Able to 'send games' to friends (like the Gifts, but the games you own)

[sirsquishy]

this would help on many fronts. it would let you give your collection away to other accounts. So when your done playing you can give the game to a friend or whatever. It would also let you combine accounts if you are idiotic enough to run 2 steam accounts.

[PentaPenta]

This has been mentioned so many time that it might as well have a forum of its own.
Please use the search engine before you post.

[Tito Shivan]

So every 'gifted' game to a friend would be a game not bought by said friend?
then your friend gifts it to another, and then another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another....
For ever and ever.

It would be nice indeed, but being realistic, it's not going to happen.

[Τhe Rolling Cheese Wheel]

Originally posted by sirsquishy:

this would help on many fronts. it would let you give your collection away to other accounts. So when your done playing you can give the game to a friend or whatever. It would also let you combine accounts if you are idiotic enough to run 2 steam accounts.

Terrible idea. The ship pulled this maneuver. The value of that game is now borderline worthless. No one sane would buy it as they can just ask their friend for a copy. I had so many copies that I just went in to random and popular group chats and just passing it off to strangers. That was how worthless the game was.

[Spawn of Totoro]

I buy one game. I beat it, I give it to a friend who gives me a game. We form a group withh 100 other people. We all only buy one game, and gift the game to each other when we beat it. 49 other such groups pop up with 100 people each.

That is 5,000 people gifting/trading their games back and forth. If each only did this 3 times, that is 15000 "gifts" Let us say, $60 a game.

15000x 60 = $900,000 in lost profits.

Steam has 15,000,000 users. If they each "gifted" one game:

15,000,000 x 60 = $900,000,000.

Gifting. Trading. Sharing. Loaning. Selling "used" games. In the end it cost Steam, Developers, Publishers, Employees and stock holders a lot of money and/or job.

[Shutesie]

Here's my issue. In the past when I finished a game or a book I could give it away, sell it, whatever I wanted. Now our 'first sale doctrine' rights seem to be being voided by Valve and the like. I have a number of games that I no longer play but my 10 year old son loves. Technically, I can't even let him play the games according to the EULA. I don't buy the argument that companies like Valve will lose money. The companies selling DSi, PS3, XBox games all seem to be selling games even with resale and renting going on. I guess I'm suppose to set up an account for each of my 3 kids and buy 4 copies of every game just in case they might want to play a game and heaven forbid they don't like it because even though I have 3 other copies they can't play them to see if they liked it first. Oh, I only have 1 computer that can play these games so it's not like I'm even trying to play the same game on different computers. Now if they were to give discounted rates to buy multiple copies it might be different. Imagine buying a book, reading the book, then not being able to give it to a friend to read.

[Felix]

To be fair, if you read the terms you agreed to with your physical discs from "the past", it says you're not meant to share the copy and all that. Just with Steam it's a lot easier to enforce that rule.

[th3.voice]

Steam is convenience. Lack of resale opportunity is the price you pay for that convenience. Shutesie, I advice you, from my position as random opinionated Internet git, to let your son play to his heart's content on your account.

This said, there are ways to make this work, financially as well as other stuff, if one were to WANT to do it; "giving" away your game to another account for a transfer fee, for instance. But why would Steam sink time and effort into developing something that is unlikely to be a net gain for them and of marginal use to the community? It would have to be because someone in power at Valve felt VERY strongly abou this; currently that's not the case, as evidenced by a system like this not being in place.

[Keonyn ♣]

It's not quite the same as when you used to let your friends borrow games you beat because now on Steam you have quick access to a global network of millions of players to pass that one game around to instead of your handful of local friends. Like others mentioned, you would soon be seeing groups of people organized specifically to buy and trade single copies or possibly even sites where people would just go to enter in games they have to send off and others can come in and take them.

Yes, it doesn't quite work like it used to, but the whole system is changed and unfortunately that old method is infinitely exploitable in the modern digital distribution age. And you can bet that if such a system was implemented you'd see sites and groups like that pop up in no time.

[Spawn of Totoro]

Originally posted by th3.voice:

This said, there are ways to make this work, financially as well as other stuff, if one were to WANT to do it; "giving" away your game to another account for a transfer fee, for instance.

Same issue. Steam, the Developer/Publisher loses money. Even with this "fee". People will also just complain that there is a fee and emand that it be removed.

A fee would aleaviate a very small portion of the loss, but why allow it when they can have you buy the game at full price and mage their expexted profit?

15,000,000 x 60 = $900,000,000 - $5(?) fee = $825,000,000 loss.

No matter what, they take a huge loss. That is why a trade/used idea won't work.

Gamestop likes it because they keep all the profits from a used sale. The Developer/Publisher doesn't see a penny fron the sale.

Since Steam is owned by Valve, and Valve knows what it is like to be a publisher and take those losses, they won't do it. They also look at things from the consumer point of view (though the consumers tend to ignore the developers view) and try and balance things out.

Even the customer loses in the end. Less money for Developer = less risk taking = fewer games made + lower quality games.

[PentaPenta]

It's a lose-lose scenario in the long run.

[Tito Shivan]

Originally posted by steventheslayer:

It's a lose-lose scenario in the long run.

Yeah, since publishers would want their slice of pie from it. So either on the short run we get games up in price, or in the long run we'll get the 'game' being the least important part of the 'game' (As in F2P games, where access to the 'fun stuff' is account-tied, not game-tied, and those can't be traded)
For those who want to read an expanded version of what Totoro posted, explaining why it's bad business for the publishers, you can find my post here

[Shutesie]

Would you accept that when you bought a couch only you could sit on it? Would you accept when you bought a book only you could read it and once you were done with it your only option was to keep it or throw it out. How is a computer game any different? The real reason behind this whole issue of not being able to share or trade or give away your old games is the failed anti-piracy policies of the industry. The actual customers of the industry are punished for paying for the products while the people who have been stealing get to give away, share and heck even sell the games that they have stolen. If I was to have downloaded hacked copies of the games in my library I could have freely shared them with my kid but I foolishly paid for and supported the people who make the games and I get punished. I'm not really even interested in creating an after market for used games like the consoles enjoy somehow without destroying the industry. I just want my family to be able to play Plants vs. Zombies without violating some terms of use contract. The game itself allows for multiple users but I think that would be considered sharing so I have to buy 4 copies so everyone can play. Do I spend my fixed gaming budget on 1 new game every couple months or 4 copies of the same game after it's gone into the cheap bin. Who wins in that scenario? If were doing the digital thing how about a subscription model for all games in the library and pay the makers by usage. My current dilemma. I finally have 2 computers actually capable of playing the good games. My son likes playing the GMOD thing for halflife 2. I myself haven't played HL2 since I would guess Episode 2. Anyway I only had one computer and only had one copy of HL2 so I let him play on my computer. He's only 10. Well now I finally built a new computer for myself and the kids have the old one. The only way that appears to exist for me to let him have the old game is for me to create a new account for myself and let him have the old one. There are games on that account that I like and that he doesn't and it's just frustrating that unlike someone who buys an XBox. I cannot let my kids play games I no longer play.

[Shutesie]

Here's a thought. you and only you are allowed to play the games that you bought. Your kids or your friends can never play the games that you don't play anymore. So my kids never get to play Plants v Zombies so they don't wait patiently for the sequel. Half life 2 was released in 2004. My son was 2. If I hadn't let him play my copy he would not be looking forward to 'Half life 3'. LOL for those who know the history of HL. When you go over to your buddy's house and he's got some new game on the Playstation and you 'share' it with him on his 'account', what's the first thing you do when you get home? You ask your mom for money to buy the game for yourself so you can play it at your house. Now I'm a little older than that and my mom has been replaced with my wife so unfortunately I won't be getting that game anytime soon. And number 2 I really prefer PC games. Controllers suck for 1st person shooters which are my games of choice.

[Shutesie]

How about a Family account with members? That way you still control the number of users of a game. Steam is moving towards creating that TV version but that would mean you would have to have multiple accounts for games to be played on your TV and games that get played on computers. With more games being created for multiple devices you would have to have multiple accounts to use them. A mess

Steam needs to stop thinking about their customers as people trying to steal or get something for nothing and instead think of them as people who want to enjoy the products that they sell across multiple venues.

If you have a computer, a laptop, a computer for gaming and video on your TV, a tablet, a smart phone and your family shares them all the current system will require you to buy multiple copies and have multiple accounts and that is just not really going to work with most people.

[Fact_Sphere]

If you read the legal mumbo-jumbo in the front of books you'd learn that you're not actually meant to sell a book second-hand without the written permission from the publisher.

If you knew anything about buying a second-hand sofas you'd know that sofas before a certain date cannot be sold as they may not be fire safe.

The general gist of this is that ALL things tend to have some 'rule' of re-sale to ensure that they meet certain safety standards, that they don't infringe on copy right and that they're suitable for re-sale. This is not a new thing. Physically owning something doesn't mean the second-hand market if free from problems.