible to enforce this model. I'm sure the lamp industry would want everyone to buy their own lamps if they could, but it doesn't mean it's a good idea.
 
I could buy a $60 game, beat it, then sell it for $60. This would be disastrous to any entertainment industry.

I'm sorry, who have you found that will pay full new price for your used goods? You must be like... the eBay magician. Would you like to buy my used car with 135,000 miles for the full retail price of $38,000? Your idea, not mine!

No one will buy your used game for $60. They'll buy it for less, hence the used games market. And this serves as ancillary competition for production companies to make sure their prices aren't so ridiculous that they push customers into the used games lane. Most people want to buy new things, unless the prices are too high and they then start looking at used things.

Just look at eBay for the sheer number of things on this planet that you can buy and re-sell. Including entertainment devices and media.

Saying that all of the sudden *poof* re-selling things has somehow become disastrous for <insert industry here> makes zero sense. People have been buying and re-selling since before currency existed.
 
I could buy a $60 game, beat it, then sell it for $60. This would be disastrous to any entertainment industry.

Except that console gamers can literally do that with most existing titles if they forego online play. I bought lots of PS3 games used on eBay, played them, and then ebayed them right back at a loss if a few (literally, few) dollars. Somehow, magically, the people making PS3 games are still in business.

Still, Steam reselling doesn't mean much to me since I don't buy full price games. In addition I just tested the Steam refund for the first time and it worked flawlessly. As long as you don't have more than 2 hours of gametime in Steam will refund any purchase for any reason.
 
adjusted -

Still missing how a product being digitally delivered makes it different from anything we've bought/sold before. Except now we have the ability to add this DRM to make it possible to enforce this model. I'm sure the lamp industry would want everyone to buy their own lamps if they could, but it doesn't mean it's a good idea.
I see what you're saying, but I don't think it is a fair comparison.
 
I'm sorry, who have you found that will pay full new price for your used goods? You must be like... the eBay magician. Would you like to buy my used car with 135,000 miles for the full retail price of $38,000? Your idea, not mine!

No one will buy your used game for $60. They'll buy it for less, hence the used games market. And this serves as ancillary competition for production companies to make sure their prices aren't so ridiculous that they push customers into the used games lane. Most people want to buy new things, unless the prices are too high and they then start looking at used things.
Thank you for bringing up a used car analogy -- it actually helps prove my point! Digital goods don't lose value when they've been "used", which is precisely why they need to follow a different market model. A used car (or electronics) for instance have LIMITED lifespans, whereas digital goods are INFINITE. Tangible goods that physically DEGRADE from use. Understanding this difference is the key to seeing why they need to be treated differently.
 
To me, that must be a ton of money. And all in all... Steam games are... what? $10 cheaper than retail?

.

Actually new AAA games are 15-20 more on steam than retail in EU. That means it's worth it to print a localized case, a manual, actually manufactre the discs, distribute it, and still include a cut for the retailer for around € 40-45. So imagine how much they make on games sold on steam for €60.
 
Except that console gamers can literally do that with most existing titles if they forego online play. I bought lots of PS3 games used on eBay, played them, and then ebayed them right back at a loss if a few (literally, few) dollars. Somehow, magically, the people making PS3 games are still in business.
The console industry is only still in business because most people aren't taking the time to sell their games. You also have to consider the fact that selling physical game copies dramatically slows down the used game market because you have to prepare and ship items. Imagine if reselling a Steam game were as easy as sending it as an email attachment with no strings attached? You don't see how this system would be horribly abused? The industry might still make money, but they would be losing out on a huge chunk of profit.
 
Thank you for bringing up a used car analogy -- it actually helps prove my point! Digital goods don't lose value when they've been "used", which is precisely why they need to follow a different market model. A used car (or electronics) for instance have LIMITED lifespans, whereas digital goods are INFINITE. Tangible goods that physically DEGRADE from use. Understanding this difference is the key to seeing why they need to be treated differently.

The car analogy is a bad one because by using the product you are actively destroying it. It's just a fact of anything with a motor in it. Change the object for sale out for something that generally does not, such as a lamp or book, and then you have a closer comparison.

Digital goods do have limited lifespans. You usually can not use old software as easily as when you bought it new. Much like restoring an old radio or lamp, you have to jack around with emulators, abandoned operating systems, or work with the software to port it to current platforms (should you be fortunate enough to have access to the source code.)
 
Yet you can do the same thing with a Blu-Ray you bought from Walmart. Would you argue that people shouldn't be able to sell those, either?

unless it is a direct to disk movie the blu-ray will already have collected the majority of potential profit through a theatrical release. You have two options. You can go see the movie at release or you can wait 6 months for the blu-ray release.
 
The car analogy is a bad one because by using the product you are actively destroying it. It's just a fact of anything with a motor in it. Change the object for sale out for something that generally does not, such as a lamp or book, and then you have a closer comparison.
I don't think a lamp is comparable either because it can develop scuffs and become faulty over time. There's also a key difference in the way it is used. Lamps will often be used regularly over the course of many years, whereas entertainment media is consumed in a short period and often never touched again. Also, when you are done with a lamp, you can't teleport it anywhere in the world instantly like digital goods.

Digital goods do have limited lifespans. You usually can not use old software as easily as when you bought it new. Much like restoring an old radio or lamp, you have to jack around with emulators, abandoned operating systems, or work with the software to port it to current platforms (should you be fortunate enough to have access to the source code.)
I don't think this argument is valid because it takes SEVERAL years for digital goods to get to a point where they are no longer natively supported on a system. Long before then, the market value of the item is usually dirt.
 
You don't see how this system would be horribly abused?

You mean like the refund system? Everyone said exactly the same thing about the refunds "People will just buy a game and beat it and then refund it!" and yet here we are, Steam and the publishers who sell their games there still turning a profit, game designers and artists still employed...
 
You mean like the refund system? Everyone said exactly the same thing about the refunds "People will just buy a game and beat it and then refund it!" and yet here we are, Steam and the publishers who sell their games there still turning a profit, game designers and artists still employed...
Are you serious? Steam and publishers are still in business because games take more than a couple hours to beat. I feel like people are willing to say anything to win this argument.
 
Are you serious? Steam and publishers are still in business because games take more than a couple hours to beat. I feel like people are willing to say anything to win this argument.

The point is that people made all kinds of doom&gloom predictions about the refund policy and none of that came true either. The idea that allowing games to be resold would meaningfully hurt the profits enjoyed by the video-game industry isn't something that lines up with reality. You can argue against that if you want, but you don't have a single real-world example to back you up. It's all "the sky is falling" nonsense.
 
The idea that allowing games to be resold would meaningfully hurt the profits enjoyed by the video-game industry isn't something that lines up with reality. You can argue against that if you want, but you don't have a single real-world example to back you up.
I need a real-world example to prove why reselling used Steam games wouldn't be abused without restrictions? I don't have any real-world examples because nobody has been foolish enough to allow such transactions in the first place because the abuse potential is already so blatantly obvious.
 
Back
Top