Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
The fair restriction of consumer rights
Posts
Did this clear anything up?
Not to hijack this into a "why my Steam games didn't work" thread, but what are the odds that all* the Orange Box games (except Peggle) were automatically updating at the exact moment that my campus's internet went down? Note that I wasn't in the process of running/patching any of them at that time...I was asleep.
* - Or at least HL2, HL2-E1, and Portal.
Well, DRM is also enforcing an artificial scarcity, which is something real capitalism doesn't like. (Though the individual companies certainly get wood from it.)
Did you just punch in the code instead of installing from disc? If they were still in the initial download, obviously you wouldn't be able to play them.
Have you read the thread? I have already completed two of these games...they were not in initial download. And I have no discs...I purchased them directly through Steam (back before launch).
Again, I don't want this to be the Steam support thread. My point is that I ran into a situation where because of an internet outage my games (for whatever technical reason) wouldn't work. We can debate all day what that reason might have been, but do me a favor and assume I'm not a complete fucking idiot. For instance they weren't in the middle of initial download, for fuck's sake...I know better than that.
This situation caused me to rethink my newfound excitement about this distribution and licensing format. That's all.
Except that many/most game licenses really did allow for transfer from one party to another. You were simply required to delete the shit before you did.
Obvious error is in re-selling a used game. While it does allow some freedom, people are going to whine that they can't sell that used game where they could if it had a physical form. I don't mean to detract completely from your point, I really like the idea. That was the basis, however, for the following concept...
It might be useful for the company/medium involved to take a cut from the sale of the used game. For example, I tell Steam I'm done with HL2 and I want to hash it as a used game per your example. It then appears on a new section of Steam, creatively titled eBay for Steam. Users can buy games here that have been hashed. The person who hashed the game can set their price. Steam takes 10% (or whatever) of this final sale price. Games can be hashed ad nauseum in this manner, Steam takes the x% every time. This model has already half-proven it's usefulness in downloadable content via the 360. Who doesn't want to flip GameStop the bird, anyway?
There's a great quote on these boards somewhere about the record companies want to stick it as far as they can for maximum pleasure, but not so much that the customer squeals.
That quote would be from me.
The reason why a used game has less value than a new game is because it's been opened. Fucked with. Somebody's used it before you. They might have taken the disc and rubbed their dick all over it for all you know. There's no guarantee of the original packaging, the disc itself is probably damaged, etc. There is a chance that the game is as pristine as if it were new, but that's the point: it's the uncertainty that drives the price down.
None of this holds for games bought over Steam. A "used" copy (how can it be "used" anyway, if the next person just downloads it from Steam?) would be identical to a "new" copy. So why would Valve let people trade "used" copies like that? What would they gain?
They gain customer satisfaction and re-sale value in said satisfaction. The used copy had to be sold as 'new' at first. Yes, I realize applying the labels of new and used don't work here but everyone understands the basic concepts behind them. This does run into a game getting a giant lump of used sales available, especially if the title in question isn't the best thing around. A limit on the number of used sales available (overall, not to a unique hash) might help but then you're ticking off customers again.
Solving this arrives at the original point, I suppose: hash a license and resell it once. Valve gains on a sale they may not have received before on top of the new sale. The number of 'used' licenses is acceptably limited in nature.
Valve made Half-Life. They aren't running very low on customer satisfaction. Find some other way they can benefit.
Jesus, man. I've never entered this sort of discussion before. I've done no prior research. That's one conclusion I came to. There is no limit in either direction (up or down) to customer satisfaction. You can always make current and potential customers happier by providing more goods or services. Make people happy, they're more likely to deal with you. You're pretty unlikely to go back to a restaurant with shite service and more likely to go back to one with excellent service. While we're comparing service industry to a goods industry, the concept is the same that I'm chasing here.
You're worried about "slashing their revenue sources". Fine, then wait X amount of time to allow 'used' sales. X can be any time they want, within reason. Wait to recoup cost of creating game, profit of whatever amount or number of users purchasing the game 'new'.
*sigh* Yeah, in the sense of GameStop used games. If Valve, through Steam, which they run they can take a percentage of used game sales. Publishes hate them now because they don't see a dime. We're trying to construct a viable (and by nature, digital) alternative that lets publishers and users win.
Except that the beauty of copyright protections is that in the end, barring the users breaking the law, the publishers will win. They hold all the cards, we're free to pay or not. As it is, people are choosing to pay. Until they stop, the publishers will continue to do what they want with their intellectual property, because they can.
They have absolutely zero incentive to allow resales of such titles. I can almost guarantee that the sales lost by people who refuse to buy games that can't be resold are more than offset by the money gained by not having used copies available. I mean what are you going to do, play somebody else's version of Half Life 2?
We can talk all we want about what maybe Valve should do, but we have to admit that we're in the begger's position here...we have nothing to offer them in exchange.
You didn't necessarily see a used PC game section at Gamestop, but between eBay and private sales between my friends I've bought and sold quite a few used PC games over the years.
But no, I don't think I've ever picked up a PC game with the intent of reselling it when I was done. Part of this may be the genres I generally play in PC games, but definitely not all. Generally by the time I'm looking to sell a PC game (because I've decided I'll never play it again) it's selling for $9.99 on the budget rack at Wal-Mart, so at best I'll get $5 off a friend for it. Generally when I'm buying a used PC game, same thing...it's something I can pick up for $15-$20 at Wal-Mart now, but I can get it online for like $10. And hell, five bucks if five bucks.
Of course, in the end I think this might be a net gain. If more "classic" games find their way onto Steam and Gametap, it could save the consumer a lot of time (and in some cases money) searching for them on that one anthology that was released back in 1996...or worst case, trying to find a game that was never re-released. For as long as these services remain active, at least.
I think that's part of Valve's strategy with packing in so much goodness into the Orange Box. There's a reason why it's the best bargain in all of gaming for 2007: they want to defuse the 'it's a bad purchase' argument that typically goes along with digital distribution. It'll be hard to argue with when the package they gave us is as good as OB.
Pokemans D/P: 1289 4685 0522
Why can't that thing be to create a market similar in fashion to what we're talking about here? It's their copyright, correct? It's their IP, correct? They're allowed to use it in the manner they see fit. Why can't this, on the basis of copyright law, be a solution?
Honestly, I would never pony up and pay full price for most of the stuff Valve makes. I'm not huge into FPS. I played a Tribes mod a lot a few years back but that was about it. Lower prices might convince me to buy. Portal is $20? I might chase that. I would chase it if it were a bit cheaper, used or not.
I would love nothing more than to download all of my content. Movies, TV shows, music... everything. I'll even pay a modest price. However those respective industries just can't let go of the old way of making money.
It would just increase customer confusion, there'd be scams, etc. Customer happiness would drop.
Therefore it's a silly idea. Steam is simple to use, neat, scam-proof (ish), friendly. It makes Valve lots of money and is popular.
Except that DRM is really nothing more then an attempt to make information based media into a good. Goods are something with limited quantity but is there a limited quantity to MP3 files?
They would buy them from the system that was laid out in this thread. It's hard to scam when you take the license Valve gave to you, give it to them (or as the case would be, press a button in Steam) and tell them what price you'd like to sell it for. What's the scam in that if the entire process is handled by Valve within Steam? Yes, Steam does make Valve lots of money and is popular. Why not make more money?
Because they'd be making less money.
To a purchaser, both the "used" copy and the "new" copy are identical except for price. So why allow a "used" copy on the market at all, if it's the same as the "new" copy except Valve doesn't get as much money from its sale?
Anyway, I should have been more clear: My friend has the boxed copy - he didn't download it from Steam. So now he has the box and manuals and disc(s) and whatever else it came with that's basically junk now. I wasn't talking about being able to transfer the license for something downloaded from Steam - it wouldn't have occurred to me to complain since I get the problems with trying to resell something that has no physical form.
I was bitching about the fact that he couldn't transfer the license of his hard copy to my Steam account.
It leads to, like all things with lower prices, obtaining buyers that you otherwise may not get. The limit that I mentioned earlier would probably help reduce the cannibalization of new sales to people just trying to save a buck. I feel like I'm going in circles here.
But, you see, if Valve feels that they'd make more money at a lower price point, they'd just drop the "new" price instead and take all the money, rather than allow "used" prices where they don't take all the money. After all, they own the distribution, they can set prices to whatever they want. I feel like I'm going in circles here.
But, you see, if Valve feels that they'd make more money at a lower price point, they'd just drop the "new" price instead and take all the money, rather than allow "used" prices where they don't take all the money. After all, they own the distribution, they can set prices to whatever they want. I feel like I'm going in circles here.[/QUOTE]
Yes, they could do that. The suggestion here is an alternative that might make some existing customers even happier and attract new customers, much like the entire idea of Steam did. "Wow, they let me resell a digital item? NO ONE does that!"
I don't pretend to know the costs or revenues behind games because I don't work for a gaming company. It could be a horrible financial decision. It could not hurt them that much vs. the alternative of dropping the price themselves. Since Valve has a history of going against the tide... why the hell not if they can afford it?
The answer is none. Zip.
So why would Valve, or any company, want to sell 2 identical items at different price points? Especially when they make less money on the cheaper one.
"Used Game" and "Digital Distribution" don't make sense together.
Customer satisfaction?
Yeah, calling them "used" games is a bit silly (I'm guessing I'm guilty of it, too lazy to look back) since there's no such thing with these licenses. A better term would simply be transfer of licenses...which maybe Valve should do if they could take a cut. But again, they have little incentive to since in all likelihood they're just looking at money lost.
I can see them maybe benefiting from some kind of license "buyback," where they give you some piddly amount towards another Steam purchase if you "sell back" the license on a game you don't want anymore. Because it might convince you to purchase a game you otherwise wouldn't have (and there's always a very far from zero chance you'll end up re-purchasing the game you're selling back). But we'd be talking like $5 or $10 back for a game still valued at $50, and they'd probably want to cap the amount you can credit towards a new purchase to lke 25%-50% of the new purchase price.
Or some such.
Which would probably still have people complaining...so fuck it.
Because Valve isn't selling used and new, they are only selling new. Me, I'm the one selling used, and uncle Newell can take his cut.
Now cut to 16 year old Billy who has 20 dollars to spend. He wants Half-Life 2 but he can't afford it. Uncle Newell gets nothing. But I have a used copy for 20 dollars. Billy buys it, and Gabe takes 5 dollars off the top for himself. Sure, Valve could go "fuck Billy he can save up" but I can't see why they would want to do that because they risk Billy taking his saved up money for something different and not from Valve.
Radiohead recently let people download their album for whatever amount you wanted to pay for it. They made more money from downloads that way than if they didn't make that offer. Some money is better than no money, right?
Honestly if every brick-and-mortar store was replaced by online, digital-only content delivery, and used games were killed overnight, I would shed no tears. Buying and selling used is great for gamers, but it screws developers and publishers in pretty much the same capacity as piracy, and it just doesn't make sense in the context of an intellectual property. Especially when that property came from the internet and doesn't even have a physical component. "Used" Steam games is the silliest idea I've ever heard. People need to let go of this idiotic idea of games and music and stories and movies being physical products, like a table saw or a quarter pounder with cheese.