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
This is seriously going to bite consumers back in the arse since the gaming industry would have to adapt to this new market by switching to even worse predatory practices in order to make some revenue while indie developers that don’t want to do these practices and just wanted to make a fun short singleplayer game for us to enjoy would be outright ♥♥♥♥♥♥.
Epic games is really hitting hard trying to add competition to the field, which i guess sounds dangerous and healthy.
if epic started adding the ability to resell games on their marketplace, im pretty sure everyone would stop buying things elsewhere,
and that would be terrible for steam : (
I sure hope valve realises this first, and beats epic to the punch.
because over the last year, it seems that epic is the one throwing all the heavy punches.
I want to stay with steam.
they seem to be a little greedy.. i will admit..
trying to sell me skyrim VR 10 years after skyrim was released, for 70-80$ seems really greedy
to me : ( but for some reason, I still feel that steam is the safest option.
I dont feel like they are trying to do whats best, i just feel like they cheat the least.
which is something i guess.
last week epic games gave me 6 full size 60$ batman games, 3 lego versions and the 3 biggest batman games ever made, for free X_x.
they are really out to take the market.
Im really curious which one will be first to allow us to resell games.
because the team who does, will dominate just like google and facebook did.
going free to "X", like fortnite, pays off incredibly well when you do it right.
and reselling seems like a free option that will accomplish the same thing.
Do you guys think reselling games is fair ? or un fair ?
I remember phyical copies... I remember purchasing red dead redemption 1 and the DLC for 40 bucks.. that was pretty fair.. and I remember 4 years later, I saw both being sold together as a physical play disk for 15 bucks, 5 on the shelf.
that seems pretty fair to me.. because everyone was tired of that game, no one wanted it anymore, so they were allowed to trade their old content.
now, bethesda is allowed to produce terrible quality stuff and sell it for 10 years at full price and pretend to be "on sale" for 20 percent, which actually means "will return to maximum release date price next week.
what do you guys think?
I want to stay with steam.
but i will jump ship faster than a dead fish rotts in the open sun on mercury in the summer in a microwave set to nuclear, toward which ever team plays fair and enables reselling content.
If i buy a jeep, I can sell it.
if I buy a pc, I can sell it.
if I buy steam content, its against the rules.
Good luck. those days are numbered.
thanks for cheating me for so long.
I hate EA games and Behtesday.
I used to love both of those companies..
I thought they were really here to give the best content with passion.
later I learned that they represent evil more than anyone i can remember since that guy with the funny mustach and perhaps abcgoogs and facebooks zucker. they may be good guys, im not sure, but i think too many hands are in too many pockets, I dont think they can force fairness.
I love steam and valve.
I sure wish they would do the right thing.
that fat guy has had enough turkey.. he doesnt need to continue the greed.
he already won.. : (
share already..
i screenshotted this beauty.
I may have to make a reddit alert about censorship if this channel of conversation gets muted due to greedy interest.
First, every transaction that involves selling a game that's currently registered on a platform necessarily has to use that platform's services in order to be transferred, and likely also for the listing and the payment processing. And that's just for the sale of the game. Then, if the sold game key is specifically for that same platform (as is the case with purchased new games), then whoever purchases that game has to use the platform's services in order to activate the game with that platform to be able to download and play it.
This means that platforms can charge listing, payment processing, transfer, and 2nd-hand license activation fees. And then platforms can split the revenue from those fees with games publishers along the same lines that new game sales are split with publishers. A 2nd-hand market can be done in a way that it's a guaranteed revenue stream for platforms and publishers, and can also be done in a way that pretty much maintains their current revenue streams.
Some people have questioned whether platform fees for 2nd-hand game transactions would run afoul of anti-trust laws in the wake of the Paris High Court's ruling. That concern misses an important detail.
But first, let me say that a company is entitled to charge fees for the development and usage of its services. A company cannot be forced to be a charity, and doing that would be paramount to state seizure of the company or an aspect of the company and turning it into a public resource, which only the corporation pays for. It would be like slavery of corporations.
Now, the important detail which that concern of platform fees running afoul of the Paris court's ruling misses is that not all of the prospective fees are related to selling a game. A 2nd-hand activation fee is entirely unrelated to the ability to sell a game. That technical difference is what law is about.
It is necessary for a person to activate their 2nd-hand license with a platform before they can possibly use it with that platform. And if 2nd-hand games are like new game purchases are, then a purchased 2nd-hand game could be activated only with the specific platform its key is for - which means that the platform a 2nd-hand game is purchased from will necessarily also be the same platform that it gets re-activated with. That means the platform which sold the game and likely made profit on the selling of that 2nd-hand game also gets to make profit on the account activation of that 2nd-hand game.
In the case of a 2nd-hand digital games market, it is literally unavoidable that a platform's services be used. Therefore, it is also unavoidable that platforms will be a part of any 2nd-hand digital games market. And they could charge fees for their involvement in the market.
Setting minimum fees, whether it's just for 2nd-hand game activation with a platform, or for all of listing, payment processing, transferring, and 2nd-hand game activation, will protect indies and small-title developers, and can easily make it so that it's cheaper to buy those games today brand new from "grey market" game license resellers than it would be to buy them through a 2nd-hand digital games market.
Fees could be hard-set, or they could scale as a % or a tier bracket according to the listing price or the current non-sale retail price for a game. There could be minimum fees. And additional fees could be justified by platforms having to maintain a registry of who sells what, who is lawfully entitled to activate which license, and that registry might need to be one that is shared by all digital games platform hosts, to prevent fraud, theft, duplicate activations (though, they already can't happen when a key can only be activated on a specific platform), and to settle disputes.
So, platforms, publishers, and indie developers can all be protected in the face of a 2nd-hand games market, and can make a 2nd-hand games market lucrative for themselves. I don't see the Paris High Court's ruling as reckless, clumsy, or not thought-out by the court. I instead view a lot of the responses to the ruling as being knee-jerk reactionary alarmism which is hyping up fears ahead of examining what the realistic changes to the market are likely to actually be.
Now, there are some arguments I've seen people bring up that makes digital goods seem like they're a whole new concept and are different than physical goods because they don't degrade, but they're actually neither new concepts or different in terms of degradation to property that has existed for centuries. And so here are refutations for some common misconceptions about digital goods and ownership concerns:
1.
The concept of non-degrading property is not new:
The first patent for an industrial invention was handed out in 1421 in Italy (1790 in the US). Since then, individuals and businesses have been benefiting massively from possessing property that doesn't degrade. IPs, copyrights, patents, are non-degrading property. Record labels have non-degrading digital masters. Book publishers have non-degrading manuscripts.
Non-degrading property never was a complaint or cause to claim that the law has been thrown for a loop so long as it was businesses and copyright-holders who were gaining more and more benefits over the decades from having non-degrading property. The idea that non-degrading property changes everything suddenly in 2019, only when consumers have suddenly realized that it can mean something for them, too, suggests to me there is unfair play at hand and that we are witnessing the expression of a conditioning of the masses by big businesses who have long acted as though the law is their private tool to be used only to set themselves up as evermore-domineering masters over consumers, who they see as their subjects. It's like the "consumer" people are imposing it upon themselves at this point after having been conditioned that they are just corporations' resources.
Regardless, non-degrading property isn't new. Businesses and copyright-holders have been benefiting themselves by it for centuries. So, the concept when applied to consumers shouldn't cause any hysteria or confusion. It's old-hat.
Regarding degradation, though, computing standards mean that an older program degrades in functionality as hardware and software standards evolve. Also, the appreciability of older software products changes for the market at-large due to new developments that make the older products seem more archaic, limited, unappealing graphics-wise... not to everybody, but to a huge chunk of the mainstream market. So, there is degradation with software products, but it is manifested in unique ways - unique ways that physical products often escape. So, it's like there the degradation merely expresses itself through different avenues.
2.
Regarding the idea that the first-sale doctrine (which stipulates that people are entitled to resell their copies of copyrighted works) applies to instances, and that there is something about a copy being non-degrading that makes it not an instance:
So... when George Lucas sold Star Wars to Disney, he didn't actually lose his right to distribute Star Wars and can right now sell Star Wars again, and again, to other companies who can then make their own Star Wars movies? Of course not. There is nothing about a property being hard-physical or intangible that decides whether the first-sale doctrine applies to it.
And there has never been a qualifier that each copy has some unique flaw or condition to make a copy a particular copy. Each copy that exists is a particular copy, and each copy that a person owns is a particular copy. Does the significance of having access to one copy versus another diminish when each copy is a perfect replication of the others? Yes, in a good way. But that's neither here nor there to the law's reason for stating that the first-sale doctrine applies to particular copies, and I think that detail actually has nothing to do with the identification of particular copies and doesn't factor into the first-sale doctrine. The particular copies are the definitive instances that belong to specific people.
3.
Regarding the idea that software might be different because it is not materialized, or is intangible:
A thing's physical or non-physical state doesn't determine whether it can be owned, sold, and purchased. What does everybody think Intellectual Property is? IPs are not really or necessarily materialized but they are still transferable property and goods when they are sold in transactions. What do people think a patent is? A copyright? Just like with non-degrading property, intangible property has existed for centuries, and even millennia.
Further, data has even more presence than something like a patent or copyright. Any defined data, such as a software program or any particular function of a software program, has a defined form to it, and when it's stored on any storage medium, it takes up real space and technological capacity. It has size, it has a specific form, it takes up presence, and it has specific identifiable capabilities and features. When it is being transferred between end-points in a network, it exists as particles, and particles have physical properties. A computer program is a defined form of data, and data has quantifiable presence.
And if data suddenly is different than hard-physical property and so it can't really be said there's ownership of it, then how does the publisher own it? And then how can people be arrested and charged for hacking of a state's computers and possession of their data and secrets? Obviously, in pre-existing law, data property is treated no different than a hard-physical property where it's the state, or big corporations, or somebody with a lot of money, who is the victim and is seeking action against whoever infringed upon their data property. The idea that it's different exclusively for the lowly peasant consumers is Stockholm Syndrome, and it means that our societies are not ones of justice and equality, but which are made up of different rules for different castes.
You know how Epic boasted about being in favour of the developers?
Allowing their costumers to resell their digital games will defeat that purpose because why bother spending money to the developers when a cheap used digital copy is as good as new?
Ask yourself, if you were a dev/pub why would you put your game on such a platform where your sales are going to drop like a stone after the first 7 weeks, due to your early buiyers reselling the gam,e and undercutting your price?
I'm not going to say you didn't put effort forth with your post, but this is all so flawed. And your tirade about software evolution is irrelevant. Businesses holds on "non-degradable things" has a very specific purpose of rewarding a business for putting the work in, and they have specific jobs and responsibilities in place to keep those rights to said concept.
A game from a consumers perspective is nothing like that. Games are closer to seeing a movie in a theater or a dining experience than a businesses IPs and so forth. A product for consumer's entertainment, that is never consumed up or used up is a problem.
All other markets and industries have checks in place of some kind that keeps money circulating between customers, businesses, and other customers. Nothing like that exists in "consumer entertainment".
Even business class software licenses (also non-degrading) have check in place because of new demands, more users, service agreements, and so forth. With an entertainment product there is nothing to keep people buying new ever once enough copies enter circulation. We don't pay for service, we don't have to keep up with standards, we don't need to keep access, we may not even want to ever repeat the experience ever again... It's a product that is "consumed", but not used up in any way.
and your thing about graphics and archaic games misses the point the damage would be in the short to mid-term, by the time something is "graphically" antique the damage would have been long since done. Games make the bulk of their revenue during the first few months to a year. If they are fighting with infinitely viable instantly transferrable used copies just as good as the new ones during that period it's going to harm their whole business operation. They may not be able to get the money to do another project after that.
And everyones theories about fees and blah blah blah, doesn't mesh with literal resell rights. For like the 1000th time idk why that has to be repeatedly explained.
No, there is truly nothing flawed about what I wrote because what I wrote is the literal truth. If you struggle with understanding it, which is what I hear you saying, then that's something else entirely.
Actually, are you sure you're quoting the right person? Not only did I not particularly talk abotu software evolution, but I also certainly didn't give a tirade about anything.
There are many reasons why non-degradable property exists, and for the purpose of recouping expenses and reward is only one of them.
I don't know what you mean by "and they have specific jobs and responsibilities in place to keep those rights to said concept", as IPs and copyrights aren't conditional to the property-owner doing anything with them. They can do nothing with them for decades, and they'll still own them.
No. Buying a game is like to buying a movie, not watching one in a theatre that belongs to somebody else. And games do not become destroyed or used up after playing them, so they are not relatable to a dinner. That is some very flawed understanding.
Most consumer products literally don't become consumed. And there is no goal that they are. The word "consumer" wasn't created as the goal of the action of consumers, but was come up with after the fact to describe customers' general disposition towards products they purchase. It is not an ideal that is a goal to achieve, that the law would be interpreted or designed to guide people towards losing the things they purchase.
Huh? Making new entertainment is what circulates money in the entertainment industry.
You aren't at all even arguing the topic anymore, which is whether non-degrading property is new, different, or important... you're arguing in favour of forced obsolescence. After somebody has experienced something, they want to try something new and different. Whether their game lasts forever or not... that doesn't mean that they don't want to experience anything different.
An environment of 2nd-hand sales doesn't change or alter people's interest in experiencing new things. And already in today's situation, purchased games haven't been disappearing to force people to buy new games. So, non-degrading games doesn't change anything where that is concerned.
So, I see that you didn't actually read my post. You're just spitballing ideas and notions that you haven't checked to see whether they're relevant or grounded in reality, or not.
My post actually shows that a 2nd-hand market would not deprive platforms, publishers, and developers of revenue.
Feel free to actually read it and then get back to me.
I think you missed the point of what I wrote, which is that there is a whole mesh of ways that even non-degrading products change in appreciability over time.
What I wrote also shows how a realistic 2nd-hand market wouldn't impact platforms, publishers, and developers much, if at all. I wouldn't have to keep pointing this out if you had actually read what I wrote instead of jumping to typing a message filled with FUD and flawed understanding of the topic.
It sounds like you really don't have a good grasp on this topic. I can't tell if you even put effort into your response or not, but it didn't really contribute to anything.
Said by a person who seems to have ignored most of the topic he just wrote in.
I haven't ignored things but I haven't read every post on every page of this topic, either. And I doubt you have.
However, that's neither here nor there. That's not a goal or requirement for making a post, and I'm not quoting things and ignoring what I'm quoting, unlike the person I previously responded to. Also, what I wrote is true regardless of what other opinions people have shared in this thread.
So, I'm not sure what your point is, and I wonder if even you know.