Steam installieren
Anmelden
|
Sprache
简体中文 (Vereinfachtes Chinesisch)
繁體中文 (Traditionelles Chinesisch)
日本語 (Japanisch)
한국어 (Koreanisch)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarisch)
Čeština (Tschechisch)
Dansk (Dänisch)
English (Englisch)
Español – España (Spanisch – Spanien)
Español – Latinoamérica (Lateinamerikanisches Spanisch)
Ελληνικά (Griechisch)
Français (Französisch)
Italiano (Italienisch)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesisch)
Magyar (Ungarisch)
Nederlands (Niederländisch)
Norsk (Norwegisch)
Polski (Polnisch)
Português – Portugal (Portugiesisch – Portugal)
Português – Brasil (Portugiesisch – Brasilien)
Română (Rumänisch)
Русский (Russisch)
Suomi (Finnisch)
Svenska (Schwedisch)
Türkçe (Türkisch)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamesisch)
Українська (Ukrainisch)
Ein Übersetzungsproblem melden
Diskussionsregeln
Diesen Beitrag melden
You're paying to access the game through Valves servers. Seeing how you don't get a physical copy it is now on Valve to provide this for you for forever or until Steam dies.
It costs to keep these services up too.
Those digital items can drop in value pretty quickly and you'd find that reselling games would hit the same problem pretty quickly. Vast majority of these digital items are below 0.1$ in value.
If you bought $60 for it you wouldn't get $60 back, let alone $20 unless you're some of the first to put it up on the market after completing the game.
This will lead to another problem. Developers lose all of their income or it's get cut so much it's basically nothing.
What happens when they do this? They leave Steam. Or stop making games all together because it's no longer worth it.
Or they find a way around this.
Make the game free to play up to a certain point and then sell the rest of the story stuff as Microtransactions. You're not gonna be able to sell a free game and microtransactions are not part of reselling a game.
We who oppose this law know what will happen if it was global and the damage it would cause.
Steam was giving out refunds before that law was passed, it was just that the guidelines for refunds wasn't made public so people didn't know about it all that much.
In the case of multiplayer games that require a playerbase to be "alive", perhaps that's the case, but there's still only a relatively short time during which the game is "new and hot" such that people are talking about it a lot...and that only really applies to the most famous games.
However, each game retains a certain amount of relevance for simply existing, and its relevance can vary over time, even rise again. But at the same time, the condition of the physical medium on which it is situated can only be preserved or be degraded over time. As a result, physical instances of the game -- such as carts and discs -- can only decrease in functional number. This in turn increases the rarity of copies that are still playable (or in some other particular condition).
Some rare games have no one who wants them, perhaps, but the market definitely assigns value based on the notion of scarcity as it intersects with how much people want the game. Super Mario Bros. had a new game price (or several, depending on where you bought it from), which every new copy was sold for back in the day. As it got older, it might have been discounted to encourage people to buy up the remaining stock, but that's because supply would have been at the time too high. On the other hand, as the game's availability decreased further, but its relevance remained, the value of each individual copy grew, because the supply falls without the demand falling any further. To the point where a mint-in-box still-shrinkwrapped copy fetched a recordbreaking price recently.
And it's not necessarily even the game data itself that's valuable. SMB1 has been widely distributed in remakes and re-releases by Nintendo, and that's not even counting software piracy. It's the physical object, in a given condition, that's so highly prized (and priced).
Hell I have seen times when a store had a used copy marked at a higher price than the new one a few shelves over counting on most people only checking the pre-owned section and seen the huge amounts of EA's yearly releases clogging up shelves with no-one wanting to even pay 50p for them because they have shifted the focus so much onto online and ultimate team that the game itself has no value once the new one is due.
Games as a Service.
I keep repeating the same in all these threads: Beware what you wish for.
Everything has a price to pay. And given a eventuallity where you'll be able to resell your digital licenses, that will also have a cost.
Be sure you'll want to pay the price before signing the deal.
Take this article about the cost distribution of Gears of War (We're talking 2008):
https://www.forbes.com/2006/12/19/ps3-xbox360-costs-tech-cx_rr_game06_1219expensivegames.html?sh=cbf51375e252
If you had to split which percentage of a game price would go to you'd get the following spklit:
As you can see manufacture and distribution costs are a very tiny portion of the pie. It's a non factor
Also at the end of the day you're just swapping where the cost comes from, by changing manufacture and distribution for CDN and bandwith costs (or doing a split of both). At least the former is a one-time expense unlike the latter.
I understand this isn't feasible or likely to happen, but I find your questions interesting.
For me personally, I would be a lot more likely to buy more games if I could "recycle" the ones that don't appeal. If both steam and the devs took a cut of the resale value, then it wouldn't be any different to games being on sale.
There's no way known I would resell the games I enjoy and get good value out of. I suspect this is true for a lot of people. So, seeing how many people are reselling a game could be a more organic way for people to determine whether or not a game is good value or not than reviews.
I think devs who develop really awesome games could end up benefiting from this, while devs who bring out rubbish games but do a really good job of promoting them would lose out. Given that we supposedly want to reward those who do good work and not reward those who don't, a resale system with this mindset would seem ideal. I think steam having a "percentage resold" category could help increase sales of games that are good value for money.
Based on my personal buying habits, I think both steam and the devs would get more money out of me in the long term. I'd be willing to pay more for games. I'd be willing to buy more games. If steam made this service exclusive to games purchased on Steam, it would provide a real incentive for me to buy direct from steam, rather than getting a cheaper steam key elsewhere.
7th gen was when we saw the rise of the online pass and the day one DLC. This unfortunately affected the PC market too since small DLCs replaced big expansions for the most part.
The online pass didn't do much to stop used games sales, what put a dent on used game sales was digital distribution during the 8th Gen, and console adoption of constant Steam-like sales.
The 7th generation isn't when companies decided there was a problem it was when they could finally start taking action to resolve it on console.
I don't think I am. The biggest problem they had on consoles during the 5th and 6th console gen was people hacking consoles to play pirated games. The 7th gen was when Gamestop and Game started getting really agressive with used copies and trade ins. It just so happened that it was the same gen when consoles already had online capabilities. It's not one or the other, both things happened in the same gen. And publishers were still crying about used sales after their online passes did barely nothing to stop used sales.
What also started happening in the 7th gen, likely as a result of used games, was that brand new physical copies had a price drop much faster than previous gens. You could simply wait 2 months and buy a new copy at retail for a significantly reduced price, compared to previous gens when you'd have to wait at least a year. Generally speaking.
Anyway, even with a spike in used game sales and price drops, the 7th gen was highly profitable for anyone that wasn't THQ.
Thing is, with the constant digital sales we have today, the poor gamer no longer needs to rely on used games and trade ins to afford a constant stream of new games to play. All these people need is a bit of patience. Which is why GAME went bankrupt and Gamestop too will soon be a memory.