Originally Posted by icehotshot
Why do you assume people to buy second hand copies were potential customers to begin with? I think that is a false assumption. You can tell that is definitely a false assumption because of steam sales. A Steam sale is pretty much the same as a second hand sale. Games go for super cheap exactly like a second hand sale and people that were never considering buying a game actually do purchase a game because of the ridiculously low price.
When they see the much reduced price on the second hand copy that might make them into a potential customer now because of the price. Then if they like it they might buy DLC or the next game to be released from that studio. So the second hand sale just turned a non-customer into a customer. Piracy can do the same actually. There are lots of people that will pirate a game just to try it before spending $60 on a game. If they like it then they will actually purchase it.
Okay, I just have to jump into this discussion at this point.
Yes, games go for 'super cheap' during these steam sales. But why do you think Steam CAN do this? It's because of their business model, the one that links your account to a game, and the non-transferable nature of what you buy.
And it's NOT 'just a like 2nd hand sale', because in a Steam Sale, they're spliting the money with the developers. In the 2nd hand sale, they're spliting the money with the previous/reselling Customer. The developer DESERVES the money, but instead, w/2nd hand, the reselling 'customer', who has ALREADY CONSUMED the good/service, gets their 'cut'. Maybe it looks the same to you, Joe Customer, but to Steam, and to the developers? It's HUGELY different.
You know why you never see these kinds of sales happen down at Gamespot on Xbox 360 games (except for used, older games that nobody is buying new anymore)? Because it's a totally different business model. Discs you buy are not tied to YOU in this scenario. With a 360 game, you buy the disc, you basically own it, so you get to 'sell it' later if you want/can.
With Steam you buy a LICENSE, for YOU, and you alone, to play. That's how it's set up, that's what you agreed to. For courts to tell Steam they must now turn around and let you treat your LICENSES as though they were 'hard goods' (like 360 games) completely screws them over.
Maybe you don't care about the catastrophic impact something like this court decision will have, but mark my words: If steam and origin and all them are forced to operate in the '360 disc' paradigm, where 'you, the customer' own 'the game' instead of 'the license' (basically) and have the ability to resell it AFTER you've basically CONSUMED the product:
a) The Steam/Origin etc that we know and love will essentially END, because this decision destroys their current business model. I'm not saying they'll be gone PERIOD, but they will change in nature very drastically, and
b) There will never again be the kind of Steam Sales we all know and love. The only reason they can DO those is because of their business model, which will be destroyed by enforcement of this decision. They can only do this because of agreements with devs, and devs will never again agree to these sales if the games are re-sellable after consumption.
c) The only way they could implement this 'resale' mechanism and stay afloat is if Steam always gets a huge cut of the 'resale', and the reseller is only 'cut in' in terms of a very, very small percentage.
And there's no way that Steam is going to actually implement a 'resale' marketplace, where they are responsible for keeping track of who sold what to who, etc. All they would do is say 'okay, we'll let you return games to us that you don't want to play anymore, and then we turn off your license'.
It'll basically be like, you can 'sell games back' for $1 (or some algorithm based on current sale price, how long it's been out, something like that). But they'd never actually be 're-selling' YOUR game, keeping track of 'your' license, figuring out who bought it for how much ... that's just silly and hugely expensive to implement.
Oh, and there's no way Valve will 'lose' this argument in US courts. So, in the end, Steam is probably just going to disappear from the EU, and anywhere else they're getting screwed over like this.
Pyrrhic Victory, indeed.
Originally Posted by GrizzleBoy
Remember how you were making the exact same argument as you are right now during the "omgerd Microsoft used games omgerd" episode and you were universally pooped on/made fun of/demonised and cast as just another greedy developer. And how the mantra against you was all about how used games have zero effect on the games market and shouldn't be touched in any way shape or form.
How does it feel being the popular kid now that your views are defending Valve?
Steam/Origin/etc (where you basically rent games in the form of paying for a license that's for YOU) are a totally different business model than a proprietary system like Xbone/Playstation (where you basically buy the disc/software, and have always been free to resell).
A judge, suddenly imposing the primary tenets of the tradtional Xbox/PS/Nintendo 'disc-based' business model onto Steam is going to destroy that business model.
Apocalypse was unpopular making the Xbone argument because 'he' was trying to take away something, a 'right' that people have always enjoyed in that particular paradigm of console games. I didn't like his argument about Xbone, either. Used games are a tradition in this market, and the proprietary business model 'accounts' for it, and it 'works' economically.
But I agree with his argument here, because a court decision like this would essentially destroy (i.e. take away) a service that I very much like. It's 'cheating' for a court to do this, because everybody bought these games under a contract that both sides agreed to, and now the court is basically voiding the contract, and destroying a business model that WAS working just fine, apparently out of a TOTAL misunderstanding of the economics and mechanism's of that model.
The difference in the opinion of people on Apocalypses argument is not because it's 'Valve vs. Microsoft', it's about:
a) what's right and wrong, and
b) what 'takes away' from all of us that are commenting.
What MS was doing with Xbone was lame and wrong and screws us over, and what this court is doing is lame and wrong and screws us over. So those were the 'correct' sides of the arguments to take ... This time Apoc has it 'right', and so he's okay by some of us Edited by brettjv - 7/25/13 at 7:00pm