Steam 설치
로그인
|
언어
简体中文(중국어 간체)
繁體中文(중국어 번체)
日本語(일본어)
ไทย(태국어)
Български(불가리아어)
Čeština(체코어)
Dansk(덴마크어)
Deutsch(독일어)
English(영어)
Español - España(스페인어 - 스페인)
Español - Latinoamérica(스페인어 - 중남미)
Ελληνικά(그리스어)
Français(프랑스어)
Italiano(이탈리아어)
Bahasa Indonesia(인도네시아어)
Magyar(헝가리어)
Nederlands(네덜란드어)
Norsk(노르웨이어)
Polski(폴란드어)
Português(포르투갈어 - 포르투갈)
Português - Brasil(포르투갈어 - 브라질)
Română(루마니아어)
Русский(러시아어)
Suomi(핀란드어)
Svenska(스웨덴어)
Türkçe(튀르키예어)
Tiếng Việt(베트남어)
Українська(우크라이나어)
번역 관련 문제 보고
토론 규칙 및 지침
게시글 신고
Said the 17 year old.
Also, i was referring to people who are most likely to have no income + not understand how certain related business factors work.
Why?
Because 1) Used digital copies are identical to new ones, so thats a loss
2) Devs lose money
3) No steam sales
4) Everything goes to hell
Exactly, completely blows my mind how any logical individual can call a digital game used. Digital games are NEW forever. Play them 30 years from now using some sort of windows 7 emulator or compatible os and it would play exactly like it does today.
Someone would still be losing money. Where do you think that $5 or such comes from? And it isn't a donation if you get something in return.
If you buy them as a gift, you can.
With some people having 250+ "friends", it can still be abused and cause developers to lose money.
Of course digital copies are identical to new ones, but this applies to all second hand videogames. Maybe the term "digital" has more of a durable feel to it but the concept is no different to reselling any kind of intellectual work. The content enjoyed by the individual who firstly bought the product does not differ from one enjoyed at a different time by a different person. The same thing happens with DVD's, music, books... Going digital is a big excuse that locks us in a controlled enviroment which keeps us from exercising a right that ought to be inalienable. In fact, the European Court of Justice ruled against this practice in this very store.
It is, first of all, a loss of a fundamental right that free trade society should guarantee. It may mean a loss of income for developers and for Steam at first sight, but it also opens new ways of business that have to evolve if we, the customers, don't want to give up rights instead of losing them. There is plenty of possibilities that could suit both sides. Maybe charging a percentage of the final price by steam and the developers. Maybe charging a fee for being able to use that service, who knows...
Thing is companies and corporations should adapt to customers rights and needs, not the other way around. We cannot allow our rights to be stepped over by their seek of profit, something that sadly we are resigned to do in this times of huge, almighty corporations more than ever before. If digital means we have no real power over the products we get then we soon will be abiding to a whole bunch of private ruling that will constrain our freedom as customers. We need to speak out against this kind of policies and make them react according to what's right and fair. And it's fair for people to do the hell they want with what they have spent time and money to get.
I was given the impression that Valve was forced to allow for some sort of trade in or trade feature for their digital titles in the UK due to a law suit.
Honestly we should be able to do this, we should be owning these titles, just like any piece of software. I'd even like it if I could just get some credit on my account for titles I no longer want.
I am sure sooner or later Valve will go full force on this, but for the time being, they will continue to restrict our own software usages.
If the software was paid for they didn't loose money. I think that's something so many of you fail to understand.
Past the obvious development costs and product costs (for disks), it's profit. Do you honestly think developers could sit there and afford to let people buy a $60.00 for $20.00 on a weekend sale if they weren't making money off of it?
Software isn't like farming. You have to spend time, money and energy farming produce and what you make on the yield for that crop is what you make period. No more. It's a finite product.
Software is a completely different kind of creature, they have an infinite resource they can continue to sell until hell freezes over and at some point all you are ever making is profit off of it.
Trust me, developers are not loosing ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ money over this.
This is a limited view on it.
If people could sell their digital games, for instance facilitated by Steam, then you suddenly have a global, transparent second hand market, where basically every single used copy available *in the world* will be available for sale in the blink of an eye. No transport costs, no delays, and it's exactly the same product as the one in the store.
Not only that, but since people are trying to sell their product, any second hand copy will naturally undercut whatever the retail game is being sold for.
This means that, as long as there is even a single second hand copy of the game available, anywhere in the world, there won't be any sales at all for that developer. Since there's absolutely no reason to buy from them as long as there are used copies out there.
I am not the person who needs to take this into consideration, I am not the distribution platform, I am not the one who needs to worry about this, I don't sell video games.
But I can tell you right now, as a consumer, I hate the idea that a product I pay for really isn't mine at all. It never used to be like this, it never used to be like, once you buy it, you can't return it or sell it or trade it in. It used to be, once you bought something, you were allowed to exercise your full ownership rights over the product.
It's not a limited view on it at all, I am making it very plain and simple.
There is infinite resources to a game once it's development is complete. They can just continue to make copies.
No matter what, the developer has already sold, "that copy". If I sell a copy of a game, loose access to that game and someone else gains access to that title, I don't see the loss. It's exactly like someone buying a car, at some point the manufacturer earned that money on that car sale, after that, what I do with that car should be my business and my business alone.
It might be a little different if I was re-selling the same title over and over again, without having to re-buy the title, but that's not the case at all.
As a matter of fact, I don't see where the hell game developers get off being pissed about re-selling a title at all.
Whereas on the Steam platform, you just continue to sell digital copies, the only thing that could possibly cost anything would be bandwidth and Valve's share of the sales; that's it after the initial development costs.
But say with a car, there is always labor costs, there are parts costs, there's costs for the material used in a car. And yet people are free to buy and sell cars once they have ownership over them.
So why is it acceptable that a physical manufacturing company can "loose" sales every single time that car exchanges hands but a game development company who has already paid for the development of the game and only needs to make digital copies at almost zero resources can't?
The new market for video games is such a rip off it isn't funny, they are selling us a product while refusing to allow us to exercise our own rights with something we bought and people like you who seem to think that is okay is only compounding the problem.
Regardless of that, I think people would be happy just being able to trade used titles with one another, or just trading it back into Steam for a little store credit to go to a future purchase, just on Steam.
In a lot of ways, game developers and even the entire Steam platform pushes consumers to acts of piracy. If we can't use and treat the software how we want when we "own" it, then why should we bother to pay for it anyways? Especially considering that Steam can drop support for any title we already bought at any given time.