If Steam allowed the selling of any unwanted game, should developers get a cut of the sale price?

[MrGenius]

Therefore, any further discussions on royalties due on subsequent sales of IP represents an even further erosion of the first sale doctrine, which I take serious issue with because it further pushes society (and, by extension, legal precedent) down the path from the traditional protections of ownership into the rentership society wherein consumers rights are subject to the legal whims of rights holders.

But I thought a little critical reading skills applied to the latter two paragraphs which you yourself quoted might make the legal ramifications of this problem self-evident. Silly me.

Word. As in "well said". If you're not familiar with the vernacular.

The answer is no.

End of discussion.

Don't bother quoting me to try and force an explanatory response out of me. Said response will not be forthcoming.

 

[AsRock]

If steam allowed selling owned games they would course more problems for them self's as each account would have more value which in turn a thief dream.

So would steam do it, it be stupid for them to do so, all so it would damage sales.

 

[ChevyOwner]

I disagree with you in principle.... If I purchase a game from.... Bethesda, let's say. I pay Beth a specified amount of money, either as a percentage from the reseller (GOG/STEAM), or directly to Beth. However, if I decide to purchase it directly from the "re-reseller", the original company does lose money. A game that I might have bought from them at the beginning, no longer brings them income....

Potential sales are not lost money, it is money that is just not made. It's the same thing as saying if you were thinking about buying a game and decided not to that you just lost x company $y.

Company x already made the money from the 1st sale. A 2nd player thinking about buying a game is a potential customer. If player 2 chooses to buy a used game it not lost money, company x just did not make a sale. At the same time it is no different if player 2 chooses not to buy the game at all.

 

[Steevo]

You continue to use car analogies, and it's consistently inaccurate.

In this particular instance, it'd be like be like Chevy rolling out a certified used vehicle program. You do know those already exist, right.

The manufacturer will extend their services warranty to whomever buys the used good, but in return they get paid. If Chevy decided to discontinue support they simply stop offering the certified used program. People are still allowed to resell their goods, but because no money goes to Chevy they are capable of washing their hand of any culpability. The exact same system can be implemented on Steam.

Likewise, Steam is rendering a service. The license transfer fee on their servers doesn't imply any support, so they get money for a service rendered and not a contractual obligation.




Finally, are you taking an economics 101 course or something? The United States has been off the gold standard for a long time. We were, in fact, one of the last major world players to do so. The reason economic structures don't collapse is MAD. If you screwed me, I'd screw my neighbor, who would screw their neighbor, until eventually you got screwed too. Mutually Assured Destruction, a primary consideration in game theory, is why WWIII wasn't fought between Soviet Russia and the US.

If you're going to start with the assumption that currency is not a relatively well stabilized item then you should leave society now. Your only logical conclusions should be that society will collapse. The only proper thing to do would be to create your own off the grid survival location. Heck, the internet is only here because of a few main servers. If any one of those were to fail we'd all need to have real in-person discussions. What a travesty! (heavy enough sarcasm there?)

I will find a way to make cars work here.


Chevy has to honor a 100,000 mile drive train warranty weather or not the original owner has the car. Game Devs don't even bother with the original owner (see Batman, Test Drive Unlimited, Rayman, and numerous other games)

Yes we left the Gold standard, and its all arbitrary as I originally stated. Its the reason some people insure their face, legs, voice, etc.... for millions of dollars, its arbitrary.

Nice try at an analogy. DOS games are still sold on Steam/Origin/UPlay (as part of bundles and deep-discounts), with auto-run DOSBox layers that are almost invisible to the user, and play the way the devs intended.

Yes some do, and some don't play right, and only with the recent addition of refunds do we the consumers have a small sliver of recourse against shit like I mentioned. But its the fact that we still do not OWN the game, just the right to play the game as the dev intended until they decide to stop supporting it, or to revoke our license. Compare that to a car, a DVD disk, a taco.

 

[Ahhzz]

Potential sales are not lost money, it is money that is just not made. It's the same thing as saying if you were thinking about buying a game and decided not to that you just lost x company $y.

Company x already made the money from the 1st sale. A 2nd player thinking about buying a game is a potential customer. If player 2 chooses to buy a used game it not lost money, company x just did not make a sale. At the same time it is no different if player 2 chooses not to buy the game at all.

If previously, the only method to purchase an item was from Company X, and then suddenly, I can purchase it from Company B, and Company X does not get compensated, I do believe that is lost money for Company X.

Also, "potential sales" has been the by-line for anti piracy advocates for years. I think that argument holds water from both sides.

 

[ChevyOwner]

If previously, the only method to purchase an item was from Company X, and then suddenly, I can purchase it from Company B, and Company X does not get compensated, I do believe that is lost money for Company X.

Also, "potential sales" has been the by-line for anti piracy advocates for years. I think that argument holds water from both sides.

New or used?

For new games it is just like cars the MSRP is not what the publishers sell to resellers for. It is simply the Manufacturer suggested resale price. If you had the money to buy games for resale you would get a lower price then MSRP, and you could then raise the price to MSRP to your profit. Most publishers, wont even sell to the general public the only way to get a game is from a reseller.

I don't support piracy, but with no way to try a game before buying it now days that is the only option for that. In many cases piracy has helped sell games.

I did pirate Skyrim at first to see what is was like. I had never played an ES game before, and I never would have bought the game with out trying it first. I can prove I bought it if I need to. I don't know how many hundreds of hours I have played that game, the number Steam reports is not very accurate. (steam does not record hours played in offline mode)

I will find a way to make cars work here.


Chevy has to honor a 100,000 mile drive train warranty weather or not the original owner has the car. Game Devs don't even bother with the original owner (see Batman, Test Drive Unlimited, Rayman, and numerous other games)

While I know what you mean ( I think) it is not a very good comparison.
I don't know if they still do this, but for a while Dodge's warranty was a "lifetime" warranty that was non-transferable. If you buy anything from any parts store that warranty is non-transferable. The warranty for most computers parts is also non-transferable. The only way to know if a warranty will transfer is to read the fine print.

 

[Ahhzz]

New or used?

For new games it is just like cars the MSRP is not what the publishers sell to resellers for. It is simply the Manufacturer suggested resale price. If you had the money to buy games for resale you would get a lower price then MSRP, and you could then raise the price to MSRP to your profit. Most publishers, wont even sell to the general public the only way to get a game is from a reseller.




While I know what you mean ( I think) it is not a very good comparison.
I don't know if they still do this, but for a while Dodge's warranty was a "lifetime" warranty that was non-transferable. If you buy anything from any parts store that warranty is non-transferable. The warranty for most computers parts is also non-transferable. The only way to know if a warranty will transfer is to read the fine print.

It's not a question of the price, I don't think. I guess it really becomes an extension of the GameStop or Electronics Boutique topography. Those were physical goods, of which you could reasonably argue "possession". This is the digital equivalent, and as much as I hate the idea of Steam getting the ability to make more money selling their DRM-KoolAid, I can't find a real fault in it....

 

[Ahhzz]

.....

I did pirate Skyrim at first to see what is was like. I had never played an ES game before, and I never would have bought the game with out trying it first. I can prove I bought it if I need to. I don't know how many hundreds of hours I have played that game, the number Steam reports is not very accurate. (steam does not record hours played in offline mode)



......

I would never pirate any software.... *cough-cough*. However, I am well aware that on my shelf, I have copies of every TES game (except Daggerfail), in multiple versions, and there also appear to be multiple copies of "files" on my server that could probably serve the same purpose as the discs, if push came to shove.....

I do understand your logic, completely, there. And, I do agree. there have been games that I have played via questionable methods that I am glad I didn't spend money for myself, and there are some that I played the same way, that now reside as boxes on my shelf, or GoGs, and a few even, *shudder*, on steam....

Would this methodology end up extending the "full price" time line of a product? Making us wait longer for the inevitable sale price?

 

[ChevyOwner]

It's not a question of the price, I don't think. I guess it really becomes an extension of the GameStop or Electronics Boutique topography. Those were physical goods, of which you could reasonably argue "possession". This is the digital equivalent, and as much as I hate the idea of Steam getting the ability to make more money selling their DRM-KoolAid, I can't find a real fault in it....

It's the same thing digital or retail. The reseller needs to make money, and any publisher with half a brain knows this. The amount is costs less by is determined by a large set of variables.

Lets say I were to deal with a publisher. If I were to buy 1000 keys for a game (regardless if for resale or not) then I would get a lower price then if I was going to buy one game. It's all about profit. Now lets say MSRP is $59.99. Now you can argue that 1000 sales at 59.99 will make the most money, but no reseller (this includes Steam) will buy a game for the price they sell it for. By selling 1000 copies for say 49.99 that is $49,990 earnedHowever if it is insisted to sell the game at MSRP to a reseller no smart reseller would touch it. One sale at 59.99 makes far less money then 1000 sold games at 49.99. This is what they have to consider.

Would this methodology end up extending the "full price" time line of a product? Making us wait longer for the inevitable sale price?

It is the way it currently works. I don't agree with the used game sale policy of places like Gamestop, and that is why I don't sell used games anymore myself. The last time I sold a used game when my PS3 died, and I was no longer using it. However I do have a few PS3 game floating around here I won't play again.

PS
Here you can see the old picture that I used as a precaution for The Nexus. If they had a problem with it they never told me.

Spoiler

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

...DVD disk, a taco.

What right to a DVD?

This is another prickly issue. When you buy a DVD you don't own it. You cannot legally strip the copy protection off of it, so it effectively is a perishable good. You're got not rights to the IP on the disc. If you'd like to argue this point, then please do. I'd suggest that you look into DVD Fab's recent activity with Blu-ray. Their copying software was found to be illegally bypassing the copy protection, despite the fact that users were told explicitly that copying media for anything but archival purposes may be illegal in their area (please follow all relevant local rules and legislation). In response to the suit their software, if it detects you are in the US, doesn't allow for BD copying. Despite the fact that I want to stream a movie from a HDD to a TV within my house, I can't do that. I need to buy a player for each television. I can't transcode the content for my laptop, tablet, or any other device. Tell me, what rights do I have again?



The reason I'm so quick to dismiss your arbitrary value argument is that it has no end game. If we can't rely on currency, then we have to barter. A barter system would be great, assuming that you could always find somebody with what you actually needed. Unfortunately, it doesn't do a good job of meeting people's needs unless they've got very simple needs. Computers aren't a simple need, and cycling back to the beginning we can't really debate about complex goods if we can't get them.

 

[ChevyOwner]

The reason I'm so quick to dismiss your arbitrary value argument is that it has no end game. If we can't rely on currency, then we have to barter.

In the US at least cash (paper money) has no real value. It is simple a piece of paper that represent the current dollar. If the government ever wanted to they could void every paper dollar, and those saving money that way would be out of luck. The average person does not have many rights.

 

[Agentbb007]

In an ideal world no, but if giving the developers a little cut is what it takes to allow us to sell used games on Steam then so be it.

 

[Steevo]

What right to a DVD?

This is another prickly issue. When you buy a DVD you don't own it. You cannot legally strip the copy protection off of it, so it effectively is a perishable good. You're got not rights to the IP on the disc. If you'd like to argue this point, then please do. I'd suggest that you look into DVD Fab's recent activity with Blu-ray. Their copying software was found to be illegally bypassing the copy protection, despite the fact that users were told explicitly that copying media for anything but archival purposes may be illegal in their area (please follow all relevant local rules and legislation). In response to the suit their software, if it detects you are in the US, doesn't allow for BD copying. Despite the fact that I want to stream a movie from a HDD to a TV within my house, I can't do that. I need to buy a player for each television. I can't transcode the content for my laptop, tablet, or any other device. Tell me, what rights do I have again?



The reason I'm so quick to dismiss your arbitrary value argument is that it has no end game. If we can't rely on currency, then we have to barter. A barter system would be great, assuming that you could always find somebody with what you actually needed. Unfortunately, it doesn't do a good job of meeting people's needs unless they've got very simple needs. Computers aren't a simple need, and cycling back to the beginning we can't really debate about complex goods if we can't get them.

So far as I am aware no one has been sued and lost for ripping their own media for archival purposes, and in fact UCLA won a case where their rips were determined to be legal, despite the letter of the law.

We all break hundreds of laws every year, and they are the bullshit laws that make it into the books by being tacked on or for special circumstances.

As a citizen in the US I and every other person has a conflict of interest with the government every day, the law branch must keep making new laws to justify their existance, even though to do so the are infringing on the natural rights of every citizen. So I will keep assuming that I am free to use my media as I see fit irregardless of archaic laws to the contrary.

If you want to drag discussions down with unenforceable laws how about we list them all in a separate thread and discuss that there, such as it being illegal to purposefully grow dandelions in Colorado Springs, and I will grant you the freedom to go and enforce that law.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

So far as I am aware no one has been sued and lost for ripping their own media for archival purposes, and in fact UCLA won a case where their rips were determined to be legal, despite the letter of the law.

We all break hundreds of laws every year, and they are the bullshit laws that make it into the books by being tacked on or for special circumstances.

As a citizen in the US I and every other person has a conflict of interest with the government every day, the law branch must keep making new laws to justify their existance, even though to do so the are infringing on the natural rights of every citizen. So I will keep assuming that I am free to use my media as I see fit irregardless of archaic laws to the contrary.

If you want to drag discussions down with unenforceable laws how about we list them all in a separate thread and discuss that there, such as it being illegal to purposefully grow dandelions in Colorado Springs, and I will grant you the freedom to go and enforce that law.

Maybe you missed it.

The lawsuit against DVD Fab is enforceable. Once they "lost" their suit the US version of their software could no longer burn Blu-rays.


If you want to make the argument that it is unenforceable on the masses, then yes. The problem is, without the tools to archive a movie I cannot do it no matter what "natural law" says. Just like I can't work on my car if I don't have the tools there. By litigating against those providing the tools to perform copying the Blu-ray group can strip you of your rightful ability to do something.





At this point you seem to be willfully misconstruing my statements. You latch onto one part, then change the subject when your constructed argument doesn't hold water. Either you're a troll, or your arguments are worthless due to an inability to support them.

 

[Steevo]

Maybe you missed it.

The lawsuit against DVD Fab is enforceable. Once they "lost" their suit the US version of their software could no longer burn Blu-rays.


If you want to make the argument that it is unenforceable on the masses, then yes. The problem is, without the tools to archive a movie I cannot do it no matter what "natural law" says. Just like I can't work on my car if I don't have the tools there. By litigating against those providing the tools to perform copying the Blu-ray group can strip you of your rightful ability to do something.





At this point you seem to be willfully misconstruing my statements. You latch onto one part, then change the subject when your constructed argument doesn't hold water. Either you're a troll, or your arguments are worthless due to an inability to support them.

So we agree that if we can we will copy our media, stream it, do as we wish with it.

We agree that it is currently against the law to perform some of these actions, but that law is unenforceable on the masses.

We agree that money (as a substitution for barter) is only worth the value we give it.

I believe that if I purchase a piece of software (its license of use) and its writer has reasonable expectations of what type of system/computer it will run on, that the laws should allow for me to sell the license granted to me to another individual with no warranty or support implied or intended, or that the writer of said software must provide at the time of sale a end of life date for support with a closely following grant of full use for the public domain. Currently as I understand the law I could write a program that encrypts a users files and demands personal information and payment to decrypt them and it would be well within the law for me to do so, and to deny and or seek damages against anyone who circumvents my program without payment. This is the sad state of digital rights I dislike.