French court rules that Valve must allow for Steam users to resell their digital games

512px-Steam_icon_logo.svg.png

While the UK High Court is busy banning piracy sites, the French High Court has just finished up another battle within the gaming industry. The French High Court has just ruled that Valve must make some drastic changes to their digital games storefront, Steam, stating that all French users must be allowed to resell their digital games. The legal dispute was led by the French consumer rights association, the UFC Que Choisir, who initially filed the lawsuit against Valve back in 2015. As it stands currently, purchases made on Steam are tied to your account, and once redeemed, cannot be resold--only refunded under certain circumstances.

The court ruled that not allowing for consumers to resell their digital library goes against European law, and that Valve has 30 days to comply, or will risk a daily fine of 3,000 Euros for up to six months, until a change is made. Valve, not pleased with the ruling, has decided to appeal the decision, with a representative claiming, "We disagree with the decision of the Paris Court of First Instance, and will appeal it. The decision will have no effect on Steam while the case is on appeal".

Previously, Valve dealt with an Australian legal battle, in which the courts ruled that Valve must implement a refund policy, which it appealed, and then lost against. A year after, Steam added a refund policy for games purchased on the storefront. Should Valve's appeal be dismissed, it could also open the gates to other digital storefronts being investigated, fined, and forced to add a method of reselling their digital titles.

:arrow: Source
 

fischermasamune

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2013
Messages
223
Trophies
0
XP
236
Country
United States
(I read all the first seven pages of the thread. I may reuse and repeat some ideas if they match mine, with no references and direct credit provided. Still, I believe there are some new thoughts on the following.)

If the decision on upheld, and then expanded to the EU and the rest of the world, I think it would be a good thing (there are three subscenarios in this case). Not because it would necessarily change prices, supply and demand, but because it would force the industry (we focus on the video game industry, but it also affects music, movies and software). Let's say this this goes into effect.

1) Then buying a game online allows the user to sell their game. The process should be something like that:

a) There are new games which are sold from Steam, which people can buy, to become an owner of a license of playing that game [I'll say "own the game" for simplicity].

b) A legit owner of a copy can sell their game, typically offering in a online store. Steam would likely offer this service (of facilitating sale for a fee) through a service of its own, like eBay, but it would not be able to be a monopoly (because if it tried, it would be sued for monopolizing the market and not really allowing sales of used games). Other services would allow it, with different fees and features. It would also be possible to sell it by person-to-person, at no fee, say it by transferring a encrypted file or something.

c) They can sell for any price they want. It would be less or equal that the price the original copies of the game (original meaning that the buyer would be the first buyer; won't clarify it again) are selling for at the official Valve/Epic/GOG store (in case the original distribution ceases selling, then the price could rise, the same way that happens with physical copies no longer printed, according to the process that is commonly called supply and demand). At the same time, it would not be 1 cent. It would be a fair compensation for the seller to lose the game and the buyer get the game.

d) Upon sale, the current owner of the game irrevocably loses the license to play the game. This would need to be implemented technically by Valve and other stores. (I can see people try to circumvent whatever the method is, trying to make pirate copies, specially now that they legitimately hold the game for some time in their possession. But there are two objections to the destructiveness and novelty of the issue. First, piracy already exists, with physical and digital games. If piracy is effective in preventing people from buying legit copies, the price adjust itself, like it happens with physical games, or even GOG, which allows the files to be downloaded DRM-free. Second, that happens also in other markets, like books. What if I buy a physical book, scan all the pages, then sell my book? Same thing. Note that piracy allows one to have a lesser copy of the product. Even for a digital game, the moment it's pirated, can't be sold as a legit copy [or rather could, but it would be fraudulent].)

e) The new owner would get a legit copy of the game. Used, but legit and legal and complete. I saw people arguing there could be a special gift, let it be a skin or weapon or another piece of in-game asset for the first owner only. I don't believe it would be possible to make it illegal to sell whatever it is to the buyer along with the game. As such, there could be timed offers of exclusive in-game assets, for example with pre-orders, but it would not be possible to make first-owner-only offers.

2) This would certainly affect the prices of digital games. There are two reasons in which digital games differ from physical games. The first is the ease of creating and distributing copies (currently easier than printing media and sending to physical stores). The second is the fact that the digital games can't be resold (at least not without many conditions). If games can be resold, it will be something like the market for physical copies. There will be fewer of very drastic discounts, which entice you to buy something you'll possibly never play (I guess many of us have enormous libraries with hours and hours of untouched games), and more of a steady decline of the price of the product. At the same time, an original copy may be sold for more than $60 (which is a common price for brand new, just released games) as being able to sell the game is a feature the first buyer would be purchasing with the game. With a new regulation and with price changes, it alters the industry a bit. That is, what was profitable before, may not be. Other options may appear (streaming, and others no one has ever thought about). The market would adjust. Probably to the better to some but not all customers, depending on their spending patterns and many other factors.

2.1) It is important to note that I don't believe that the games that are currently owned will be able to be sold, and that was the hypothesis I was working with. I think that it's more likely that the court decision, if upheld and expanded to other countries, would apply only to new purchases of games, not retroactively. Either way, it would affect prices, not invalidating what I wrote previously, except that it would in general push the prices down a bit (after all, supply is being created).

3) Now I believe that there could be a new modality of sale: loaning/rent/borrowing. That it would work exactly as it does today, but now it would have it's correct name: you are borrowing a game for unlimited time, but are never the owner of the game, and can't resell it. Let's examine the three possibilities (the fourth is that digital selling of games disappears, extremely unlikely), called A), B) and C), depending on the legality of selling and lending.

A) It would be possible for a customer to either buy or borrow (for unlimited time) the games. That is, when interested in an original game from Steam, the user can either buy the game, which would allow him to sell it, or to borrow it for unlimited time, in which he would be constrained by the restrictions of today's digital games. Obviously borrowing would be cheaper. This would be the best case scenario, and actually the most likely if the court decision if upheld and expanded. The rule would be: it is legal for Steam and others to lend a game as long as they can purchase the complete, resalable game.

B) The court forbids borrowing: only complete sales are allowed. This case was treated in 2). I believe that since, for example, one can at the same website or store have offers of selling and lending a physical book (at different prices obviously), it would be true also for digital games.

C) The court forbids the practice of lending a game and calling it a sale, but it allows the lending of a game without the need of a sale offer. In that case, the market would be pretty much as today, but we would refer to the acquisition of nontransferable licenses to play games as borrowing a game (or maybe getting a game loaned, or a new word that hasn't been invented) instead of buying a game.

4) I believe that in any the three scenarios A), B) and C), we would be better off. A) for the variety of options, B) for the consumer protections and C) for the honesty about the transactions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ev1l0rd

gamesquest1

Nabnut
Former Staff
Joined
Sep 23, 2013
Messages
15,153
Trophies
2
XP
12,237
personally i think people should be allowed to resell their digital games, although i can see how this would mess up many services such as steam etc, i can imagine there are ways to mitigate such issues, such as tying digital licences to a certain number of downloads, i.e each licence is valid for 10 downloads, once that limit is hit you need to pay an extra $2 for each additional re-download of the title, that way steam still gets some money for running the servers....sure i would prefer we get unlimited re-downloads but i'm willing to accept that steam would need to adjust their business plans to cover server costs if they don't get to lock games to each account

but it makes complete sense that people should be allowed to gift/resell games they no longer want as they always could with physical media, i would even settle for easier more user friendly family sharing, the current system sucks forcing you to give your password to your cousin etc so they can sign into your account and locking your library to one game so your friend/family cant just play one of your old games while you play another
 

Wuigi

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
727
Trophies
1
XP
1,783
Country
United States
They would probably have to generate a new license every time a used license is sold, should be no problem with the trillions of possible key values I think.
 

Ev1l0rd

(⌐◥▶◀◤) girl - noirscape
Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2015
Messages
2,004
Trophies
1
Location
Site 19
Website
catgirlsin.space
XP
3,441
Country
Netherlands
@fischermasamune gonna just mention you like this since including your full reply to just ask you a question is a quote unquote dick move.

I like your response, you seem to have thought about it a lot.

What I'm curious about is how you think it would influence general sales estimations of video games on a long term perspective. As it currently stands, AAA companies are breaking their backs over constantly expecting higher and higher sales figures to show to their shareholders (often to the point of insanity, which causes it to be taken out on their general employees when they inevitably fail to live up to expectations). I don't think it would be a stretch to assume that this massive overshooting of expectations is because as it currently stands, AAA companies hold essential full control over their game sales (most titles still get retail, but even then I'm pretty sure that since garbage bin sales exist, AAA companies consider every shipped retail copy to a store a succesful sale for them and they hold an obvious control over the digital market).

Do you think that these estimates for AAA companies (and the subsequent abuse leveled on the studio employees) would be lowered if this comes to pass?

On a similar note, is there any considerable chance that we see the entire games industry crash (I doubt it, but this could feasibly occur) due to the lack of ability for especially small time developers to make a living from their games, as eventually people will realize they can just start passing copies around to one another, which for less replayable games could mean a death knell?

I'm just asking these questions out of curiosity as these are the concerns and questions I had and you seem to have a good idea of the situation.
 

snobbysteven

Well-Known Member
Newcomer
Joined
Aug 14, 2019
Messages
99
Trophies
0
Age
31
Location
Chicago
XP
331
Country
United States
How so? If Gamestop can be considered a legitimate business, why would this do any damage? It's the same license transfer concept but physical media just has a physical token tied to it.
Well just because it's legitimate doesn't mean it's good. Game developers hate gamestop because of it. For awhile they tried adding keys to their 360 games so that to play the game online you needed the key and it was a one time use key and if anyone else bought the game they had to rebuy the key.

If I am a small time dev and this goes through. My first thought is okay, we are going to lose a lot of money on sales because of people buying used copies instead of buying new, so lets increase the price on the new copies to compensate for it. So prices of smaller games will go up and less people will buy them because they are more expensive now, so the dev's will still get less money, less money means they don't have the funds to continue making games, and so forth.

I worked at gamestop for a few years, reselling a game is great for the consumer, but not for the dev's. Specially if you make a game that cost's lets say $5 and takes an hour to beat. After say the first week or two, everyone will be selling their copy because they already beat it and who would buy it new when it can be bought for $2 used. So pretty much after the first few weeks of sales that game dev won't make a single penny anymore because everyone will just buy it "used" for half price. The only way I could see this not being quite as bad is if valve slaps a decent sized fee on reselling a game and part of it goes back to the dev. Not to mention reselling a game through steam would be so much easier than going on say ebay and selling a physical copy, then having to deal with shipping it. So I think reselling digital games would be quite a larger profit cut for game devs then it was for physical copies.

Me personally, I have a ton of physical games that I beat that are just sitting there, have no interest in playing again, but I don't feel like dealing with having to list them on ebay and ship them or going to gamestop, but if I could list 20 of my games for sale on steam with a few clicks of a button, and 5 minutes of my time. Never have to even get out of my chair. I would be selling games left and right. Which I imagine everyone else will be doing as well.

Sorry this ended up being quite long Lol. But yeah, I just think in the long run this could hurt how many games we have to pick from as a consumer because there will be less games being made.
 

Ev1l0rd

(⌐◥▶◀◤) girl - noirscape
Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2015
Messages
2,004
Trophies
1
Location
Site 19
Website
catgirlsin.space
XP
3,441
Country
Netherlands
Well just because it's legitimate doesn't mean it's good. Game developers hate gamestop because of it. For awhile they tried adding keys to their 360 games so that to play the game online you needed the key and it was a one time use key and if anyone else bought the game they had to rebuy the key.
I mean, I'm pretty sure AAA will sell regardless. It's indie titles, those with often low sales to begin and those that aren't really replayable that I think are the real ones in danger here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xzi and Rahkeesh

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
30,818
Trophies
3
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
29,787
Country
Poland
@fischermasamune gonna just mention you like this since including your full reply to just ask you a question is a quote unquote dick move.

I like your response, you seem to have thought about it a lot.

What I'm curious about is how you think it would influence general sales estimations of video games on a long term perspective. As it currently stands, AAA companies are breaking their backs over constantly expecting higher and higher sales figures to show to their shareholders (often to the point of insanity, which causes it to be taken out on their general employees when they inevitably fail to live up to expectations). I don't think it would be a stretch to assume that this massive overshooting of expectations is because as it currently stands, AAA companies hold essential full control over their game sales (most titles still get retail, but even then I'm pretty sure that since garbage bin sales exist, AAA companies consider every shipped retail copy to a store a succesful sale for them and they hold an obvious control over the digital market).

Do you think that these estimates for AAA companies (and the subsequent abuse leveled on the studio employees) would be lowered if this comes to pass?

On a similar note, is there any considerable chance that we see the entire games industry crash (I doubt it, but this could feasibly occur) due to the lack of ability for especially small time developers to make a living from their games, as eventually people will realize they can just start passing copies around to one another, which for less replayable games could mean a death knell?

I'm just asking these questions out of curiosity as these are the concerns and questions I had and you seem to have a good idea of the situation.
I think @Edgarska put it best - if your business model requires you to disregard basic consumer rights and deny your consumers the same privileges they are afforded in any other industry, there is something fundamentally wrong with how your industry functions and the onus is on you to fix it. Developers may not be fans of the secondary market, but it's not up to them to decide whether consumers participate in it or not - they already received compensation for the copies sold as "pre-owned", they're not entitled to be paid multiple times for the same goods. If they want to continue monetising their titles after they are released, they must necessarily support them with additional content in the form of add-ons, expansions and other DLC's, it's how it works with physical games, it's how it should work with digital ones as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Subtle Demise

KingVamp

Haaah-hahahaha!
Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
13,474
Trophies
2
Location
Netherworld
XP
7,886
Country
United States
Couldn't devs and Valve still take a piece of the profits on resold licenses? Even if this passes, they still have control on how reselling will work, right?

I wonder if some companies will just let gamers to rent it's product rather than sold it. I mean it's the easiest way to avoid this ruling. I wonder what the rate will be to rent games in the future.
With all these game services, companies are doing that already.
 

snobbysteven

Well-Known Member
Newcomer
Joined
Aug 14, 2019
Messages
99
Trophies
0
Age
31
Location
Chicago
XP
331
Country
United States
I mean, I'm pretty sure AAA will sell regardless. It's indie titles, those with often low sales to begin and those that aren't really replayable that I think are the real ones in danger here.
Yeah I completely agree, AAA will sell a ton regardless, the first few weeks/months at least. I know a lot of people who buy new physical copies of AAA games over used because they want the nice new case and disk, not something someone else has touched. So they don't mind paying more for new. But with digital I don't think anyone will really care because there is no difference in what you get when you buy new or used. The only way someone will buy new over used for digital is if they want to support the dev.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ev1l0rd

pedro702

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2014
Messages
12,713
Trophies
2
Age
33
XP
8,667
Country
Portugal
This is a hard subject i meanwhen you buy something "NEW" it has a value becuase its brand new, mint condition, when you sell it it was worn and such and the buyer either has to wait for shipping and pay it, or go meet in person and whatnot, so it always goes for a lower value, no garantys and such.

now with digital games buying an used digital game is same as new becuase there is no wear or anything,its just a license and you download the entire game from servers, so developers will loose money big time lol.

imagine a games sells 50.000 copys digitaly at 60$ then people play the game and sell them digitaly for lower the price of the dev then everyone can just keep buying it, and developers will need to lower and lower and lower prices to match the used digital game, they will never be able to do that, becuase people will be selling/trading for always the lower price as the developer cost.

This could potentialy kill digital gaming profits and make devs go for consoles more if their pc margins go down the drain.
 
Last edited by pedro702,

Ev1l0rd

(⌐◥▶◀◤) girl - noirscape
Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2015
Messages
2,004
Trophies
1
Location
Site 19
Website
catgirlsin.space
XP
3,441
Country
Netherlands
Developers may not be fans of the secondary market, but it's not up to them to decide whether consumers participate in it or not - they already received compensation for the copies sold as "pre-owned", they're not entitled to be paid multiple times for the same goods. If they want to continue monetising their titles after they are released, they must necessarily support them with additional content in the form of add-ons, expansions and other DLC's, it's how it works with physical games, it's how it should work with digital ones as well.
The difference mainly is that with physical games (and really, any physical good), the game is usually cheaper to begin with due to wear and tear affecting the product. With digital games, you're not changing the product at all.

There's also the entire thing that typically indie games don't go retail unless they're massively successful (and even then they tend to be more "limited runs" in the same sense that a special edition of an AAA title tends to be).

I don't care about the AAA industry in this situation, I think those scumbags will not even feel a dent in their pile of money but will whine about it like the little squeely pigs they are.

I'm concerned with indie developers who often are reliant on their games income to give them their basic neccesities. Those are the ones that could be hit the hardest, especially since their often more diverse approaches to game design tend to not neccesarily lend well to easily replayable experiences (ie. stories that are meant to send a powerful/meaningful message you can really only tell once, replayability will hurt the message there) which means that anyone who is mercenary enough to sell a game they've beaten with zero replayability (yes I'm attributing this as a negative moral value for this situation, and only if it's indies) as second hand is essentially damaging their ability to make a living.

Worst case situation, this could lead to an extreme amount of homogenization within the game industry as a whole to move towards some really shitty practices or make all games online multiplayer shooters and essentially shoo out all the indies, and eventually could result in another market crash. Probably not as doomsday as I'm making it sound, but that could be a real risk.
 
Last edited by Ev1l0rd,
  • Like
Reactions: Xzi

FAST6191

Techromancer
Editorial Team
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
36,798
Trophies
3
XP
28,284
Country
United Kingdom
This is a hard subject i meanwhen you buy something "NEW" it has a value becuase its brand new, mint condition, when you sell it it was worn and such and the buyer either has to wait for shipping and pay it, or go meet in person and whatnot, so it always goes for a lower value, no garantys and such.

now with digital games buying an used digital game is same as new becuase there is no wear or anything,its just a license and you download the entire game from servers, so developers will loose money big time lol.

imagine a games sells 50.000 copys digitaly at 60$ then people play the game and sell them digitaly for lower the price of the dev then everyone can just keep buying it, and developers will need to lower and lower and lower prices to match the used digital game, they will never be able to do that, becuase people will be selling/trading for always the lower price as the developer cost.

This could potentialy kill digital gaming profits and make devs go for consoles more if their pc margins go down the drain.
Is there really significant wear on media since... VHS, cassette tape and vinyl records stopped being a thing? I mean I heard that line for each of those (nobody will ever have to replace anything, woe is us) and... the last few decades have been OK. I am perfectly content to buy second hand games because I know they play just fine.

Similarly the new thing I bought I still have to go to the shop for, or pay for shipping and wait. If I download it then I also have to use some of my limited bandwidth and personal storage space to store it.

And yeah the second hand market or your own previous product eating your potential profits is a problem within business. Always has been. Somehow we muddle through anyway. People still seem to buy new houses, games, CDs, books, cars, not wait for sales... despite the second hand market and time being a great thing to play to.

Couldn't devs and Valve still take a piece of the profits on resold licenses? Even if this passes, they still have control on how reselling will work, right?

They could try. Why would I care to give them anything though? As for control then nope. Same as every other business -- once you sell the product to someone else then they can dispose of it how they will.


Well just because it's legitimate doesn't mean it's good. Game developers hate gamestop because of it. For awhile they tried adding keys to their 360 games so that to play the game online you needed the key and it was a one time use key and if anyone else bought the game they had to rebuy the key.

If I am a small time dev and this goes through. My first thought is okay, we are going to lose a lot of money on sales because of people buying used copies instead of buying new, so lets increase the price on the new copies to compensate for it. So prices of smaller games will go up and less people will buy them because they are more expensive now, so the dev's will still get less money, less money means they don't have the funds to continue making games, and so forth.

I worked at gamestop for a few years, reselling a game is great for the consumer, but not for the dev's. Specially if you make a game that cost's lets say $5 and takes an hour to beat. After say the first week or two, everyone will be selling their copy because they already beat it and who would buy it new when it can be bought for $2 used. So pretty much after the first few weeks of sales that game dev won't make a single penny anymore because everyone will just buy it "used" for half price. The only way I could see this not being quite as bad is if valve slaps a decent sized fee on reselling a game and part of it goes back to the dev. Not to mention reselling a game through steam would be so much easier than going on say ebay and selling a physical copy, then having to deal with shipping it. So I think reselling digital games would be quite a larger profit cut for game devs then it was for physical copies.

Me personally, I have a ton of physical games that I beat that are just sitting there, have no interest in playing again, but I don't feel like dealing with having to list them on ebay and ship them or going to gamestop, but if I could list 20 of my games for sale on steam with a few clicks of a button, and 5 minutes of my time. Never have to even get out of my chair. I would be selling games left and right. Which I imagine everyone else will be doing as well.

Sorry this ended up being quite long Lol. But yeah, I just think in the long run this could hurt how many games we have to pick from as a consumer because there will be less games being made.

And said key bundling was considered a horribly anti consumer practice and stopped.

Increasing the price of the product is one way, not the only one though.

Why would the devs be entitled to any of this theoretical money if people had got new sales instead? People have been able to resell their items for longer than software has been a thing, indeed it has been enshrined in the laws of many lands (if you want a US example it made it to the supreme court, in a surprisingly relevant to this discussion case, in 1908 https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/250/bobbs-merrill-co-v-straus ). If it is in place, known and accepted long before they even made the game (or indeed before anybody presently alive was there to remember it) then what right do they have to complain about anything?

As for the points (or pain points if we are going to use business terms) at which you would consider selling things then OK. Not sure what particular bearing it has here -- I have been buying second hand computer games since before the internet was a thing but ebay changed the game radically then and made everybody a game seller if they wanted to be. I don't see the functional difference between the introduction of that and this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Foxi4

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
30,818
Trophies
3
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
29,787
Country
Poland
The difference mainly is that with physical games (and really, any physical good), the game is usually cheaper to begin with due to wear and tear affecting the product. With digital games, you're not changing the product at all.

There's also the entire thing that typically indie games don't go retail unless they're massively successful (and even then they tend to be more "limited runs" in the same sense that a special edition of an AAA title tends to be).

I don't care about the AAA industry in this situation, I think those scumbags will not even feel a dent in their pile of money but will whine about it like the little squeely pigs they are.

I'm concerned with indie developers who often are reliant on their games income to give them their basic neccesities. Those are the ones that could be hit the hardest, especially since their often more diverse approaches to game design tend to not neccesarily lend well to easily replayable experiences (ie. stories that are meant to send a powerful/meaningful message you can really only tell once, replayability will hurt the message there) which means that anyone who is mercenary enough to sell a game they've beaten with zero replayability (yes I'm attributing this as a negative moral value for this situation, and only if it's indies) as second hand is essentially damaging their ability to make a living.

Worst case situation, this could lead to an extreme amount of homogenization within the game industry as a whole to move towards some really shitty practices or make all games online multiplayer shooters and essentially shoo out all the indies, and eventually could result in another market crash. Probably not as doomsday as I'm making it sound, but that could be a real risk.
Pre-owned games are not cheaper due to wear and tear, they are cheaper because the further away you are from the release date the less intrinsic value they have - the key time frame for any new release is the first two weeks during which they're actually worth the full retail price, they devalue gradually over time due to decreased demand. The warranty for pre-owned software is exactly the same, and in many cases *better* than the warranty for mint software. The whole "wear and tear" argument is ridiculous, the medium you buy as a "pre-owned" game is exactly the same as a brand new one and must necessarily be fully functional in order to be sold by a retail store. It's not like a used kitchen mixer where the motor or other moving parts might be affected by prolonged use - it's a disc or a cartridge, there are no moving parts, and scratched discs are either not accepted as trade-ins or buffed with dedicated cleaning equipment that resurfaces the optical layer. People need to get the "wear and tear" argument out of their heads, the pre-owned copies sold in stores are *exactly* the same as new ones, minus any codes that may have been in the box. We're not talking about 15-year-old discs that might be affected by improper storage, moisture etc., we're talking about discs that are, worst case scenario, a few years old. You're not paying for the medium, you're paying for a software license, which is self-evident as stores are *required* to replace faulty discs within the returns policy period which should be enough time to verify whether they're good or not. Games traded in to a store like Gamestop are *not* evaluated by their physical condition, they trade in and sell regardless of whether or not they're still wrapped in cellophane. Your copy isn't worth less because it's been used, it's worth less because it's pre-owned, it's a part of the secondary market.
 

CMDreamer

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
1,655
Trophies
1
Age
38
XP
3,411
Country
Mexico
Kinda blurry...

In Valve's business point of view, the allowance of reselling digital games would impact on their servers and network resources negatively, as "the game" would be "salable?" indefinitely at any given time the actual owner want (whom would change every time the digital game is sold and the digital owner rights over it are transferred to the buyer). All at the expense of Valve's network/server resources.

Another good reason for not getting digital games on any gaming platform (Android is out of bounds on this chance). Even less as I don't like Steam at all.

I prefer playing/collecting the physical copies (when available) and if they're not available I just don't play them, period.
 
Last edited by CMDreamer,

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum

General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
  • Sicklyboy @ Sicklyboy:
    maaaaan that's so awesome but I also don't want to fork over a hundo for it
  • Veho @ Veho:
    The fuuuuu---
  • Veho @ Veho:
    I thought it was an actual xBox at that price.
  • Sicklyboy @ Sicklyboy:
    I wanna grab a 360 Slim and a 360 E one of these days. Missed the boat of getting them at their lowest though, once they were discontinued. Could've got them for cheap back when I was a broke 20 something working at Target, but then again, I was a broke 20 something working at Target
  • Veho @ Veho:
    Being broke is no fun.
  • K3Nv2 @ K3Nv2:
    @Sicklyboy, $150 isn't that bad for a jtag slim on ebay
  • Veho @ Veho:
    I only wish it was actually playable.
  • Veho @ Veho:
    There's a guy on the Tube of You that makes playable mechanical arcade games out of Lego. This could work on the same principle.
  • Veho @ Veho:
    Just a couple of guys taking their manatee out for some fresh air, why you have to molest them?
  • Veho @ Veho:
    Stupid Chinese shop switched their shipping company and this one is slooooooow.
  • LeoTCK @ LeoTCK:
    STOP BUYING CHINESE CRAP THEN
  • LeoTCK @ LeoTCK:
    SUPPORT LOCAL PRODUCTS, MAKE REVOLUTION
  • LeoTCK @ LeoTCK:
    THEY KEEP REMOVING LOCAL SHIt AND REPLACING WItH INFERIOR CHINESE CRAP
  • LeoTCK @ LeoTCK:
    THATS WHY MY PARTNER CANT GET A GOOTWEAR HIS SIZE ANYMORE
  • LeoTCK @ LeoTCK:
    HE HAS BIG FOOT AND BIG DUCK
  • LeoTCK @ LeoTCK:
    d*ck i mean*
  • LeoTCK @ LeoTCK:
    lol
  • Veho @ Veho:
    Mkay.
  • Veho @ Veho:
    I just ordered another package from China just to spite you.
  • SylverReZ @ SylverReZ:
    Leo could not withstand communism.
  • SylverReZ @ SylverReZ:
    Its OUR products to begin with lol.
    SylverReZ @ SylverReZ: Its OUR products to begin with lol.