1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Valve is trespassing legal bounderies

Discussion in 'Games' started by erixx, Sep 21, 2012.

  1. Aquinus

    Aquinus Resident Wat-man

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    6,460 (6.47/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,188
    Location:
    Concord, NH
    I don't think we would have this problem if all software was free. :shadedshu

    The GNU site has a really good way of describing this:

     
  2. Kreij

    Kreij Senior Monkey Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    13,881 (4.93/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,616
    Location:
    Cheeseland (Wisconsin, USA)
    Free software would be fine and dandy, but what about the millions of people who work for "for-profit" software companies that would lose their jobs?
     
  3. brandonwh64

    brandonwh64 Addicted to Bacon and StarCrunches!!!

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    18,677 (9.97/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,153
    Location:
    Chatsworth, GA
    Crunching for Team TPU
  4. RejZoR

    RejZoR

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,738 (1.29/day)
    Thanks Received:
    977
    Location:
    Europe/Slovenia
    Lately i prefer to buy stuff on GOG instead on Steam just because of full DRM free system. Only thing that i buy on Steam is because of the Steam Cloud. But that is really the only reason. So, as soon as GOG will also offer saves syncing in cloud, i'm gone from Steam...
     
  5. theubersmurf

    theubersmurf

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Messages:
    870 (0.42/day)
    Thanks Received:
    101
    Location:
    Dawn
    It's true, the technology and character of the internet had a lot of implications, and we don't have a perfect understanding of it (in the sense of a long term understanding of its social impact) and legislation has been slow to deal with it.

    No less, our legislation these days is mired in riders created by lobbyists who want caveats in the laws so that their company can do this or that.

    I'm with you on a "license to use" I really want to be able to resell software I buy, and I think the rationale is a good one. Hopefully they'll stop treating consumers like some sort of dry money sponge for them to squeeze occasionally.

    I'm not convinced all software should be free either, I think Operating systems should all be free, but other software I think it's pretty reasonable to sell.
     
  6. Kreij

    Kreij Senior Monkey Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    13,881 (4.93/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,616
    Location:
    Cheeseland (Wisconsin, USA)
    Why do you think OSs should be free, Smurf?
     
  7. Benetanegia

    Benetanegia New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,683 (1.44/day)
    Thanks Received:
    694
    Location:
    Reaching your left retina.
    I too think that OS should be free. The reason is that this way it could be just one single OS for everyone, without the drawbacks (understatement) of a monopoly. Consumer wins and software developers win (except MS and Apple), because they only have to support a single ecosystem.

    Ideally it would be developed and mantained by a non-profit organization, in which software developers would form part of a comitee, but that would be about as much control as they would have.
     
  8. Kreij

    Kreij Senior Monkey Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    13,881 (4.93/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,616
    Location:
    Cheeseland (Wisconsin, USA)
    This may be the absolutely worst idea I have ever read on these forums, but I do repect your right to hold that opinion.
     
    mediasorcerer and lilhasselhoffer say thanks.
  9. Benetanegia

    Benetanegia New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,683 (1.44/day)
    Thanks Received:
    694
    Location:
    Reaching your left retina.
    Why is a bad idea?
     
  10. Kreij

    Kreij Senior Monkey Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    13,881 (4.93/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,616
    Location:
    Cheeseland (Wisconsin, USA)
    The lack of competition would kill innovation and the forward progression of the OS.
    The whole reason that open source software is any good is that it has to keep up with the paid versions or it would die a horrible death or leave it's users with half-baked crap.
     
  11. redeye

    redeye

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2010
    Messages:
    212 (0.15/day)
    Thanks Received:
    37
    Location:
    mississauga, on, Canada
    steam is a service; :nutkick: if you want to resell your games :cry: :laugh:

    great summation... (to throw a bit fire on to your explaination)...
    Saints Row, the third requires you to use steam, even if you have bought the cd version.
    i.e. you must have a steam account to play it.

    but too agree with you it is a service.


    ...But on steam why would you want to resell the game, when the purchaser can just get the game directly from steam?... the re-sold game would have to be cheaper than the price on steam, thus the seller would be Subsidizing the purchaser... therefore, be able to transfer games (reselling them) is a "straw-man argument" to get a "foot-hold" to allowing the pirating of steam games because steam would have to have a transfer Mechanism in place... and somebody woud Circumvent said Mechanism and allow pirating.

    and explain of the Futility to re-selling games... i bought crysis 2, at release on steam, for 50 dollars or was it 60 dollars? ... anyways it has been on sale for 75 % off... so how much do you think that i could sell it for?... i wise buyer would buy it at 75% or less. (and thus making me Absorb the loss between the original price and the selling price)

    well, i just thought:slap: that if you want to resell the game, you need to buy it as a gift :toast:...but then you can not play it :banghead: ... so steam only allows the transfer of brand-new-"in the wrapper" games.

    TL;DR it will never happen. you know( or should know "buyer beware") before purchasing the game, that it is not transferable. (and only transferable if you buy it as a gift)


    BTW so, if people only downloaded pirated games for free... that means no money is paid to anyone...no torrent access service fees, nothing, then the Incentive to pirate/crack games would disappear.
     
  12. Benetanegia

    Benetanegia New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,683 (1.44/day)
    Thanks Received:
    694
    Location:
    Reaching your left retina.
    Except there's no competition. And competition is overrated anyway. The only thing that competition brought to Windows is Metro UI and Windows Store, both of which are terrible for the end user. So let me simply wholeheartedly and completely disagree.

    By your definition every standard is a bad idea. On certain things I agree, push from companies is necessary and without them the standard stagnates. On the most basic levels like an OS tho, I don't agree at all.

    An OS would always evolve because software developers would push from improvements and that's all I care about. I don't buy hardware for the sake f having it and I don't buy an OS for that same reason. I buy both of them so that I can run software, so anything that would make the software scene cheaper to produce and more competitive is always a good idea. (and cheaper to produce also means more competitive)
     
  13. Kreij

    Kreij Senior Monkey Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    13,881 (4.93/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,616
    Location:
    Cheeseland (Wisconsin, USA)
    I are really confused. lol
     
  14. Benetanegia

    Benetanegia New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,683 (1.44/day)
    Thanks Received:
    694
    Location:
    Reaching your left retina.
    In the first sentence I'm talking about OS. In the last sentence about software. Where's the confusion?

    DirectX is free and has never stopped evolving because there's hardware vendors producing new tech that they want to see exposed and there's software developers wanting, asking and using those features. I fail to see how an OS would be different.

    Linux is a bad example, because software developers have no incentive to back it up. If Linux was the only OS, they would back it up and constantly ask for improvements.

    And also many of the things that evolve or improve in new OS releases are not really the OS, but rather apps, including for example file management software.
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2012
  15. Kreij

    Kreij Senior Monkey Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    13,881 (4.93/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,616
    Location:
    Cheeseland (Wisconsin, USA)
    An OS is software. It just happens to be the framework that other software (applications) run on.
    If competition is good for applications, it's also good for OSs.

    Competition is the backbone of a free market economy. Without competition there will never be price reductions for the consumer whether it be hardware or software it would stagnate.

    DirectX is not free. You have to buy the OS it runs on which is part of the cost of using it. The same as all the other MS APIs.

    Yes, Linux is a bad example. At this point in time it does not have a large enough install base for high adoption by developers in many areas of software.
     
  16. Benetanegia

    Benetanegia New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,683 (1.44/day)
    Thanks Received:
    694
    Location:
    Reaching your left retina.
    No, not in the current form. Competition is good if there's real cometition. If there could be place for 10 OS all of them competing with each other then yeah good on the OS side, but it would be a nightmare for software developers. In a duopoly like we have in the PC, where both are or are heading to a closed garden environment... sorry but there's nothing good on that. Improving the consumer experience and making it cheaper is the last thing they are thinking about. IMO you're being obfuscated by the ideal view of a free market, while you don't realise we have anything but a free market, whe t comes to OS.

    What price reduction? It'd be free. You can't go cheaper than that.

    DirectX is free. That you have to use Windows is irrelevant to this point. What you describd is just MS justification for it being free. You think you're right about DirectX? No problem. OpenGL. It's free and you are not bound to a single OS.

    You are going to say: "And look how OpenGL has been behind DirectX". Sure, same situation as with Linux. Hardware and software developers have no incentive to support its development and yet they do support it, although not as much as DirectX. Take DirectX out of the equation and you would have both Nvidia and AMd all over it and marketing the last OpenGL like mad. Same for big name games promoting their use of the latest OpenGL, etc.
     
  17. erixx

    erixx

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    3,437 (2.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    486
    Innovation is part of the human nature, not only of companies brainstorming how to make more money. When you rearrange your cables you are innovating...

    The whole problem is that shareholders will just dump a company if profits are stabilized. They want MOAR and MOAR. They turn decent business ideas into liars and burglars, cause stress and ultimately cancer. And this damn crisis. There must be a non profit SUPERVISION. They used to call it Justice, but maybe now it is Prozac 2.0 or Your Steampowered Subscription Life...

    Why do good ideas degenerate? :/
     
  18. erocker

    erocker Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    39,795 (13.19/day)
    Thanks Received:
    14,178
    Valve is not a publicly traded company.
     
    erixx says thanks.
  19. AphexDreamer

    AphexDreamer

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Messages:
    7,134 (2.66/day)
    Thanks Received:
    917
    Location:
    C:\Program Files (x86)\Aphexdreamer\
    IDK maybe the way Valve is currently doing it how it should have been done since the first physical game was sold.

    We pay to play the game, we don't pay to own the rights to any of it let alone sell it back like we made it?

    Playing devils advocate here.
     
  20. erocker

    erocker Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    39,795 (13.19/day)
    Thanks Received:
    14,178
    That is pretty much correct.
     
  21. Benetanegia

    Benetanegia New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,683 (1.44/day)
    Thanks Received:
    694
    Location:
    Reaching your left retina.
    Then price should always reflect it, not only on Steam sales. The current game prices are absolutely a reflection of past (and present) retail prices. That price was justified by the reality of what a retail game represented, in terms of costs for the manufacturer and the amount a consumer is willing to pay for it. This amount just like in any other product is strongly conditioned by it's resale value. Now they say we don't own it, and if they are ever really going to enforce that, then they better reflect it both in the price and on their store, because the button on the store says very clearly "Buy" ("Comprar" in my case), it doesn't say "rent" or "license". I even actually think that if someone cared enough, they could legally punish them for this. Store says one thing, EULA says oposite. That may fall under false advertising law.

    Just playing the prosecutor I guess. I actually like Steam and bought every game from there in the last 5 years.
     
  22. AphexDreamer

    AphexDreamer

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Messages:
    7,134 (2.66/day)
    Thanks Received:
    917
    Location:
    C:\Program Files (x86)\Aphexdreamer\
    But since we pay for it doesn't that mean we show our support? In essence we helped them make the game. Maybe we should see it as us owning a part of the game after all?

    Trading could still be allowed. No one is making a profit from a trade and we all know that a game is going to be pretty much useless once its been played to death. This or reduced game cost. It still frustrates me how one has to buy several copies of just one game if he wants to play it with his friends that have an Xbox, PS3 or PC (we all know how fun and important gaming with friends are). The fact that multiple platforms exists means we should see a lower base line price in games and if they don't' want to lower the price then games should contain keys to be played on any platform or a single disc with Xbox/PS3 and PC version of the game on it.

    Especially with engines like the Cry engine 3 which streamlines porting between platforms. You can hardly say any extra work is even involved to port. Not to mention that a lower base price and increased ease to play on any platform would probably increase sales and reduce games being pirated.

    Just a thought...
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2012
  23. lilhasselhoffer

    lilhasselhoffer

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2011
    Messages:
    1,647 (1.27/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,003
    Location:
    East Coast, USA
    Are you smoking something magical? I just can't see where you're coming from, and I think I might need some help.


    There is no "duopoly" in the current OS market. Apple has OSX, Microsoft has Windows 7, and Linux is the free version OS (with more flavors than I'd care to count). Do you understand why this works?

    Apple develops software, then locks it onto hardware. They control the user experience completely. Part of the cost of buying an Apple is the software development at Apple. They support a limited amount of hardware, and control nearly all of the software sales on their platforms.

    Microsoft develops an OS that is, generally, system agnostic. If it meets minimum requirements, it runs. In order to facilitate gaming on Windows, MS developed Directx. Software developers pay licensing fees for Directx usage, which consumers pay for when they buy the games. IT IS NOT FREE. Microsoft doesn't see a dime from software sales, unless they added something to the preceding.

    Linux is the dark horse. It runs on anything, but doesn't have the polish of the paid for OS. Given that it is free, and competes with paid OSs in the features category, a little bit of issues are overlooked. There is room for improvement, but improvement comes when a code monkey gives up their personal time for something bigger than themselves. Not being a very good coder myself, I have to give respect to the people who can and do thing like this.


    Now, there's one way a free OS will work. Competing distributions, with paid software and licensed expansion packs. It isn't nice to say, but people don't work for free. A software "Council" could definitely offer a free OS to everyone. They would have an OS with basic features, but not everything. Developers would license use of plug-in modules (ala directx, office, blender, etc...) that could provide a basic compatibility. Developers could then develop additional features, which would set their products apart from the competition.

    Did you notice the two big sticking points there?
    1) Licensing fees from developers support OS development, and their stakes in the "board" would allow them to push for changes to the plug-ins.
    2) You still pay for software.

    Even code monkeys need to eat. You wouldn't tell you mechanic (grease monkeys, something I have more of an affinity for) that your car was built using open source plans, so the repairs should not include a labor charge. Why do you tell your software developers that?



    Finally, the OpenGL argument is pure fallacy. OpenGL isn't pushed because it doesn't have penetration, not because of less features. Linux on a desktop is rare, and Windows is far more common. Getting 10% of the market of Windows PCs to buy a game might mean 100,000 sales. 10% of Linux boxes might mean 5,000 sales. Why would you choose OpenGL if you wanted to make money? Whenever both consoles and computers run OpenGL in enough quantities to matter we'll stop seeing the proprietary directx beast out there. Not when OpenGL gets fancy new dynamic shading algorithms to match those found in directx.
     
  24. Sasqui

    Sasqui

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2005
    Messages:
    7,722 (2.38/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,458
    Location:
    Manchester, NH
    Myself, I'm retrograde. I buy most games years after they are out, and on DVD. I've gotten Fear and Crysis on DVD. They've all been gifted to others with no problem. I did not charge a dime. Do they care? Yes, if they read this.

    The trend is towards "subscription" software. Get used to it, it will only get worse.

    Valve does what it wants to because it can. People still want to play the games, and Valve still wants control of the rights and future income. I don't like it, but in the "cloud" it's the natural progression.
     
  25. erocker

    erocker Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    39,795 (13.19/day)
    Thanks Received:
    14,178
    The market is driven by the consumer. If most consumers did the same as Sasqui, there wouldn't be a "problem". Steam would be an afterthought and we would have DVD'd to freely trade/sell to others.
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page