It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)I HATE STEAM!(113 posts)(113 posts)
(113 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
This is my favourite topic
Posted September 08, 2011
avatar
Pheace: You know, especially in a pro no-DRM forum like this I would've expected more people to come in and proclaim their support for developers in this, because despite all the arguments here, the simple fact remains that the second hand market doesn't help developers at all. The only argument I've heard is from someone who wants to hang it over the developers head so they create games he actually wants to keep rather than threaten to trade them off so they get less profit.

Perhaps I was mistaken that the anti-drm sentiments are about supporting the developers but it's more about the users ''freedom' to do whatever they want with what they bought whenever they want?

How can anyone who actually thinks about the developers who make the games they're playing actually be arguing *for* a second hand market?

It doesn't matter that there are second hand markets in existence, or that used does not = used the same way or whatever. The simple fact is that second hand markets in game sales is money that most likely will not reach the developer, even though the people who spent it *are* playing their game.

We've got sales these days that make prices of games worth less than lunch, with some patience there's no need for a second hand market at all.
First off secondhand market actually doesn't have to mean no money or no help to the developers - read my posts please you are wrong in this. If anything a digital market place allows you to monetize the secondhand market. Secondly from someone whose title reads "75% off or bust" you have an odd way of supporting developers. :) Lastly, always helping the industry is not always the best thing - even for the industry. Secondhand markets have always existed. They are a right of the consumer. Simply making a product digital does not abrogate a consumer's rights. By your arguments we shouldn't have libraries and all used book stores should shutter their doors. They don't help publishers, writers, or movie makers either.

If it is okay to buy a game at 75% off a year after release to the point where you are not really actually helping the developers why, if Steam offered such a service, would that be worse than buying a game at 50% from a consumer 6 months after release where Steam gets a fraction of the money because they hosted the transaction (just as Amazon and Ebay get a fraction of a used item for sale on their websites)?
Post edited September 08, 2011 by crazy_dave
Posted September 08, 2011
avatar
crazy_dave: First off secondhand market actually doesn't have to mean no money or no help to the developers - read my posts please you are wrong in this. If anything a digital market place allows you to monetize the secondhand market. Secondly from someone whose title reads "75% off or bust" you have an odd way of supporting developers. :) Lastly, always helping the industry is not always the best thing - even for the industry. Secondhand markets have always existed. They are a right of the consumer. Simply making a product digital does not abrogate a consumer's rights. By your arguments we shouldn't have libraries and all used book stores should shutter their doors. They don't help publishers, writers, or movie makers either.

If it is okay to buy a game at 75% off a year after release to the point where you are not really actually helping the developers why, if Steam offered such a service, would that be worse than buying a game at 50% from a consumer 6 months after release where Steam gets a fraction of the money because they hosted the transaction (just as Amazon and Ebay get a fraction of a used item for sale on their websites)?
I'm a bargain hunter, that's certainly true. But developers that make good games still get my preorder/early purchases. If I had more money, I'd do it for more games, but that option isn't always there.

Steam is a retailer, taking a cut from game trades doesn't help the developers unless they funnel that money to the developers as well (which would seem unlikely), so yes, buying a game at 75% off a year later is still better than getting it second hand from a deal between 2 consumers and a second hand retailer (Gamestop/Hypothetical Valve).

I don't agree with the 'We have a right to second hand sales market' mantra. It doesn't have a place in digital retailing, it just doesn't make sense. Call it outdated if you want. Just because something existed before in different areas doesn't mean it should exist in other/newer areas. Things change, so do markets.

You can already see the console shift in this regard. They're curbing second hand sales (to battle gamestop) with their game pass thing or whatever it's called.

And what about Gog? Are you going to ask them to allow you to be able to trade your games, your right to download them, to other people? Because strictly speaking, you're not allowed to. You are the only person supposed to play the version you download, you're not supposed to trade it.
Post edited September 08, 2011 by Pheace
Posted September 08, 2011
avatar
crazy_dave: First off secondhand market actually doesn't have to mean no money or no help to the developers - read my posts please you are wrong in this. If anything a digital market place allows you to monetize the secondhand market. Secondly from someone whose title reads "75% off or bust" you have an odd way of supporting developers. :) Lastly, always helping the industry is not always the best thing - even for the industry. Secondhand markets have always existed. They are a right of the consumer. Simply making a product digital does not abrogate a consumer's rights. By your arguments we shouldn't have libraries and all used book stores should shutter their doors. They don't help publishers, writers, or movie makers either.

If it is okay to buy a game at 75% off a year after release to the point where you are not really actually helping the developers why, if Steam offered such a service, would that be worse than buying a game at 50% from a consumer 6 months after release where Steam gets a fraction of the money because they hosted the transaction (just as Amazon and Ebay get a fraction of a used item for sale on their websites)?
avatar
Pheace: I'm a bargain hunter, that's certainly true. But developers that make good games still get my preorder/early purchases. If I had more money, I'd do it for more games, but that option isn't always there.

Steam is a retailer, taking a cut from game trades doesn't help the developers unless they funnel that money to the developers as well (which would seem unlikely), so yes, buying a game at 75% off a year later is still better than getting it second hand from a deal between 2 consumers and a second hand retailer (Gamestop/Hypothetical Valve).

I don't agree with the 'We have a right to second hand sales market' mantra. It doesn't have a place in digital retailing, it just doesn't make sense. Call it outdated if you want. Just because something existed before in different areas doesn't mean it should exist in other/newer areas. Things change, so do markets.

You can already see the console shift in this regard. They're curbing second hand sales (to battle gamestop) with their game pass thing or whatever it's called.
Why wouldn't they put that money to developers? That can even be a precondition of allowing the dang trade from the publisher to Valve. The developer is getting the same amount of money regardless and are getting it earlier. This is especially true when Valve themselves is the publisher. :) And the publishers owning their own digital storefronts could be quite common soon ... so that point becomes moot as well.

Plus you are kidding yourself if you think buying from the 75% off sale a year later matters at all to or supports the publisher or especially the dev the latter who has likely already seen all the money they are going to get. Both by that time have already long moved on. Those late numbers are icing on the cake for them. They do like their icing though.

They care about your pre-orders and first 6-8 months of sales at full price. People selling used games can actually be an indirect boon to publishers/devs even nicer than a 75% off late sale. For instance, someone who has resold their game now has more money which they can buy another game from. And helped by the money from the resale if they want to buy the new just released game, that's much, much, much better for the dev/publisher, even if the publisher didn't see any money from that used game sale, than the gamer waiting for another 6 months for a sale because they can't afford the initial release price.

Just because some things are changing doesn't mean that everything has to or that other factors can't change with them or that all changes are good and shouldn't themselves be curbed. There are a lot of options for a digital secondhand market. Greenman gaming is one. This whole "Second-hand market doesn't help anyone" mantra is actually quite short-sighted.

I already addressed DRM-free products in my earlier posts to you. To recap: DRM-free presents a special problem because no definitive record of an actual transfer of the goods can be made. Hence with a DRM-free product, I believe that it is unreasonable to expect a business to allow the transfer of those goods. However, with a DRM product (like Steam), you have digitally managed access to the game. Hence you natively have controls that ensures access has indeed been transferred.
Post edited September 08, 2011 by crazy_dave
Posted September 08, 2011
avatar
crazy_dave: Plus you are kidding yourself if you think buying from the 75% off sale a year later matters at all to or supports the publisher or especially the dev the latter who has likely already seen all the money they are going to get.
Guaranteed income from late cycle sales matters a lot more than second hand sales with money that might or might not be invested back into A) games at all B) A game made by the same company.

And GMG does not have a second hand games market. They allow you to give up your license to play and download and in return you get back some of your money.
Post edited September 08, 2011 by Pheace
Posted September 08, 2011
avatar
jepsen1977: I think people like @Crazy_Dave and @timppu are missing a few points here so let me try to elaborate. When you buy a used car it sells for less than a new one because you have to deal with wear and tear, spilled icecream on the seats etc. In other words the car has depreciated in value.This does NOT happen with a digital copy and tbh it doesn't really happen with a game or movie on DVD either because either the game/movie works or it doesn't - its an either/or scenario. So when someone sells a game as "used" the value of that game is actually the same as when it was brand new (other than the time that may have passed). This is why second-hand sales for games are bad because the actual product has not depreciated in value the same way that most other products (clothes, furniture, tv's, PC's etc.) does. A "used" game is for all intends and purposes the same as a new game.

The reason why publishers are trying to fight second-hand sales is because of stores like Gamestop and Wallmart that stocks very few new copies of a game and then instead expect buyers to some back and resell their game because now the retailer is making ALL the profit from the game and publishers don't see a single cent from this sale. Most profit on games and movies come from the first month or so of sale and this is where second-hand sales hurt the most. It's not that you buy a game 6 years after release used that is the problem, the problem is when you buy a "used" game 2 days after release because the "used" game is the exact same as a new one - there is no difference but the "used" one don't provide publishers/devs with money for their hard work.

Lastly books are different since they actually DO depreciate in value because pages get smudged or bend etc. Also most publishers are actually happy about libraries because not only do libraries actually pay money for their books but they often don't get them on release date but only 4-6 months down the line when most "new" sales has come to a stand-still and if someone gets it from the library then they are more likely to buy the next book new from the same author. Also the people who get it from the library are NOT the same as those who would have gotten it new anyway.

As for giving away games on Steam I think we all know this would be abused like crazy and hence is not viable. Besides most people who are smart enough to use a PC are also smart enough to get their game to work.

I'm neither for nor against second-hand sales since I don't do it myself but I can see why publishers are complaining and I think retailers are hurting themselves and I also think gamers are hurting themselves in the long run with this practice - the same way they do with piracy..
avatar
crazy_dave: Sorry but you are completely wrong libraries. Publishers hate libraries. (Heck, movie publishers even don't like video rental stores and even once tried to pass a law limiting their use - thankfully it failed.) Publishers are renowned for hating libraries. They HAVE to sell to libraries by law - at cut rate prices at that and then the libraries then loan out the products for free many, many times since a book can be loaned many, many times. And if you were right that publishers liked libraries for the reasons you stated then that actually supports that they should like used books - once the initial sale is made to the library, the publisher sees no more money from it regardless of the number of times it is loaned out.

Furthermore fine, put a moratorium on trades for 6 months. A secondhand seller/buyer isn't going to care. Again, someone who really wants to, they'll just use a rental service like OnLive. If you are in the business of selling games, customers who are just serially interested in a single play through different games aren't your customers anyway. You are absolutely right, they are not the same customer base.

Here's another benefit in addition to the myriad of ones I offered earlier: Offering however the possibility of a trade or resell gives comfort to a consumer who thinks they want buy the game but aren't sure. This way they are actually more likely to buy the game at full price at release if they think they can resell it if they don't like it. And it's those initial sales that you yourself pointed out are most important to the publisher anyway. What do they care that a few months to a year down the road someone thought they'd resell the game? The publisher already starting to discount the game and offer it on sale themselves. It's even better if they can make money of the sale by monetizing the transaction - they're actually getting more money that way that might have otherwise.

I also don't do this myself. All my games are new. But I do reject the notion that consumers don't have rights because a product is digital.
Well that's a difference between the US and Denmark because here libraries pay pr book and then they also pay to the writers based on how many times a book has been checked out. This is payed for by the State to ensure what you described that writers/publishers are compensated for their work. Still I have to say that numerous studies have shown that libraries increase sales of books because people can "test" a writer that they aren't sure about plus not all books get to the library so for students they may have to buy it anyway. Libraries also have a limited suply of new books and hence there is a waiting list for the most popular ones.

I do agree that reselling games can lead to people buy new games and then resell them once they are completed but I don't think that the extra money the player has always goes to buy more new games from the same publisher. It may not even go towards buying new games at all.

I do agree that publishers like Activision and EA are being greedy and tries their best to nickel & dime everything they can through DLCs and other kinds of scams but I can see their point when it comes to "used" games being sold 2 days after release by Gamestop. Even so I'm not sure what should be done about it (if any). And all their DRM crap that only hurts paying customers to prevent the second-hand marked is just stupid. But I think that most used games are on consoles anyway so I do admit I don't know much about it since I'm a PC gamer.
Posted September 08, 2011
avatar
Pheace: /snip
avatar
jepsen1977: /snip
@Pheace and @jepsen1977 Read your replies. I'll make mine short and sweet since this will be my goodbye to the thread.

@pheace I would argue GMG's system is very close to a trade-in system as to immaterially different - you're simply selling back to GMG not a peer. And never count out indirect effects being bigger than minuscule direct effects.

@jepsen1977 thank you for your description of Denmark's library system. I still argue that same reasoning should make a secondhand market reasonable and the game publishers are missing an opportunity to monetize the market and make quite a bit of profit - so even greed may get them there eventually!

It was good debating with you both (and the others in the thread, CaptainGyro, amok, etc ... of course)! Sadly work now has to take precedence and I think I've made all relevant arguments. If you want to reply to this that's fine, I'll read the replies, but as aforementioned I think I've completely exhausted my list of arguments. So I bid you au revoir. It was a very interesting and fun debate, cheers! :)
Post edited September 08, 2011 by crazy_dave
Posted September 08, 2011
avatar
jepsen1977: /snip
avatar
crazy_dave: @Pheace and @jepsen1977 Read your replies. I'll make mine short and sweet since this will be my goodbye to the thread.

@pheace I would argue GMG's system is very close to a trade-in system as to immaterially different - you're simply selling back to GMG not a peer. And never count out indirect effects being bigger than minuscule direct effects.

@jepsen1977 thank you for your description of Denmark's library system. I still argue that same reasoning should make a secondhand market reasonable and the game publishers are missing an opportunity to monetize the market and make quite a bit of profit - so even greed may get them there eventually!

It was good debating with you both (and the others in the thread, CaptainGyro, amok, etc ... of course)! Sadly work now has to take precedence and I think I've made all relevant arguments. If you want to reply to this that's fine, I'll read the replies, but as aforementioned I think I've completely exhausted my list of arguments. So I bid you au revoir. It was a very interesting and fun debate, cheers! :)
Yes, nice debating you too. Have fun at work!
Posted September 08, 2011
avatar
Travalanche: Seriously you have to have internet to log in to steam so you can play a game you BOUGHT. To top it off the steam client is just a pain and somewhat intrusive....

I mean what kind of joke is that, I am the kind of person that moves from state to state and I only have internet 3/4ths of the time, so that means I'm unable to play games I paid for at full price unless I buy internet as well!
I have been using steam for 8 years now. Been using several machines and sometimes limited net access, and i have to say it never gave me any problem.

Honestly to me it's worth it because of the deals. The summer sales alone makes using Steam worth it...
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)I HATE STEAM!(113 posts)(113 posts)
(113 posts)