6 ms·

This is absurd. When I buy a game on Steam, I fully understand that it doesn't have any resale value – and I easily agree to this deal, because I choose to forg

This is absurd. When I buy a game on Steam, I fully understand that it doesn't have any resale value – and I easily agree to this deal, because I choose to forgo resale rights so I can get the game cheaper. But now this court have effectively destroyed my freedom to make this choice as a customer. And to add insult to injury, it's done this under the pretense of defending my rights, as if I'm an idiot who's not capable of making an informed choice. I really hope Valve finds a way to fight this. I don't want to go back to pre-Steam PC game prices.

CJefferson 7y ago
The first game I could find on Amazon and steam is F1 2019. Its £34.99 on Amazon and £44.99 on steam. The legends edition is £54.99 on both platforms.
quaquaqua1 7y ago
The more I think about this, the more it sounds generally correct to me. It should be proper that a "no resale rights version" is offered at a cheaper price compared to a higher priced "this is an asset you can resell" just like an N64 cartridge or etc. There are benefits to both models and the user and company should have the freedom to offer both.
archi42 7y ago
For some titles there is no option to get a "resale allowed version". E.g. I bought a retail version of Borderlands 2 several years ago on DVD (long time post release, was like 20 Euro in a local games store). Well, turned out that DVD basically was a Steam Installer plus key (of course, that's a decision made by the publisher). Also, "so I can get the game cheaper" - do you? When I buy a newly released game on Steam it's usually in the 50 to 60 Euro range. Most games I buy are a lot cheaper, but they're usually a few years old by the time I pull the trigger. Still, I also have mixed feelings. If games get a resale value, it will be more difficult to earn money making games. Especially those with great, but short content.
- Causality1 7y ago
  On the upside, having resale value is a direct attack on loot boxes, micro transactions, and other forms of in-game financial exploitation. You might be less likely to sink a thousand dollars into loot boxes if you're thinking about selling the game.
  - archi42 7y ago
    Good point. I was skeptical of DLCs when they first game about, but if they're decent quality/effort expansions, then that's fine with me. But games with the kind of exploitation you mention I stay away from, and as someone who regards games as a kind of art, I can't see how our cultural heritage benefits from this... kind of games (I'd like to add some not-so-nice words aimed at the beneficiaries of these "games", but those words seem inappropriate for HN). //edited a little bit ;)
  - simion314 7y ago
    Also it can encourage making more expansions or DLC, a good example is Witcher3 , if you deliver a quality expansion each year for a few years then people would not sell the game. I am so disappointed on games that the writers wrote a cool story but you need to wait years between releases(Dragon Age) or forever(Half Life) because the management and developers keep rebuilding the engine or try to modernize a good enough game with a big fan base.
- plopz 7y ago
  If it really is difficult to make money as a developer I would rather see Valve reduce their absurd 30% cut than use it as an excuse to not allow a secondary market.
- golergka 7y ago
  > Also, "so I can get the game cheaper" - do you? When I buy a newly released game on Steam it's usually in the 50 to 60 Euro range. It's about 30 in my region.
Barrin92 7y ago
>But now this court have effectively destroyed my freedom to make this choice as a customer To frame the idea that you don't have ownership of something you purchase as a freedom is some truly Orwellian spin on the term. You still have all the freedoms you had before, if you don't want to sell your games don't sell them. Giving customers proper ownership rights over the goods they purchase is not freedom diminishing, what has the world come to where you frame giving up control or ownership as freedom?
- bluecalm 7y ago
  It reduces freedom to make the following deal: "you get it cheaper but you can't resell it". It seems it also forces Steam to do work (implement code to move licenses to another account, support the new customer as after every resale it's likely there will be more support work etc.). It definitely reduces freedom of contract and imo in the wrong way. I prefer to buy software cheaper and don't worry about reselling it later. If resell value is included in price I will just be subsidizing people who do resell their games.
- _edo 7y ago
  GP currently has the ability to buy a product in a way they like (not purchasing resale rights that they don't want.) Somebody wants to take that away from them. GP is upset they're losing the freedom to do business in the way they like. You're calling their view Orwellian because French Big Brother knows what ownership rights they really want to purchase? It's not Orwellian, it's just a complicated issue of how intellectual property law affects consumers.
  - claudiawerner 7y ago
    > GP currently has the ability to buy a product in a way they like (not purchasing resale rights that they don't want.) Why is GP's freedom more important than my freedom to buy the product in the way I like (purchasing resale rights, or even having them included by default)? On top of that, the fact that GP has the "freedom" now doesn't mean that having the freedom is an inherent good. Remember that slave owners previously had the freedom to own slaves, and now they don't. Taking away a freedom somebody once had is arguably the foundation of civil society and the state if you subscribe to the idea that humans without the state exist in a state of anarchy. >You're calling their view Orwellian because French Big Brother knows what ownership rights they really want to purchase? No, the Orwellian view is that there is freedom in companies being able to decide what you can do with something after you've bought it from them. The person you're replying to, in my reading, views the whole notion of such a freedom as being profoundly anti-freedom. This is the sense in which it's Orwellian - freedom is confused, at large, with its opposite. As such, the way you're using the term "freedom to do business the way they like" is itself an expression of that unfreedom, just as in 1984 the usage of the word "freedom" by the Party actually refers to its opposite. From Marcuse: >Thus, the fact that the prevailing mode of freedom is servitude, and that the prevailing mode of equality is superimposed inequality is barred from expression by the closed definition of these concepts in terms of the powers which shape the respective universe of discourse. The result is the familiar Orwellian language ("peace is war" and "war is peace," etc.), which is by no means that of terroristic totalitarianism only. Nor is it any less Orwellian if the contradiction is not made explicit in the sentence but is enclosed in the noun.

CJefferson 7y ago

The first game I could find on Amazon and steam is F1 2019. Its £34.99 on Amazon and £44.99 on steam. The legends edition is £54.99 on both platforms.

quaquaqua1 7y ago

The more I think about this, the more it sounds generally correct to me. It should be proper that a "no resale rights version" is offered at a cheaper price compared to a higher priced "this is an asset you can resell" just like an N64 cartridge or etc. There are benefits to both models and the user and company should have the freedom to offer both.

archi42 7y ago

For some titles there is no option to get a "resale allowed version". E.g. I bought a retail version of Borderlands 2 several years ago on DVD (long time post release, was like 20 Euro in a local games store). Well, turned out that DVD basically was a Steam Installer plus key (of course, that's a decision made by the publisher). Also, "so I can get the game cheaper" - do you? When I buy a newly released game on Steam it's usually in the 50 to 60 Euro range. Most games I buy are a lot cheaper, but they're usually a few years old by the time I pull the trigger. Still, I also have mixed feelings. If games get a resale value, it will be more difficult to earn money making games. Especially those with great, but short content.

Causality1 7y ago
On the upside, having resale value is a direct attack on loot boxes, micro transactions, and other forms of in-game financial exploitation. You might be less likely to sink a thousand dollars into loot boxes if you're thinking about selling the game.
- archi42 7y ago
  Good point. I was skeptical of DLCs when they first game about, but if they're decent quality/effort expansions, then that's fine with me. But games with the kind of exploitation you mention I stay away from, and as someone who regards games as a kind of art, I can't see how our cultural heritage benefits from this... kind of games (I'd like to add some not-so-nice words aimed at the beneficiaries of these "games", but those words seem inappropriate for HN). //edited a little bit ;)
- simion314 7y ago
  Also it can encourage making more expansions or DLC, a good example is Witcher3 , if you deliver a quality expansion each year for a few years then people would not sell the game. I am so disappointed on games that the writers wrote a cool story but you need to wait years between releases(Dragon Age) or forever(Half Life) because the management and developers keep rebuilding the engine or try to modernize a good enough game with a big fan base.
plopz 7y ago
If it really is difficult to make money as a developer I would rather see Valve reduce their absurd 30% cut than use it as an excuse to not allow a secondary market.
golergka 7y ago
> Also, "so I can get the game cheaper" - do you? When I buy a newly released game on Steam it's usually in the 50 to 60 Euro range. It's about 30 in my region.

Barrin92 7y ago

>But now this court have effectively destroyed my freedom to make this choice as a customer To frame the idea that you don't have ownership of something you purchase as a freedom is some truly Orwellian spin on the term. You still have all the freedoms you had before, if you don't want to sell your games don't sell them. Giving customers proper ownership rights over the goods they purchase is not freedom diminishing, what has the world come to where you frame giving up control or ownership as freedom?

bluecalm 7y ago
It reduces freedom to make the following deal: "you get it cheaper but you can't resell it". It seems it also forces Steam to do work (implement code to move licenses to another account, support the new customer as after every resale it's likely there will be more support work etc.). It definitely reduces freedom of contract and imo in the wrong way. I prefer to buy software cheaper and don't worry about reselling it later. If resell value is included in price I will just be subsidizing people who do resell their games.
_edo 7y ago
GP currently has the ability to buy a product in a way they like (not purchasing resale rights that they don't want.) Somebody wants to take that away from them. GP is upset they're losing the freedom to do business in the way they like. You're calling their view Orwellian because French Big Brother knows what ownership rights they really want to purchase? It's not Orwellian, it's just a complicated issue of how intellectual property law affects consumers.
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  > GP currently has the ability to buy a product in a way they like (not purchasing resale rights that they don't want.) Why is GP's freedom more important than my freedom to buy the product in the way I like (purchasing resale rights, or even having them included by default)? On top of that, the fact that GP has the "freedom" now doesn't mean that having the freedom is an inherent good. Remember that slave owners previously had the freedom to own slaves, and now they don't. Taking away a freedom somebody once had is arguably the foundation of civil society and the state if you subscribe to the idea that humans without the state exist in a state of anarchy. >You're calling their view Orwellian because French Big Brother knows what ownership rights they really want to purchase? No, the Orwellian view is that there is freedom in companies being able to decide what you can do with something after you've bought it from them. The person you're replying to, in my reading, views the whole notion of such a freedom as being profoundly anti-freedom. This is the sense in which it's Orwellian - freedom is confused, at large, with its opposite. As such, the way you're using the term "freedom to do business the way they like" is itself an expression of that unfreedom, just as in 1984 the usage of the word "freedom" by the Party actually refers to its opposite. From Marcuse: >Thus, the fact that the prevailing mode of freedom is servitude, and that the prevailing mode of equality is superimposed inequality is barred from expression by the closed definition of these concepts in terms of the powers which shape the respective universe of discourse. The result is the familiar Orwellian language ("peace is war" and "war is peace," etc.), which is by no means that of terroristic totalitarianism only. Nor is it any less Orwellian if the contradiction is not made explicit in the sentence but is enclosed in the noun.