5 ms·

Strangely I find myself not-liking this ruling. I mean I can absolutely see from an intellectual level, why it's happened - but there will be repercussions. Fi

by goldcd 7y ago

Strangely I find myself not-liking this ruling. I mean I can absolutely see from an intellectual level, why it's happened - but there will be repercussions. Firstly the minor one. Restrictions on transfer is what allows us to pick up ridiculously cheap old/good games. Cheap (humble bundle or a steam sale) or even free (you happened to be on epic and pressed a button this month). There are already 'some problems' - but these services will be killed off. Major concern I have is that every game will "become a subscription service". I love my stack of steam games sat there to be played whenever I want. This is available as I currently have a perpetual license for them, and this is possible as the current market sells many many many more of these licenses than there are people concurrently playing these games. i.e. If licenses were made completely transferable, then gaming would become a 'market' like some weird global Uber. EA creates 100k licenses for a game (and the back-end support for it), if > 100k people want to play it the price to play per hour goes up (or they release more licenses), and if less it goes down they cut the price... ...again I'm OK with the model.. but not how it impacts how I see 'my games' My real objection being that this won't magically become an open market, it'll become subscription hell. EU can say something has to be resellable on Steam, but the industry response will be to "not sell on Steam" - and create endless separate markets.

betterbeehome 7y ago
The market can only handle so many competitors. Only two, sometimes three (if you're lucky?) ever amount to anything. Videogame genres are insanely easy to over saturate. Even streaming services like Netflix and what not aren't actually going to become some subscription hellscape like everyone thinks. Everyone's time limited, so there's only so many competitors that will succeed. And from history, it's usually whoever gets to market first, and does it just well enough for it to work at all. In the end, in the worst case scenario, you might be paying for one, maybe two subscription services for games. But you'll still have the option to buy games just like now, because not everyone gets to be king.
shakna 7y ago
> Major concern I have is that every game will "become a subscription service". I love my stack of steam games sat there to be played whenever I want. This is available as I currently have a perpetual license for them, and this is possible as the current market sells many many many more of these licenses than there are people concurrently playing these games. Valve tried to argue that Steam is already a subscription service, and failed. I don't see how this ruling will cause any change here other than allow transfer of ownership.
- OJFord 7y ago
  I believe GP means because if transfer is allowed, it'll happen at the expense of 'new' sales, which hurts developers/studios/publishers as much as it hurts Valve, so they adapt model to mitigate and sell subscriptions instead of perpetual licences.
  - shakna 7y ago
    Which doesn't make economic sense for Valve. They have two clear options: a) Switch to a true subscription model, but have to build a way to transfer items sold before the switch in payment model, as those have been ruled to be purchases. The gaming community would likely get annoyed with them. b) Build a way to transfer items. They get to take a cut of this, and can also pass a cut on to the studios, whilst pointing to this ruling as a reason why it has to happen. The gaming community would celebrate it, even if the transfer is ridiculously complex or difficult. The second option is the cheapest, and can only increase Valve's revenue, whilst they can also placate their partners.
    - SyneRyder 7y ago
      Can Valve take a cut of the transfer? It sounds like the point is French/European citizens must be allowed to resell the game any way they like without any involvement with Valve at all. If the sales/transfers have to go through Valve, it seems that still infringes on "the free movement of goods within the Union."
      - AlunAlun 7y ago
        Of course they can take a cut, just like any physical copy second hand reseller takes a cut. The trick will be demonstrating ownership of digital goods, which is the industry is beginning to invest in things like blockchain tech.
        SyneRyder 7y ago
        I think I worded my question badly (or I misunderstood the person I was replying to). I thought they were suggesting Valve / Steam would be the only place the sale / transfer could happen.
penispooper 7y ago
>Major concern I have is that every game will "become a subscription service". we'll see the first netflix-like delivery of games take off in popularity. I think one of playstation's offerings works like this and either EA or ubisoft has this too. It never would result in 'price to play per hour'. This isn't <1995 Alternatively, it on steam it could operate the way a lot of valve's dlc already operates. You end up with a gun in CS:GO and you can transfer it to whomever. The only issue is, the source of that DLC is from 'lootboxes'.
- pdpi 7y ago
  Xbox Gamepass is already exactly this. EA does offer something similar too, yes.
ninedays 7y ago
Ultimately people will vote with their wallet if they truly want this or not and no matter how long I look at this, I don’t see it being the future we are heading.

by goldcd 7y ago

betterbeehome 7y ago

The market can only handle so many competitors. Only two, sometimes three (if you're lucky?) ever amount to anything. Videogame genres are insanely easy to over saturate. Even streaming services like Netflix and what not aren't actually going to become some subscription hellscape like everyone thinks. Everyone's time limited, so there's only so many competitors that will succeed. And from history, it's usually whoever gets to market first, and does it just well enough for it to work at all. In the end, in the worst case scenario, you might be paying for one, maybe two subscription services for games. But you'll still have the option to buy games just like now, because not everyone gets to be king.

shakna 7y ago

> Major concern I have is that every game will "become a subscription service". I love my stack of steam games sat there to be played whenever I want. This is available as I currently have a perpetual license for them, and this is possible as the current market sells many many many more of these licenses than there are people concurrently playing these games. Valve tried to argue that Steam is already a subscription service, and failed. I don't see how this ruling will cause any change here other than allow transfer of ownership.

OJFord 7y ago
I believe GP means because if transfer is allowed, it'll happen at the expense of 'new' sales, which hurts developers/studios/publishers as much as it hurts Valve, so they adapt model to mitigate and sell subscriptions instead of perpetual licences.
- shakna 7y ago
  Which doesn't make economic sense for Valve. They have two clear options: a) Switch to a true subscription model, but have to build a way to transfer items sold before the switch in payment model, as those have been ruled to be purchases. The gaming community would likely get annoyed with them. b) Build a way to transfer items. They get to take a cut of this, and can also pass a cut on to the studios, whilst pointing to this ruling as a reason why it has to happen. The gaming community would celebrate it, even if the transfer is ridiculously complex or difficult. The second option is the cheapest, and can only increase Valve's revenue, whilst they can also placate their partners.
  - SyneRyder 7y ago
    Can Valve take a cut of the transfer? It sounds like the point is French/European citizens must be allowed to resell the game any way they like without any involvement with Valve at all. If the sales/transfers have to go through Valve, it seems that still infringes on "the free movement of goods within the Union."
    - AlunAlun 7y ago
      Of course they can take a cut, just like any physical copy second hand reseller takes a cut. The trick will be demonstrating ownership of digital goods, which is the industry is beginning to invest in things like blockchain tech.
      - SyneRyder 7y ago
        I think I worded my question badly (or I misunderstood the person I was replying to). I thought they were suggesting Valve / Steam would be the only place the sale / transfer could happen.

penispooper 7y ago

>Major concern I have is that every game will "become a subscription service". we'll see the first netflix-like delivery of games take off in popularity. I think one of playstation's offerings works like this and either EA or ubisoft has this too. It never would result in 'price to play per hour'. This isn't <1995 Alternatively, it on steam it could operate the way a lot of valve's dlc already operates. You end up with a gun in CS:GO and you can transfer it to whomever. The only issue is, the source of that DLC is from 'lootboxes'.

pdpi 7y ago
Xbox Gamepass is already exactly this. EA does offer something similar too, yes.

ninedays 7y ago

Ultimately people will vote with their wallet if they truly want this or not and no matter how long I look at this, I don’t see it being the future we are heading.