Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

French court rules Steam should allow resale of digital games, Valve will appeal

mogwaimon

Magister
Joined
Jul 21, 2017
Messages
1,079
They don't even need to provide keys for the games, do they? They can just add a function to convert a game in your library into a Steam Gift, allow gifts to be traded on the marketplace, and then allow Steam Wallet funds to be withdrawn to a debit card/Paypal account. Maybe put a limit on it so it can only be done like, once a year or something so it doesn't get abused (easily, mind you, people would just create alts if they 'really' wanted to but that's a pain in the ass)

I guess it all comes down to the wording of the verdict. Yes, Steam will have to allow resale if the appeal falls through, but that doesn't mean they have to allow resale outside of their ecosystem, does it? Would help if the normal transaction fee goes to the original devs of the game instead of Valve, too, or at least a portion of the fee, then everyone wins.
 

mogwaimon

Magister
Joined
Jul 21, 2017
Messages
1,079
Well, many of us do have a vested interest in Valve continuing to be a successful company, considering a good portion of us have libraries of games on their service. If I was at all concerned about protecting my rights (in this specific case) to resell my games/property, I would buy physical which I already do for console games whenever I can avoid digital. I also don't view my games as investments, since when I buy a game I am less concerned about its resale value and more concerned with its intrinsic value to me as a gamer. If I wanted to make a purchase that would appreciate in value or offer a return on investment, I'd look into stocks, bonds, or real estate instead.
 

Efe

Erudite
Joined
Dec 27, 2015
Messages
2,597
what is illegal about vac ban?
it works per game basis and if you cheat you deserve that ban.
 

J1M

Arcane
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
14,616
I don't think cheaters should lose access to their games, they should just have to play on servers with other cheaters. :smug:
 

saeci

Arcane
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
371
What valve is doing is called adhesion contract. These type of contracts used to be heavily scrutinized and voided because of unequal negotiating power, unfair terms, etc.. you could call it a slave contract. I say used to because these things happened when West wasn't run by lunatics. I doubt Frenchies can anything substantial, these contracts are everywhere and abused heavily, facebook can ban your stalking accounts, banks freeze your balance for hitler speak, even codex made you sign one - you're a fucking slave.
 

Mortmal

Arcane
Joined
Jun 15, 2009
Messages
9,158
Dexter it has been ruled by court the vac ban system is illegal , banning people over behaviors was too vague. If you cant read french and dont trust me ask some other french or israeli codexer to do it for you.
 

Gerrard

Arcane
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
11,929
I'm not aware of any other entertainment medium that coddles the buyer to such an extent. There are no free dramatic readings of the latest books, no 'Let's Watch' videos of the latest movies on youtube etc. Yet somehow this isn't enough?
LOL. Also "Let's Play's" are customers making use of another one of their rights and not something that "the industry" is doing, it's called "Fair Use" and has also been hard-fought and still causes problems with some publishers.
You can't be fucking serious. Put up an entire movie up on youtube with your commentary and it's going to be fair use as well?
 

Dexter

Arcane
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
15,655
Not only that, the VAC ban is illegal as well.
VAC bans don't prevent people or accounts from playing games (not even Online), they just limit/restrict their Online playing capabilities to play on servers that have VAC disabled and with other VAC banned people. As such, I don't see what would be "illegal" about them. Other developers banning people from playing their bought games over using swear words or removing their ability to play their bought games might be, but Valve has been very careful to never truly disable Steam accounts or the ability of people to play their games unless it's actual fraud (even when payment gets retracted, they usually just "limit" the account so that someone can't buy more games).

If I was at all concerned about protecting my rights (in this specific case) to resell my games/property, I would buy physical which I already do for console games whenever I can avoid digital.
It's mostly about your right to Ownership over what you buy. The right to resell what you own arises directly from it. If you own something, you should be able to resell it, if you don't then you can't.

Valve is trying to claim that you are (legally) just a "Subscriber" to their "Subscription service" and what you are purchasing is "Subscriptions". It's not only about Valve though, the same can be said for E-books bought from Amazon or music from iTunes or whatever. There seem to be an awful lot of people here putting their hands up and yelling "I bought this/paid full money for it, but I don't actually own it and <Service provider> can always retract my right to use it for any reason whatsoever! Yessir!".

The legal status being what it is, I don't see a way that any EU court (and many courts in most Western countries outside of the US) will agree that someone can purchase a product, pay the full price upfront, enter a purchase agreement like they used to at the store and gets to play what they acquired for an unlimited amount of time, but that he hasn't actually bought the product, but just a "Subscription" to it, that can be retracted at any time for almost any reason whatsoever. There's just no way this will be justified under current consumer laws, and it's really just a matter of time.
 
Joined
Sep 7, 2013
Messages
6,165
PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire Serpent in the Staglands Bubbles In Memoria A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire
The number of people in this thread that are more concerned about Valve's profits than their consumer rights is mind boggling. And more and more keep coming out of the woodwork. People who are sure unless they let Valve do whatever Valve wants to do to them to maximize the money they make video games will surely end.

Is Valve running some kind of cult or something?

While theoretically manageable, the risks are (a) Steam can't compete with selling new copies next to infinite digital resales and PC gaming goes into recession again due to massively declining profits (b) Steam transitions to a legal subscription based services that is basically like cable -- you subscribe to bundles where you get a bunch of crap (a given publisher's games) in exchange for the handful of things you do want.

Neither is really a desirable option compared to the status quo and its generous Steam sales.
 
Last edited:

taxalot

I'm a spicy fellow.
Patron
Joined
Oct 28, 2010
Messages
9,613
Location
Your wallet.
Codex 2013 PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015
There is a second hand market for everything. Absolutely everything. Cars. Houses. Computers. Phones. Clothes. Every day appliances.

But video games ? Oh boy, that'd be problematic. The editors have actually managed to make people believe that second hand games could "harm" the industry. That's how many fucking pills some of you guys have swallowed.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
50,754
Codex Year of the Donut
Valve is trying to claim that you are (legally) just a "Subscriber" to their "Subscription service" and what you are purchasing is "Subscriptions". It's not only about Valve though, the same can be said for E-books bought from Amazon or music from iTunes or whatever. There seem to be an awful lot of people here putting their hands up and yelling "I bought this/paid full money for it, but I don't actually own it and <Service provider> can always retract my right to use it for any reason whatsoever!".
Misconstruing our argument.
The problem is that very few people will ever buy games at full price, and a lot of people will simply buy used keys that are sold & resold.
And no, there isn't an analogue to this in physical media. In this scenario, you would be able to resell a key with a few clicks. It is a perfect copy of the exact same item you'd receive if you paid full price, without any inconveniences for the buyer or seller.

It's quite obvious that games would immediately shift to games as a service if this was implemented. Things like Stadia would be the new normal. If you think that's an improvement over the current situation then… alright.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
50,754
Codex Year of the Donut
There is a second hand market for everything. Absolutely everything. Cars. Houses. Computers. Phones. Clothes. Every day appliances.

But video games ? Oh boy, that'd be problematic. The editors have actually managed to make people believe that second hand games could "harm" the industry. That's how many fucking pills some of you guys have swallowed.
I wasn't aware that I got a brand new car when I bought a used one.
 

taxalot

I'm a spicy fellow.
Patron
Joined
Oct 28, 2010
Messages
9,613
Location
Your wallet.
Codex 2013 PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015
So you mean it's like books and movies, where for their age of existence people have been trading them legally for same exact copies. And so were physical games, by the way. A wrapper that is slightly worn or a disc hardly scratched is inconsequential.
 

Mortmal

Arcane
Joined
Jun 15, 2009
Messages
9,158
Not only that, the VAC ban is illegal as well.
VAC bans don't prevent people or accounts from playing games (not even Online), they just limit/restrict their Online playing capabilities to play on servers that have VAC disabled and with other VAC banned people. As such, I don't see what would be "illegal" about them. Other developers banning people from playing their bought games over using swear words or removing their ability to play their bought games might be, but Valve has been very careful to never truly disable Steam accounts or the ability of people to play their games unless it's actual fraud (even when payment gets retracted, they usually just "limit" the account so that someone can't buy more games).

If I was at all concerned about protecting my rights (in this specific case) to resell my games/property, I would buy physical which I already do for console games whenever I can avoid digital.
It's mostly about your right to Ownership over what you buy. The right to resell what you own arises directly from it. If you own something, you should be able to resell it, if you don't then you can't.

Valve is trying to claim that you are (legally) just a "Subscriber" to their "Subscription service" and what you are purchasing is "Subscriptions". It's not only about Valve though, the same can be said for E-books bought from Amazon or music from iTunes or whatever. There seem to be an awful lot of people here putting their hands up and yelling "I bought this/paid full money for it, but I don't actually own it and <Service provider> can always retract my right to use it for any reason whatsoever! Yessir!".

The legal status being what it is, I don't see a way that any EU court (and many courts in most Western countries outside of the US) will agree that someone can purchase a product, pay the full price upfront, enter a purchase agreement like they used to at the store and gets to play what they acquired for an unlimited amount of time, but that he hasn't actually bought the product, but just a "Subscription" to it, that can be retracted at any time for almost any reason whatsoever. There's just no way this will be justified under current consumer laws, and it's really just a matter of time.

Godamnit , steam policies has been judged by an european court of law as being abusive, they are bullshit. No one is asking about anyone's opinion, those are the judged facts, the law of the real world! They have to comply with it and write it on their frontpage.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
50,754
Codex Year of the Donut
So you mean it's like books and movies, where for their age of existence people have been trading them legally for same exact copies. And so were physical games, by the way. A wrapper that is slightly worn or a disc hardly scratched is inconsequential.
There are physical barriers to trading physical media that you're purposely ignoring because it doesn't fit your argument.
I can't sell someone 3,000 miles away a book and have them receive it immediately with zero effort on my end. I have to deal with packaging and shipping the item, and question if it's even worth my time to sell a $10 used book.
 

taxalot

I'm a spicy fellow.
Patron
Joined
Oct 28, 2010
Messages
9,613
Location
Your wallet.
Codex 2013 PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015
So you mean it's like books and movies, where for their age of existence people have been trading them legally for same exact copies. And so were physical games, by the way. A wrapper that is slightly worn or a disc hardly scratched is inconsequential.
There are physical barriers to trading physical media that you're purposely ignoring because it doesn't fit your argument.
I can't sell someone 3,000 miles away a book and have them receive it immediately with zero effort on my end. I have to deal with packaging and shipping the item, and question if it's even worth my time to sell a $10 used book.

And yet millions are doing it, having an actual impact on the economics of said media distribution.
 

taxalot

I'm a spicy fellow.
Patron
Joined
Oct 28, 2010
Messages
9,613
Location
Your wallet.
Codex 2013 PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015
When Valve finds out they can sell the game twice with paying the editor only once, you BET they are going to find a solution.
 

taxalot

I'm a spicy fellow.
Patron
Joined
Oct 28, 2010
Messages
9,613
Location
Your wallet.
Codex 2013 PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015
When Valve finds out they can sell the game twice with paying the editor only once, you BET they are going to find a solution.
The solution will likely result in you getting a tiny cut, with the rest going to valve and the publishers.

The publishers will get nothing. You will sell it, Steam will get their comission because you sell it on their platform and you are actually using their service, but since the license usage rights are yours and not the publishers anymore, those will get nothing. Same way if you sell a product on eBay. If the publishers get something out of a second hand sale, then it's not a second hand sale anymore.
 

attackfighter

Magister
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
2,307
taxalot

"So you mean it's like books and movies, where for their age of existence people have been trading them legally for same exact copies. And so were physical games, by the way. A wrapper that is slightly worn or a disc hardly scratched is inconsequential."

Games were more expensive back in the day where you could trade them, though. When I was a kid, I thought it was a great deal to purchase a bundle of three outdated games at blockbuster for $15 total. These days, such deals are extremely commonplace and it's only really a steal if you can get a specific game you want for $1-2.

I think digital media is responsible for this, allowing producers to supply better and more goods while still recouping the cost. Making the system less profitable for the producers would be reflected in some way in the supply of goods for the consumers, making them more expensive, less plentiful, less convenient, or something else.

That's just a logical consequence of supply and demand economics; in a competitive market, suppliers will compete each other's profits margins down as low as possible, so any additional costs they incur will be transferred to consumers. I'm a consumer and I don't want to pay additional costs unless they come with perks which are of commensurate value, and I don't deem re-sellability to be of commensurate value, so that's why I don't view this development as ideal.

Admittedly, I may be exaggerating (to myself) the significance of this development. I.e. it might only moderately affect prices and such, not catastrophically. But I hope you can understand the rationale behind my view.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom