Установить Steam
войти
|
язык
简体中文 (упрощенный китайский)
繁體中文 (традиционный китайский)
日本語 (японский)
한국어 (корейский)
ไทย (тайский)
Български (болгарский)
Čeština (чешский)
Dansk (датский)
Deutsch (немецкий)
English (английский)
Español - España (испанский)
Español - Latinoamérica (латиноам. испанский)
Ελληνικά (греческий)
Français (французский)
Italiano (итальянский)
Bahasa Indonesia (индонезийский)
Magyar (венгерский)
Nederlands (нидерландский)
Norsk (норвежский)
Polski (польский)
Português (португальский)
Português-Brasil (бразильский португальский)
Română (румынский)
Suomi (финский)
Svenska (шведский)
Türkçe (турецкий)
Tiếng Việt (вьетнамский)
Українська (украинский)
Сообщить о проблеме с переводом
Тема закрыта 
Автор обсуждения пометил сообщение как ответ на свой вопрос.
Правила обсуждений
Пожаловаться
That isn't an issue with the proposal I made because that actually does nothing to bypass all fees since in my example there is a 2nd-hand license activation fee, which would catch all of the shares of a game between your friends.
And a 2nd-hand license activation fee could be made the biggest of all involved fees.
BTW, about enabling you to bypass all fees to let a group of your friends play a game you own... Steam already offers family-sharing of your games, which allows you to let any number of your friends play your Steam games without paying for it.
If platforms facilitate people's right to resell games even while taking a high fee, then they are not interfering with people's ability to resell their game. They are only reducing how profitable it is for them.
Also, activating a 2nd-hand license isn't selling a game. And 2nd-have license activation fees are not a new thing, and neither are very high 2nd-hand license activation. For example, Gamestop was reportedly paying a 2nd-hand license activation fee of $52 for every used Xbox One game they sold:
Xbox One Used Game Activation Fee Is $52?[www.cinemablend.com]
A for-profit business cannot be expected to provide a service that incurs cost without payment. So, it can be confidently said that the Paris court ruling is not prohibiting service fees on the reselling of games. But regardless, at the time of activation of a 2nd-hand license could if wanted, be where all the fees are collected.
And the example you gave of fees being higher than the new price of a game is unrealistic and would be seen as exploitative. If you're going to argue, you'll have to do it within what is plausible.
It wouldn't matter how many further people your ticket was resold to because in the end, before any single one of them can play it, they'll have to activate it with a platform where they can download it from, and when they do that they'd have to pay a 2nd-hand license activation fee, which would put money back into the revenue stream of the platform and the game's publisher.
Currently, when you buy a game key, can it be activated anywhere or does it have to be activated on the platform it is for? When we buy a boxed game that has maybe a Steam license, a Uplay license, or an EGS license, the license can't be activated anywhere except on the platform it is for. So, by the licensing system that currently exists, the resales and 2nd-hand purchases would unavoidably have to go through the platform systems and incur their fees before being usable by a 2nd-hand buyer.
Which goes in hand with the VZVB vs Valve lawsuit in Germany. Videogames are meant to be under the jurisdtiction of the copyright directive (As books, movies or music) instead of being under the software directive.
Games are in a kind of special place since the content and the delivery method are too intertwinded to tell appart one of the other.
It's media delivered through a software wrapper or it's software used to deliver media?
It's a real tricky question with lots of rammifications. Taking a definitive rule in either sense is not to be take lightly (Rule of thumb, the internet makes for horrendous lawmaking advice) And that two different countries on the European Union reached polar opposite conclussions means a right answer is way way ahead of us yet and is going to be a headache for lawmakers for years.
The ruling leaves too little room for services to charge for things like 'transfer ownership' IMO.
But even when charging transfer fees might be out of the question it doesn't imply the process has to be easy and frictionless.
Services could pretty much treat ownership exchange in the same way Steam takes deleting an account. A long process full of safeguards (to avoid a toxic part to cause damage to an account) and verifications before the transfer happens.
It could pretty much take you 30 days and several back & forths with support to have a license you want to resell 'detached' from your account.
Also...What does a VAC Ban stick to? The account? The license?... More questions than answers.
It's not a 'doomsday' scenario.
I believe most people warning of it are picturing more of an 'The outcomes won't likely be the ones you expect from this' than a 'OMG games will stop being produced and the gaming industry will crash' doom and gloom picture.
Business models will adapt to an enviroment where the game license is transferable to keep the revenue stream. And these new business models might end up being not up the taste of some of people eager for this change to happen.
It won't for everyone though.
I'm pretty sure there's out there people happy with the idea of GaaS becoming reality. Or paying for a monthly fee or MTXs for whenever they want to play insteado of paying for a fuill license.
In any case the scenario won't be the actual one. and that's the warning some are making.
I & another user presented 2 similar but different ideas in the topic. As far as I'm aware, you're the first person to point out this perspective.
Where our perspectives were different from yours was the idea that MAYBE Valve would say, "We have no intention of stopping people from reselling their games but we also don't have a responsibility to facilitate it." My perspective of this possibility specifically noted that they'd have to concede that people can sell their accounts - in France.
This isn't selling individual games, no... but that's just not how the platform works - however, it COULD BE, with no extra effort. Customers are already afforded every opportunity to create an alternate account for every game that they buy & in this scenario, that would allow them to sell them individually. They'd have the OPPORTUNITY to go this route... but I guarantee you, most people aren't going to put in that level of effort to make a quick buck when they're done playing.
I'm really glad that you brought up the perspective that you did actually because this is what I had in mind but no one, not even I, had voiced yet. Your perspective (appears to) takes on the side of large fees for using an EXTRA service implemented by Valve to facilitate those transactions via Steam in the form of classifieds or the Community Market.
Now... as long as they allowed resale of accounts in France and left it to the customer to figure out how to make those sales without Valve, I see no reason why huge fees for a Valve implemented facilitation of resale would be a problem. Because there would be a non-fee way that customers would be able to use to resell games on their own, therefore, technically charging HUGE fees to facilitate that service shouldn't be in violation of the court-ruling. (but only if they allow resale of accounts, that does not require Valve facilitation, in France)
Sorry, but the only person trying to bias this conversation is yourself. I mean your actually spreading fake information that never happened in a sad effort to perpetuate your idea and then attacking people who don't agree with you.....
In fact your article on the supposed xbox one pricing scheme that mimics your scheme supports what most of us have been saying. It's extremely anti consumer and there was a reason microsoft abandoned it and never went thru with it.
None of that ever occurred and was scrapped before launch for being anti consumer and receiving a MASSIVE amount of bad PR and pushback.
it even states
That was the SUPPOSED policy they were going to implement and then had to quickly do away with because it was not a feasible solution. Last time I checked the Xbox one does not have always on DRM.
Also
Yes you can trade games with your friends on xbox.
and
People who never violated VAC can still get VAC banned if they were linked to another account that gets VAC banned via the Family Sharing feature.
Unless a court says otherwise, I see little reason as to why it shouldn't stick to both. The person who got the ban is basically getting a partial refund for that resale, which they can then turn around and put towards buying the same game again via an alternate account.
ie. in essence, buying a used copy of a VAC enabled game from a VAC banned user supports their ability to violate VAC further.
I was kind of joking at the time that I first presented that idea but the fact of the matter is, this is entirely possible, not dis-similar from existing features - & - a reasonable argument can be made as to why it would protect Valve's services from misuse & cheaters.
People, including the OP are under no obligation to maintain objectivity. The whole point is for people to present a variety of ideas, sometimes taking a side of a controversial issue & sometimes merely considering it.
True, and citing your whole post for full context :)
My point is that we've proven ourselves as customers be it big or small, to be untrustworthy with other people's property in the form of Intellectual Property and honoring copyrights, and that many consumers do today is due to DRM for the most part and yet the variety of conveniences a store offers, well we like to pay for that if we enjoy it. But if the opportunity arose that there were no legal protections for the holders of property in the product I own to have protection in receiving what they rightfully deserve, their incentive to do that again, to make a new processor design to some incredible change in algorithms, or other advances like ray tracing, all disappears because their lives are less comfortable and their minds are too busy spending time on trifles.
Einstein was asked his phone number. He replied, "I don't know it." Interviewer asked how a genius doesn't know his phone number, Einstein replied, "you can look in the phone book for it, I have no need to waste mental energy remembering my phone number." And many who come up with the marvels in computers, who are especially energy conscious, know and apply this to their own lives.
And make no mistake it's not a court ruling on property rights on the behalf of the consumer, but on behalf of taking State Control of that property by supplanting itself as the decider of the rights of the parties. This is the act of control of consumers, the give that we'll look to in excusing their next take from us, when they shouldn't be taking form any of us but what they need for that's their scope and purpose. The controversy will generate a lot of money in the law industry, that's for sure. Amazing they can pass a law, an edict, or a court ruling and in all cases generate more money in the law industry.... But pay no attention to any of that hahaha
That is the CEO of a video games industry lobbyist group. Him saying that is the equivalent of pharmaceutical lobbyist group CEO saying that pharmaceutical prices should be higher, not lower.
Or, it's like an oil company exec saying that the US needs to invade more countries to take over their oil reserves.
It’s also almost the equivalent of Valve’s lawyers saying that they don’t agree with the Paris court ruling.
Or, it’s like a consumer rights group saying that the Paris court ruling upholds EU law.
Pro-industry lobbyist groups exist to push the narrative of the industries big businesses, and to crush any opposing interests, even by use of ridiculous and false arguments.
The German court isn't of a higher stature than the French court.
But, more poignantly your claim suggests to me that you are working from a misunderstanding of what the EU Copyright Directive says, and therefore also of what the VZVB ruling means. Do you think that in Germany people aren’t allowed to sell their books and movies? Of course, they are.
The EU Copyright Directive says the same thing about first-sale exhaustion and the right to resell copyrighted works as the EU Computer Program Directive.
Here is the document for Directive 2009/24/EC (AKA the Computer Program Directive) : https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32009L0024&from=EN
And here is Article 4(2) from that document:
Article 4
Restricted acts
2. The first sale in the Community of a copy of a program by the rightholder or with his consent shall exhaust the distribution right within the Community of that copy, with the exception of the right to control further rental of the program or a copy thereof.
-----------------
And here is the document for the European Union Parliament Directive 2001/29/EC (AKA the Copyright Directive) : http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=126977
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001L0029:EN:HTML
Here is Article 4(2) from that document:
Article 4
Distribution right
2. The distribution right shall not be exhausted within the Community in respect of the original or copies of the work, except where the first sale or other transfer of ownership in the Community of that object is made by the rightholder or with his consent.
All of this is to say that it doesn’t matter whether a video game is evaluated under the Copyright Directive or the Computer Program Directive, because they both impose the first-sale doctrine on copies of the work that are sold.
So, “Videogames are meant to be under the jurisdtiction of the copyright directive (As books, movies or music) instead of being under the software directive” doesn’t mean anything different regarding people’s right to resell their copyrighted goods.
Of course. Serving must be a natural condition, not something you "choose" to to in order to be the best slave. And part of that "natural condition" is defending your master even when that is against your own interest.
The irony? People are perfectly free to do that. Nobody's forcing them.
You can sell a processor. And you can sell a book.
Still processors are made and books...... books.
But you are right, the brain is something that comes up with things.
If someone says, if a happens you get in trouble, its rather a threat than a necessarity. You buy something that is worth it for you. That will not change.
Sell a game as of today for a lower price and with sales, and sell a version with resell features. If you do it right, people will still choose the version of today. Just dont get greedy.
Nope, not at all.
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/02/10/german-court-rules-against-rights-to-resell-steam-games/
Can read about it there, but it boils down to video games are NOT classified the same as computer software per the European Court of Justice which is what the German Courts based their decision on and what the EU Video Game trade body states their stance as.
The key part there is
So your interpreting the law in a way that CJEU does not, and the CJEU is a higher authority then the french courts.
Also here - http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2014/02/still-on-cjeu-nintendo-ruling-and-its.html
It even spells it out
The ECJ is not a lawmaking body, and its decisions are not precedent for any member state, since the member states still retain sovereignty over their own judiciary branch (which causes quite some funny - depending on what side you're on - occasions).
It's whack and makes little sense, yes, but that's just how it is at the moment.
Under the example I provided, that money is split with publishers according to the same model by which revenue from first game sales is split between platform and publisher.
Splitting that revenue with the publisher as though it was a new game sale is what would make that model a solution.
I haven't attacked anybody, and I have spent a lot of time correcting invalid arguments which you and others have made. You are nobody to be accusing anyone else of fake information.
You think a 2nd-hand license activation fee is anti-consumer, but prohibiting people from selling their games so that people get literally $0 from their 2nd-hand games and can only pay full-price for games is rational? That's a contradictory position, and does reveal that there is a biased interest in what you are arguing.
If you cared about anti-consumer practices, then you'd endorse game resales. But since you don't, you obviously couldn't care about a less anti-consumer position of allowing game resales but imposing heavy fees on them.
None of that ever occurred and was scrapped before launch for being anti consumer and receiving a MASSIVE amount of bad PR and pushback.[/quote]
You're trying to evade the point. The concept is not new, and activation a 2nd-hand license isn't selling a game, and a fee on 2nd-hand activation, with the proceeds being split between the platform and publisher per the regular platform fees, makes it guaranteed that platforms and publishers would receive revenue off of each used sale.
Also, negative PR is not a valid argument, as PC gamers so far haven't been able to resell their games from digital platforms. So, being able to do that and make some money while having high fees would be a gain in benefits for consumers. So, if you think high fees is negative PR, then you must thing the current status quo of there being a complete lock-out of consumers being able to collect any money from used games is nightmare PR.
The PR situation in a high-fee game-resale environment improves, not worsens over the current status quo.
Always-online DRM has nothing to do with charging an activation fee for 2nd-hand licenses.
The current state of things works out quite well for me. I can afford nearly all the singleplayer games I want, and don't have to worry about strings attached or this or that. And I have a strat for things that are a bad deal (like excessively monetized games), I do this new thing called not buying it and spending my money elsewhere.
Nothing about being able to flip games with pennies on the dollar actually confers me much benefit. I'm actually benefited more by companies trying to "sell a single copy to every last person".
Again spelled out verbatim
http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2014/02/still-on-cjeu-nintendo-ruling-and-its.html
Video games are not merely computer software and have their own classification and own rules that dictate use and you can't just blindly apply the UsedSoft ruling