Should Steam Allow Game Trading?

[The Brown Hornet]

Here on this platform gamers are offered a Marketplace placebo, it looks like a open arena to entertain profit but is it really? The Steam Market only allows users to buy, trade and sell in-game items like skins, knives, guns, hats 🎩 and other miscellaneous objects. In addition to that members can buy, sell and trade cards, gems, emoticons, badges, profile backgrounds, etc...Those things are cute and all and you might even get a lil change added to your Wallet but isn't what gamers really want is the ability to trade and/or sell games..especially unwanted titles in your libraries?!

Yes, I know games are tied to the account and DRM's are involved but why hasn't Steam implemented a process or system where users can earn the ability to add select games to the market? I'm not suggesting this can be done at any and all times but maybe for a limited time or a limited number of transactions members can craft, trade, or sell games for items of equal value?

Maybe this ability can be tied to leveling up your account, honorable service and years on Steam, or as an achievement unlocked through gameplay or community contributions? If set as a bonus or goal I can imagine many members working towards an opportunity to spruce up their libraries. If implemented properly this could be a means of exchanging titles where you were unable to get a refund, removing games that don't work or run properly, or a chance to eliminate Early Access titles that never came to fruition. To insure they get their cut Valve could possibly charge a transaction fee per game or allow funds to be added only to the Steam Wallet.

Hey it's just a suggestion, is it crazy or feasible?

[Aachen]

Secondhand market will dramatically affect the interests of developers/publishers.

[Wolf Knight]

you allow people to sell their games and the game developers will stop using steam. if you have an idea for how to make it possible, them make sure you address the concerns of the company (steam) and the game developers. the developers are not going to compete with you undercutting them.

if you want to be able to sell your games, go use robot cache. that is the best system so far for keeping game developers on the platform and letting the customer sell off what they dont want.

[ShelLuser]

Horrible idea IMO. Steam is a game selling platform.

So apart from the implied issue that this could open up a whole new load of scams and such we're also looking at a potential impact on Steam's revenue. And that could result in games either becoming more expensive to compensate for the risks of lesser income, or worse: publishers who are only interested in selling their stuff could decide to ignore Steam as a whole.

All in all.... horrible idea IMO.

[The Brown Hornet]

Originally posted by Aachen:

Secondhand market will dramatically affect the interests of developers/publishers.

Yeah but we are consumers and I don't think we should be stuck with libraries that can only add content but not delete with just compensation.

[Brian9824]

Simple, developers like getting paid. There is a reason digital content on nearly every site is untradeable. Unlike physical goods that have a cost to transfer, and can degrade, a digital code can be re-sold an infinite number of times.

This would cost developers billions of dollars if it was allowed. Steam can't transfer the licenses as they don't own them. They merely facilitate the original sale with the developers consent. Developers would need to offer this and there is no reason they ever would.

Helps to use the search as its brought up regularly.

Originally posted by Aachen:

Secondhand market will dramatically affect the interests of developers/publishers.

Would also result in higher prices, more consumable dlc, etc. If developers know that they won't sell as many copies of their games they will raise prices or find other ways to generate the lost revenue that are not user friendly.

[Aachen]

Originally posted by The Brown Hornet:

Yeah but we are consumers and I don't think we should be stuck with libraries that can only add content but not delete with just compensation.

Eh, I don’t buy stuff to resell it later, I guess.

[Brian9824]

Originally posted by The Brown Hornet:

Originally posted by Aachen:

Secondhand market will dramatically affect the interests of developers/publishers.

Yeah but we are consumers and I don't think we should be stuck with libraries that can only add content but not delete with just compensation.

Again you have to think about how this effects EVERYONE, not just yourself. I mean if you want to disregard developers entirely why not just say make every game free. I mean we WANT the games free, but it doesn't mean its going to happen.

[The Brown Hornet]

Originally posted by Wolf Knight:

you allow people to sell their games and the game developers will stop using steam. if you have an idea for how to make it possible, them make sure you address the concerns of the company (steam) and the game developers. the developers are not going to compete with you undercutting them.

if you want to be able to sell your games, go use robot cache. that is the best system so far for keeping game developers on the platform and letting the customer sell off what they dont want.

I've never heard of robot cache, maybe you should explain it to the readers.

[Brian9824]

Originally posted by The Brown Hornet:

Originally posted by Wolf Knight:

you allow people to sell their games and the game developers will stop using steam. if you have an idea for how to make it possible, them make sure you address the concerns of the company (steam) and the game developers. the developers are not going to compete with you undercutting them.

if you want to be able to sell your games, go use robot cache. that is the best system so far for keeping game developers on the platform and letting the customer sell off what they dont want.

I've never heard of robot cache, maybe you should explain it to the readers.

https://lmgtfy.app/?q=robot+cache

[The Brown Hornet]

Originally posted by ShelLuser:

Horrible idea IMO. Steam is a game selling platform.

So apart from the implied issue that this could open up a whole new load of scams and such we're also looking at a potential impact on Steam's revenue. And that could result in games either becoming more expensive to compensate for the risks of lesser income, or worse: publishers who are only interested in selling their stuff could decide to ignore Steam as a whole.

All in all.... horrible idea IMO.

In all honesty, I'm only talking like 3 games per year ..or period! And it's something that you have to earn by completing all the stuff Steam already has in place like badges and XP.

[Yasahi]

Originally posted by The Brown Hornet:

Originally posted by Aachen:

Secondhand market will dramatically affect the interests of developers/publishers.

Yeah but we are consumers and I don't think we should be stuck with libraries that can only add content but not delete with just compensation.

And the developers/publishers can pull their products from Steam, which is what they would do if Valve added a feature that would allow users to deprive them of future sales.

Then they'd add validation services etc. "always online live service" packages to them in order to make it impossible to trade/sell the game. Such things would also drive up the costs of developing and maintaining games so all new games would get a price hike.

They're not running a charity. They will do everything they can to protect their bottom lines.

[Brian9824]

Originally posted by The Brown Hornet:

Originally posted by ShelLuser:

Horrible idea IMO. Steam is a game selling platform.

So apart from the implied issue that this could open up a whole new load of scams and such we're also looking at a potential impact on Steam's revenue. And that could result in games either becoming more expensive to compensate for the risks of lesser income, or worse: publishers who are only interested in selling their stuff could decide to ignore Steam as a whole.

All in all.... horrible idea IMO.

In all honesty, I'm only talking like 3 games per year ..or period! And it's something that you have to earn by completing all the stuff Steam already has in place like badges and XP.

3 games per year * millions of accounts = a lot of lost sales. Again, think of other people other then yourself.

[Arkham99]

Originally posted by The Brown Hornet:

we are consumers

lol...:-)

[Aachen]

Originally posted by The Brown Hornet:

Are you secretly a dev patrolling the forums because you seem to care more about Valve and developer incomes than ours?!!!

Shill gambit, eh?

[Brian9824]

Originally posted by The Brown Hornet:

Originally posted by brian9824:

Again you have to think about how this effects EVERYONE, not just yourself. I mean if you want to disregard developers entirely why not just say make every game free. I mean we WANT the games free, but it doesn't mean its going to happen.

Are you secretly a dev patrolling the forums because you seem to care more about Valve and developer incomes than ours?!!!

And you seem to have no clue about how anything works in real life. Again, as multiple people have already told you if you slash a developers sales, then the prices of the games will rise to compensate or they will introduce other negative factors for us consumers to compensate for the lost revenue. They aren't just going to eat billions of dollars in lost revenue.

Again, you have to apply common sense and ask yourself if its such a good idea then why does no major store do it?