Zainstaluj Steam
zaloguj się
|
język
简体中文 (chiński uproszczony)
繁體中文 (chiński tradycyjny)
日本語 (japoński)
한국어 (koreański)
ไทย (tajski)
български (bułgarski)
Čeština (czeski)
Dansk (duński)
Deutsch (niemiecki)
English (angielski)
Español – España (hiszpański)
Español – Latinoamérica (hiszpański latynoamerykański)
Ελληνικά (grecki)
Français (francuski)
Italiano (włoski)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonezyjski)
Magyar (węgierski)
Nederlands (niderlandzki)
Norsk (norweski)
Português (portugalski – Portugalia)
Português – Brasil (portugalski brazylijski)
Română (rumuński)
Русский (rosyjski)
Suomi (fiński)
Svenska (szwedzki)
Türkçe (turecki)
Tiếng Việt (wietnamski)
Українська (ukraiński)
Zgłoś problem z tłumaczeniem
Ten wątek został zamknięty 
Autor tego wątku oznaczył poniższy post jako odpowiedź na jego pytanie.
Zasady dyskusji i wytyczne
Zgłoś ten post
Exactly on both counts but adding to the first....
And that's the issue I have. We've enough of a "wall' between Publishers and Developers and it doesn't need to be any worse. But it will be, I guarantee you, when a court does what the French court did. Everyone runs to their own corner and, well, the length of this thread illustrates the instant claim of the point based on what people identify with in the ruling. We end up in camps, fixed locations of sides of people in temporary agreement but opposed to each other solely because a court stopped us in our tracks with a ruling that brought us to a difference of opinion.
There's no need for new laws on this. No need for any to compromise. What is needed is a solution that denies the courts opportunity to jump in, a solution that denies any complaint made or complaint thereof (a petition and petitioner for those more used to those terms).
Sure the legal insertion can happen without it but then the obvious political purpose is revealed and "court jesters" tend to not want to destroy the brand of the court system as some mechanism of prestige and operating without any bias whatsoever. It can be and has been good, do not get me wrong, "but every good thing comes to an end" is as easy as when it stops performing as it once did and starts performing differently. This French ruling is an effort to create a difference in action of the legal mechanisms, in the mechanics of legality and lessen legal institutions as though there's a limitation of rights possible versus exploring possibility of expanding rights and opportunity to all involved, an act that would not expand the State which they would never do. That's why I am so verbose in my rejection of it hahaha (I had to come up with an excuse :p ).
In the end we'll get something like you "rent a game" or alike.
Not all of it is solely medical care being price hiked either, some of the stuff that is covered by diff things is just phenomenally expensive to make/perform/supply because aspects have to be customized to the patient.
This (being used game sales) is just another arena where side-issues aren't necessarily properly considered. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that.
Hell, if a government really wants to do something "pro-consumer" how about one of them pursue judgments/legislation on DRMs/protection schemes, "after <x> period for <x> class of products it should be removed". Or some assurances of access should be given. That'd mean a ♥♥♥♥ ton more than selling used licenses, and it wouldn't tank everyone''s business model as a possible consequence.
To me, what makes that work, is an amortization system could be distilled in relation to the value of the Intellectual Property over time, and introduce a "salvage value" like they have on physical items. The difference being the salvage value is asserted against any renewed interest in a title that's long exhausted its use and/or usability, but as a matter of assuring something that returns to those who hold rights to the properties in the virtual "dematerialized" product.
Essentially a lump sum, possibly declining annual payment method that sets a final "expiration" scope to the inherent right but values it as though for a longer term, this would compel Developers to make higher quality hires due to the upfront expense that may be a part of the business.
Then even after the entire ammortization is paid, over the agreed to lifecycle of the product's viability in hardware, software, and operating systems as projected and estimated, the salvage value is a residual that continues to be retained forever.
Just an example of possibilities and potentials, of methods to gain what we want and for those who do the actual work to get what they want, while assuring what may be the most obscure market potential isn't overlooked on behalf of the Intellectual Property owner. Where they're long gone, a bk company, a designer or whoever and their heirs are no longer, the salvage value has a minimum value claimed by the computer industry, an amount that may even be donated from time to time to charity.
Valve is the biggest, most used, and the longest-existing platform. Naturally, they are the primary target.
If France decides that platforms must facilitate people's ability to resell their games, then it doesn't matter which platform the ruling is against, as it applies to the law in France and all platforms operating in France will have to abide by it otherwise they'll face lawsuits for more serious offences than what Valve is being accused of, and that carry bigger punishments than what the ruling against Valve imposes.
I don't know about you, but I buy my music and my movies. The existence of streaming and subscription music and movie services hasn't stopped music and movies from being sold, it's only given people a choice of whether they want to pay for a streaming subscription or flat-out buy their music and movies. It will be the same with games.
Yeah, gaming platforms and publishers are making lots of streaming and subscription game services right now... but that had been talked about and aimed for by publishers for ages and was implemented before the Paris High Court judgment, and so, it was always going to come, anyway. But that doesn't mean games will stop being sold.
As I've written in previous posts, there are ways for platforms to pretty much hold their revenue lines along current standards. The services of platforms are unavoidable in a 2nd-hand market and so their ability to charge fees for their involvement in a 2nd-hand market is also unavoidable. Putting a 40% retail-value of a game fee on the 2nd-hand activation of any game, and sharing that 40% with the publisher along normal revenue-split lines, would do a lot to control a 2nd-hand market and protect indie and small developers.
And then there are ample fee opportunities involved in selling a game: Listing, payment processing, and de-activation fees.
I notice that the typical FUD about the market disruption a 2nd-hand market would pose presumes that the disruption specifically means that there would be no adaptation to it by platforms and publishers and that suddenly only 2nd-hand games would be available. It's like watching The Road Warrior, where everybody supposedly decided to not rebuild but to just mod and drive around in their modded cars all the time and act crazy, and it all just happens somehow despite them being in a desert with no food production and no means to extract oil and make gas (there's just a magical never-exhausting supply of old cars with enough gas remaining in them around).
Well, that scenario, just like the FUD of the existence of a 2nd-hand games market, isn't realistic and isn't plausible or even possible. In reality, when disruption occurs, so does adaptation. A 2nd-hand market doesn't mean that platforms and publishers are suddenly unable to make money, especially when 2nd-hand market games still need to be activated with those platforms. It just means they set up new revenue avenues that apply the second-hand market. And that idea isn't new. Microsoft originally planned to do it with the Xbox One, I think there have been cases where the multiplayer component of 2nd-hand console games required an additional activation-pass purchase in order to use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_Cache
Interestingly, Robot Cache is founded by PC RPG genre legend, one of the pioneers of PC gaming, and former PC games industry publisher, Brian Fargo - who is now CEO of InXile Entertainment (Wasteland 2, Torment: Numenera, Bard's Tale IV, Wasteland 3,), which is now owned by Microsoft.
Their website is still up, and it has an option to sign up for early access:
https://robotcache.com/
And their latest blog post is from 1 month ago:
https://www.robotcache.com/blog
So, clearly not all game developers are against reselling games.
By the way, GoG outright says that people own the games they purchase through GoG. So, even some publishers are supportive of game ownership rights.
To further cement this fact already we are witnessing shifts towards subscriptions, free to play that requires add ons and a slow down in making sequels that now come with yearly season passes so as to capitalise more profit than you would get with just a complete base game.
Its no ones fault besides those who develop to pick a trade that is too labour intensive and time consuming to be of consistent value over time. Its an even bigger slap in the face when you count we are talking out of thin air products or infinite stock rather than those using natural resources which places real meaningful value on a product.
Its more than possible to safely trade or sell games via keys and its long over dew for the industry to make it happen once again.
We've been talking about it on and off for 2 years now. There have been many "sell games" threads.
I'm not sure what you mean by "There have been many "sell games" threads", in relation to Robot Cache. Are you saying their service is already functional for reselling games?