4 ms·

Game resale has been a staple ever since video games exists. Gaming stores chain have built their business' margins around it. And game would easily go through

by nolok 7y ago

Game resale has been a staple ever since video games exists. Gaming stores chain have built their business' margins around it. And game would easily go through several people's hands, not just one sale. The only thing that may seem different is the amount of potential customers you can reach at once by your sale, but it's not either: game resale on ebay or amazon allow the same thing, as well as whatever local personal ads site is popular (eg leboncoin in france). Also, people like to own things, which is why no you didn't go and sell all your books/vhs/dvd/... after watching them when you bought those. Don't let the "it's digital" be used as an excuse to allow companies to strip you of your rights, and especially don't think it's a good thing.

ketzo 7y ago
> Gaming stores chain have built their business' margins around it. But modern game studios have not; quite the opposite. The indie game industry exists almost solely because of digital distribution, and resale would cripple them.
- nolok 7y ago
  Says who ? Modern indie didn't thrive because there was no resale, they started thriving because the hard barrier to publishing got removed (first with xbox live arcade, then steam and psn, then every store).
  - shultays 7y ago
    This makes current solution (steam/digital markets) to "hard barrier of publishing" a less desireable solution for indies. But I agree, I think this is a smaller problem for indies. Low cost of those games would make people not to bother much. 40$ aaa games on the other hand would lose a lot of bucks though.
    - throwawayhhakdl 7y ago
      I think I disagree. A used digital game has no depreciation at all. If a middleman can wedge themselves between steam and take a cut, you could easily imagine indie (and any) games lowering their cost substantially The time investment of selling a digital copy of a game that is identical to all others should be 1 second of thought and clicking if not impeded by steam.
- anonymousab 7y ago
  > The indie game industry exists almost solely because of digital distribution, and resale would cripple them. Only if the game is not worth keeping.
shultays 7y ago
Yeah but selling physical copies is not as convinent as buying it on steam or buying keys in any other web page. I would guess "owning" a digital game does not come with all good feeling that physical copies do. Imo "but digital" argumeny is perfectly valid if it is making things much more conveninet. Also hard copies gets destroyed over time while a steam key last forever.
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  > Also hard copies gets destroyed over time while a steam key last forever. Technically, the steam key evaporates when you die. Accounts aren't supposed to be inheritable. This will change, but Steam is too new for it to be a live issue now.
rebuilder 7y ago
Friction is an important factor to consider here. With 0 friction, there's no need to actually "own" a game. You can just purchase it whenever you want to play it. Currently, the assumption is that anyone wishing to play a game will play the asking price, whether that's $60 or less. If you want to play AAA game du jour, you'll pay full price. What if you can sell your digital game, with no friction? Well, you pay your $60, play for a couple of hours, and once you stop playing, you tell your steam market bot to sell the game at market price +- your preference. Then, when you want to play again, you tell your bot to buy the game again. Rinse, repeat. This is not going to fit well within the game pricing model as we know it.
user5994461 7y ago
Game resale has been entirely killed since the rise of online games, especially multiplayer. Games need a unique key to play, then later a unique account. Even if the key or account could be sold second hand, there is no trust in it so there is no second hand market. Too much risk to be defrauded, for example the key is cancelled because it was a stolen card, or the first owner claims it back.
- nolok 7y ago
  > Game resale has been entirely killed For physical games they absolutely have not. Nowhere near that at all. Even in the US it's a bit more than 25% of Gamestop revenue in the last year. Look at NPD top 20 biggest games sellers of 2019, for every single one of them with online features you can go to your local store, buy a used copy for your ps4/xbox one/switch that has been used online, and play with it online, and the seller cannot play with it anymore. The only physicial games for which that has become true is the PC games that register on steam (or other similar platforms such as uplay or origin), which is exactly what this case is about, this is the whole point of this court case. Physical multiplayer games on console are actually a perfect exemple of 1) that you are wrong and it hasn't been killed, only on pc, and 2) the fact that a solution not only can work but already exists. Transfer of the game to a new Steam account and the new owner can play with it and his key, the old owner cannot. Also just enter a video game store, at least in europe, and you will easily see that's it hasn't been "entirely killed" since roughly 50% of their store surface is dedicated to used copies resale ...

by nolok 7y ago

ketzo 7y ago

> Gaming stores chain have built their business' margins around it. But modern game studios have not; quite the opposite. The indie game industry exists almost solely because of digital distribution, and resale would cripple them.

nolok 7y ago
Says who ? Modern indie didn't thrive because there was no resale, they started thriving because the hard barrier to publishing got removed (first with xbox live arcade, then steam and psn, then every store).
- shultays 7y ago
  This makes current solution (steam/digital markets) to "hard barrier of publishing" a less desireable solution for indies. But I agree, I think this is a smaller problem for indies. Low cost of those games would make people not to bother much. 40$ aaa games on the other hand would lose a lot of bucks though.
  - throwawayhhakdl 7y ago
    I think I disagree. A used digital game has no depreciation at all. If a middleman can wedge themselves between steam and take a cut, you could easily imagine indie (and any) games lowering their cost substantially The time investment of selling a digital copy of a game that is identical to all others should be 1 second of thought and clicking if not impeded by steam.
anonymousab 7y ago
> The indie game industry exists almost solely because of digital distribution, and resale would cripple them. Only if the game is not worth keeping.

shultays 7y ago

Yeah but selling physical copies is not as convinent as buying it on steam or buying keys in any other web page. I would guess "owning" a digital game does not come with all good feeling that physical copies do. Imo "but digital" argumeny is perfectly valid if it is making things much more conveninet. Also hard copies gets destroyed over time while a steam key last forever.

thaumasiotes 7y ago
> Also hard copies gets destroyed over time while a steam key last forever. Technically, the steam key evaporates when you die. Accounts aren't supposed to be inheritable. This will change, but Steam is too new for it to be a live issue now.

rebuilder 7y ago

Friction is an important factor to consider here. With 0 friction, there's no need to actually "own" a game. You can just purchase it whenever you want to play it. Currently, the assumption is that anyone wishing to play a game will play the asking price, whether that's $60 or less. If you want to play AAA game du jour, you'll pay full price. What if you can sell your digital game, with no friction? Well, you pay your $60, play for a couple of hours, and once you stop playing, you tell your steam market bot to sell the game at market price +- your preference. Then, when you want to play again, you tell your bot to buy the game again. Rinse, repeat. This is not going to fit well within the game pricing model as we know it.

user5994461 7y ago

Game resale has been entirely killed since the rise of online games, especially multiplayer. Games need a unique key to play, then later a unique account. Even if the key or account could be sold second hand, there is no trust in it so there is no second hand market. Too much risk to be defrauded, for example the key is cancelled because it was a stolen card, or the first owner claims it back.

nolok 7y ago
> Game resale has been entirely killed For physical games they absolutely have not. Nowhere near that at all. Even in the US it's a bit more than 25% of Gamestop revenue in the last year. Look at NPD top 20 biggest games sellers of 2019, for every single one of them with online features you can go to your local store, buy a used copy for your ps4/xbox one/switch that has been used online, and play with it online, and the seller cannot play with it anymore. The only physicial games for which that has become true is the PC games that register on steam (or other similar platforms such as uplay or origin), which is exactly what this case is about, this is the whole point of this court case. Physical multiplayer games on console are actually a perfect exemple of 1) that you are wrong and it hasn't been killed, only on pc, and 2) the fact that a solution not only can work but already exists. Transfer of the game to a new Steam account and the new owner can play with it and his key, the old owner cannot. Also just enter a video game store, at least in europe, and you will easily see that's it hasn't been "entirely killed" since roughly 50% of their store surface is dedicated to used copies resale ...