THE EU IS AWESOME: Software licenses are yours, and you have the legal right to re-sell them. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Bomimo;36634748]Doing that will just remind everyone of the 1$=1€ shitstorm and customers will drop like flies.[/QUOTE] What else can they do? Drop the whole EU?

Starting a steam game rental service, BRB. But seriously this doesn't sound good. I've not really had an issue with not touching used games ever again considering Steams prices.

Guys are you dumb? You can already buy games during sales and put them in your inventory...

[QUOTE=SEKCobra;36634834]Guys are you dumb? You can already buy games during sales and put them in your inventory...[/QUOTE] But now you can play them and trade them, which I believe Valve likens to wrapping up your toaster to give to a friend

[QUOTE=SEKCobra;36634834]Guys are you dumb? You can already buy games during sales and put them in your inventory...[/QUOTE] Never said you couldn't they cannot disallow you from selling those, but the stuff on your account already, such as the games you can just launch and play right now, would be bound to that account only as it is your license.

[QUOTE=Ericson666;36634791]What else can they do? Drop the whole EU?[/QUOTE] uhh. How about just accommodating the new rules? Wouldn't that be a fucking good starting point?

[QUOTE=Bomimo;36634970]uhh. How about just accommodating the new rules? Wouldn't that be a fucking good starting point?[/QUOTE] Which would ,if their is a ruling that they have to be able to transfer games already bound to an account, destroy the marketability of steam games as people would just transfer games to each-other constantly thus destroying the tf2 economy as well.

[QUOTE=deadoon;36635093]Which would ,if their is a ruling that they have to be able to transfer games already bound to an account, destroy the marketability of steam games as people would just transfer games to each-other constantly thus destroying the tf2 economy as well.[/QUOTE] Yep yep. This will completely destroy steam more or less

[QUOTE=deadoon;36634586]You do know how your account is set up right? When you buy something you quite literally are upgrading your account, it just changes a setting on their end to say that you have access something so it wouldn't be pretending if that is the actual process of receiving a game. You may be able to sell games which are still in their unsent or unactivated form as they are separate from your account in your inventory as they give people the chance to change those variables without a direct purchase, however.[/QUOTE] You're fucking wrong.. [img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5483751/Photos/2012-07-05_1928.png[/img] Do you see that word? Licenses, and it lists any and ALL licenses tied to your account. Not 'one large license' like you claim. These licenses valve might have to help sell thanks to the ruling (I'm not a lawyer so I wouldn't know if it actually requires them to facilitate it).

This video might clear up some misconceptions about what this might mean for games bought online. [b]Skip to the 6:04 mark[/b] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX3yhI0uwWg&t=6m3s[/media]

[QUOTE=deadoon;36635093]Which would ,if their is a ruling that they have to be able to transfer games already bound to an account, destroy the marketability of steam games as people would just transfer games to each-other constantly thus destroying the tf2 economy as well.[/QUOTE] Just apply a virtual disc-scratch simulation to their licenses. Problem solved.

[QUOTE=Political Gamer;36635636]This video might clear up some misconceptions about what this might mean for games bought online. [b]Skip to the 6:04 mark[/b] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX3yhI0uwWg&t=6m3s[/media][/QUOTE] He's saying that it's ridiculous that steam wouldn't get any money while they have to facilitate the download for another user, but that doesn't really hold up, because they're facilitating the download not to a user, but to a license. It's still the same license the downloaded is provided to, the owner is just different.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36635521]You're fucking wrong.. [IMG]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5483751/Photos/2012-07-05_1928.png[/IMG] Do you see that word? Licenses, and it lists any and ALL licenses tied to your account. Not 'one large license' like you claim. These licenses valve might have to help sell thanks to the ruling (I'm not a lawyer so I wouldn't know if it actually requires them to facilitate it).[/QUOTE] And we now are on a different topic altogether now, reread the second sentence again, and think of how a settings file works, all of your licenses are put into one place and made into one single license due to how they are set up, all it is is a simple variable saying you have the game on your account or not. Technically you could say you don't have the licenses to the games either, your account does. [QUOTE=Bomimo;36635717]Just apply a virtual disc-scratch simulation to their licenses. Problem solved.[/QUOTE] So give the end user corrupt data after a few installs or transfers? [QUOTE=mobrockers2;36635846]He's saying that it's ridiculous that steam wouldn't get any money while they have to facilitate the download for another user, but that doesn't really hold up, because they're facilitating the download not to a user, but to a license. It's still the same license the downloaded is provided to, the owner is just different.[/QUOTE] So your saying steam should remove their sales entirely due to a good reason sales exist like they do on steam is to compensate for the lack of a used game market?

[QUOTE=deadoon;36636004] So give the end user corrupt data after a few installs or transfers? [/QUOTE] Should provide hilarity for us New Purchase master race specimens... I was thinking more of... stamps with up to four resales, but that is just absolutely retarded... I should stop thinking...

Maybe this will result in a game section on ebay.

OK. Just for you: You can not legally fix the licenses together with anything, its the whole point. saying ¨it never was a license doesnt work¨. As i said before, this is not your make it up as you go powerplay.

[QUOTE=deadoon;36636004]And we now are on a different topic altogether now, reread the second sentence again, and think of how a settings file works, all of your licenses are put into one place and made into one single license due to how they are set up, all it is is a simple variable saying you have the game on your account or not. Technically you could say you don't have the licenses to the games either, your account does. So give the end user corrupt data after a few installs or transfers? [b]So your saying steam should remove their sales entirely due to a good reason sales exist like they do on steam is to compensate for the lack of a used game market?[/b][/QUOTE] I'm not saying valve should do anything, where do you see me saying that? I'm saying that he's wrong in saying that valve having to facilitate the download for a different user is ridiculous, because that doesn't matter at all. Valve facilitates the download for that license, not for that user. And what makes you think that the reason valve can give such good sales is due to the lack of a used game market? Valve can give such good sales because the overhead is just that huge. All they have to have is some server space and lots bandwidth. They have no store, they have no sales personnel, they have no storage rooms, in the grand scheme of things Steam's upkeep is peanuts compared to their profits.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36638454]I'm not saying valve should do anything, where do you see me saying that? I'm saying that he's wrong in saying that valve having to facilitate the download for a different user is ridiculous, because that doesn't matter at all. Valve facilitates the download for that license, not for that user. And what makes you think that the reason valve can give such good sales is due to the lack of a used game market? Valve can give such good sales because the overhead is just that huge. All they have to have is some server space and lots bandwidth. They have no store, they have no sales personnel, they have no storage rooms, in the grand scheme of things Steam's upkeep is peanuts compared to their profits.[/QUOTE] The profitability of sales is only guaranteed so long as the sale item is not transferable in any way that would increase costs of maintenance for the company, the transfer to another person increases costs due to the fact that no new license was made and the same benefits are required to be given to a person using a license that otherwise would have become dormant for a long period of time, thus it is actually a tangible although minor loss. The cause of sales is not the fact that there is no used game market, but rather to discourage trading of accounts or games outside of their systems.

Sooooooo... Why would I pay $60 to the developers/publishers for a new license when I can just buy someone else's license for $2? Maybe I'm not understanding this correctly, but won't this just screw everyone over?

[QUOTE=DrBreen;36624883]i want to visit steam[/QUOTE] If you do, be sure to check out their gift shop. They have a pretty banging visitor's room, too. [img]http://www.dota-two.com/img/articles/valve-hq.jpg[/img] They even have a Sentry gun. [img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_L7vLucexdvE/TQRW9e_HqYI/AAAAAAAAA6Y/ppcmFCAlRZc/s1600/weta+workshop+tf2+sentry+gun.jpg[/img]

Reselling goods only really works when they are physical. Digital resale (especially in the case of digitally distributed goods) isn't as viable. To use Steam as the arguments here have been, if people started selling their licences on to other players Valve would be paying for bandwidth with no income. A bad business move. They get nothing out of the deal, and the product traded is exactly as it was bought. Effectively hurting the new sales market. Where with physical items, the new market will always exist, as you'd be getting an untouched product, something that nobody has used or damaged, or you can use the used market, pay less, and recieve goods that aren't equal to the new versions. It's why the online pass system exists now, buyers have very little reason to buy a game first hand if everything is provided in a second hand copy for half the price. The developers then receive no money from the sale, and this user is receiving a product of equal quality to the original (assuming the disc is still in good shape). It's not a flaw in the games industry, it's a flaw in the digital entertainment industry in general. Why would someone pay full price for a item when they can get the same thing cheaper (no respectable shop accepts overly damaged second hand products). The hardware markets don't work this way as a second hand piece of electronics will have a shorter life span than a new one, may be damaged, etc. A second hand table may be damaged, or not cleaned properly, a second hand car will have some form of deterioration too. Meaning buying the product new has advantages. But digital media? None of that at all, it can be copied, it's resilient, and without damaging the physical media it's on, or having network interference, it's perfect quality.

-snip-

[QUOTE=hexpunK;36640094]Reselling goods only really works when they are physical. Digital resale (especially in the case of digitally distributed goods) isn't as viable. To use Steam as the arguments here have been, if people started selling their licences on to other players Valve would be paying for bandwidth with no income. A bad business move. They get nothing out of the deal, and the product traded is exactly as it was bought. Effectively hurting the new sales market. Where with physical items, the new market will always exist, as you'd be getting an untouched product, something that nobody has used or damaged, or you can use the used market, pay less, and recieve goods that aren't equal to the new versions. It's why the online pass system exists now, buyers have very little reason to buy a game first hand if everything is provided in a second hand copy for half the price. The developers then receive no money from the sale, and this user is receiving a product of equal quality to the original (assuming the disc is still in good shape). It's not a flaw in the games industry, it's a flaw in the digital entertainment industry in general. Why would someone pay full price for a item when they can get the same thing cheaper (no respectable shop accepts overly damaged second hand products). The hardware markets don't work this way as a second hand piece of electronics will have a shorter life span than a new one, may be damaged, etc. A second hand table may be damaged, or not cleaned properly, a second hand car will have some form of deterioration too. Meaning buying the product new has advantages. But digital media? None of that at all, it can be copied, it's resilient, and without damaging the physical media it's on, or having network interference, it's perfect quality.[/QUOTE] As it is now, discs that are properly cared for can last for decades. Other forms of media, like books, can last even longer. The music industry hasn't spontaneously died despite the fact that you can buy CDs and even working vinyl records at any used store or pawnshop. It was unfair in the first place to sell people the limited rights to a limited license to a digital game for the same price as a physical copy which comes with resale rights. This ruling corrects that mistake. Now you don't buy rights, you buy [I]the license[/I], and ownership of that license, whether it's for a digital or hard copy of the software, is and should be transferable. And if I pay $50 for a PC game on Steam while the retail one is also $50, I would think that I should get the same rights, considering I paid for them.

[QUOTE=Anti Christ;36640422]Not anymore. They moved it from the front lobby to an employee room. I was just there a month ago.[/QUOTE] It went to go work in the Dota 2 cabal

[QUOTE=FlakAttack;36643196]As it is now, discs that are properly cared for can last for decades. Other forms of media, like books, can last even longer. The music industry hasn't spontaneously died despite the fact that you can buy CDs and even working vinyl records at any used store or pawnshop. It was unfair in the first place to sell people the limited rights to a limited license to a digital game for the same price as a physical copy which comes with resale rights. This ruling corrects that mistake. Now you don't buy rights, you buy [I]the license[/I], and ownership of that license, whether it's for a digital or hard copy of the software, is and should be transferable. And if I pay $50 for a PC game on Steam while the retail one is also $50, I would think that I should get the same rights, considering I paid for them.[/QUOTE] It isn't viable and it won't work in your favor. A steam game is also different. You act as though steam doesn't inherently offer its own benefits. The automatic updating and access to my library of games from anywhere with an internet connection far out values the comparatively small amount of money I might make reselling the game. They offer you a service with your game in return for you NOT being able to sell it. That is what you give up. That is how steam continues to exist. If you could sell any game in your library at any time, it would destroy steam as we know it.

That's like saying "redownloading your game every few days would ruin Steam". And yes it would. And yet we can do it... Does this mean Steam can just ban me from downloading that game now? No.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;36605333]It would be neat if Steam set up a way that people could trade games they purchased for themselves. I have plenty I could do to get rid of quite honestly. Probably get some good stuff from them. And they may actually end up doing that as a response to this. It would certainly make them that much greater.[/QUOTE] There's a reason they don't do it, it would devalue the games severely. [QUOTE=milkandcooki;36605454]Buy one game, trade it to a friend when you're bored of it. Repeat x30.[/QUOTE] Case in point.

This can become a very bad thing. If people can get games for little to nothing on another market then it will cut into profits of games that aren't multiplayer or free to play. This could encourage dlc or encourage the continuation of higher prices in Europe. Also you would see people letting everyone on their friends list play the game one person bought. [editline]6th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=SEKCobra;36644282]That's like saying "redownloading your game every few days would ruin Steam". And yes it would. And yet we can do it... Does this mean Steam can just ban me from downloading that game now? No.[/QUOTE] Except in most cases you would gain nothing from downloading a game over and over. When you can get a game for free or basically free then things change.

So let me get this right. Per say, in the future, if I want Steam to revoke the licence of one of my steam games, I would probably need to pay another sum of money to them to unlock it? Unless they implement a way to "revoke" the game or transform it into gift again, via some sort of service or special dlc? I know I'm dumb, but that's how I see it from my perspective. Would you guys pay to have your games revoked back to gift status? Cuz that's how I buy all my games on steam: (preorder) gift version.

[QUOTE=GunFox;36643554]It isn't viable and it won't work in your favor. A steam game is also different. You act as though steam doesn't inherently offer its own benefits. The automatic updating and access to my library of games from anywhere with an internet connection far out values the comparatively small amount of money I might make reselling the game. They offer you a service with your game in return for you NOT being able to sell it. That is what you give up. That is how steam continues to exist. If you could sell any game in your library at any time, it would destroy steam as we know it.[/QUOTE] I think Steam will have to change a bit, but I don't see Steam's sudden demise if they had to follow through. I'm trying to see it, but I just can't understand the doomsday scenario you see. This is all going to be irrelevant in a few years anyway because the majority of games will be F2P.