Absolutely. I enjoyed playing a bit of Smite at one point in time (mostly that big open area map) and some Heroes of the Storm, but I'm not a big MOBA guy. Decided one day to give League of Legends a try, why the hell not ya know?
I have never been called a 'fucking fag' and been told to kill myself more times in a 5 minutes period of time in the entirety of my 40 years on this flying shitball of a planet. Not in public school, not on Xbox Live while playing Halo, not from my abusive family, never.
Uninstalled that shit 10 mins later and went back to TF2 where I get called that only once an hour.
That's why I liked hots, the capability to block chat from the start and for everyone.
It's not really a problem in non-competitive modes, as people usually just use on-map alerts.
Wouldn’t surprise me if, assuming this actually comes to fruition, certain game stores such as epic or any of the non-Steam/GoG stores end up implementing the selling of your digital games in the most absolute abhorrent ways imaginable. Things like making the service to sell your games on their shops run at a snails pace, being forced into a profit cut because you use their service, or just flat out editing your account to make you break ToS and then deleting your account.
Yeah consumer retail has implied contracts that override anything you write in a TOS or EULA. You can add certain things with those but there’s still a basic commercial transaction happening that is bound to the rule of law.
I’m mentioning this because I remember EU going after Valve sometime in 00’ or early 10’ because of this, and remember Valve basically saying “well, we will no longer sell digital goods then, enjoy your licenses”. I know I remember this but I cannot find a source on google…
I’m not sure how to feel about this, to be honest.
I don’t have any serious plans or anything, but I do want to dabble in a bit of gamedev. Nothing major, just like an RPG or something that I put on Steam for like $5. I imagine there’s a lot of people who take bets on their future by releasing games that cost $10 or $20.
Why would anyone pay full price for games if you could get them from a trading platform for like 75%? I bet there’s a lot of people that would buy my game, play through it once and then sell it for maybe $4. And others who thinks anytime that pays full price for a game is an idiot.
Indie Devs would have to rise prices, perhaps drastically, to cover the lost revenue here. This would also put an end to Steam sales, because the instant you put your game on sale it sets the price for it in third party markets.
What about bigger games like BG3? What’s stopping me from buying it full price, copying the files somewhere and then instantly reselling it? It would probably force them to implement strict DRM restrictions, and probably the nasty rootkit kind.
I’m personally against DRM and don’t want to release a game with it, but the fact that this lowers the bar to piracy so much may force my hand.
I honestly believe this could spell the end of the indie gaming scene.
What about bigger games like BG3? What’s stopping me from buying it full price, copying the files somewhere and then instantly reselling it? It would probably force them to implement strict DRM restrictions, and probably the nasty rootkit kind.
The same thing that's stopping you from downloading the files now. A combination of ethics and the value legitimately owning the game adds to your purchase.
The ethics get muddier for your average person, though. Piracy is (to a good chunk of people) clearly wrong: there is something someone made that most people had to pay for and you’re getting it for free. That’s not how things are supposed to work.
With this, you are still paying money for the game, it’s just cheaper, but games are cheaper when they’re on sale, too. I think a much larger group of people will make use of “used” digital games without giving a ton of thought to the fact that the game creator is getting less than those who are fine with pirating games. On top of that, ethics aside, one of those activities is illegal and the other potentially legal, which does affect how people make decisions as well.
I don't think buying used is unethical if the law establishes that, just buying to download and immediately resell, which I don't think that many would rationalize as any better. I think the people most likely to do it are people who pay to pirate now who might pay a little for a slightly easier experience.
I fully acknowledge that it’s a grey area, but I’ve personally always considered resale of digital goods (goods which can be obtained purely digitally, even if sold in a physical medium) to be unethical, although legal. If I’m going to pay money to it, I want the money to go to the person who created it, not to someone else who happened to purchase it or, worse, some company that provides no value other than encouraging those transactions.
To me, resale on physical goods is ethical because there are two core differences with those which could be acquired purely digitally. Physical goods degrade with use, providing reduced value compared to new goods. And it is better for unwanted physical goods to continue to provide value for someone than for it to enter a landfill.
My guess is if that happens, studios will choose not to put their games on sale anymore or less frequently. Why would they discount the game when the used market is an option. It also depends on the average price of the game used and if a sale undercuts the used market. Lots of variables and there’s opportunity to boost new sales in the form of perks, bundles, exclusive in game content, etc…
Why would they discount the game when the used market is an option.
I think the key part there is that when they disconnect a game they still get (almost) pure profit off that sale. For a used game, they’re only getting some percentage of it if the person selling is getting a cut or majority. I think the creator would always prefer sales and avoid the used market at any cost, since it provides them no value and actively hurts their more lucrative sales.
I’ve no doubt that Steam, PSN, etc can avoid complying with the spirit of the law on this, but the writing is on the wall as far as subscription services go.
Since I got my PS5 just over a year ago, I own 2 games for it. GoW Ragnarok that came with it, and BG3 that was only available digitally. PS+ has provided all the rest. I’ve spent the last week playing Teardown which is great. If this law actually happens, then all devs, not just indie ones, will be relying on game subscription service revenue.
What about bigger games like BG3? What’s stopping me from buying it full price, copying the files somewhere and then instantly reselling it? It would probably force them to implement strict DRM restrictions, and probably the nasty rootkit kind.
GOG literally exists and yet gamers still buy it on Steam.
If steam implements it, it may be more accessible and thus make it more relevant but as of now, nothing would really change.
SteamDB gives a value of 2500€, 9500€ if I bought everything with today’s prices, for my library, most of which are from Humble Bundle, and I have probably 150 unredeemed keys as well. I could easily sell 95% of them as I’ve played through them or don’t like them, and net a sizeable profit in the process. And I’m definitely not alone.
They would have to implement some sort of revenue sharing for sure that guaranteed some of the resell value went back to the developer, or this would indeed be the result. Also all bundle/discount sites would die overnight anyway.
For this to become a serious issue a couple of conditions need to be met:
there has to be enough second hand supply to meet demand and keep prices low.
…which means lots of people need to circulate their games.
…which means they didn’t like your game enough to want to keep it in their collection for replayability
…which means you made an unremarkable game
Now, given the fact that I have full confidence in your ability to create something worthwhile (because you would do so from passion), this cycle will likely be broken at some point.
There’s also the other option where people will circulate their second hand games with the knowledge they’ll be able to buy back another copy somewhere down the road.
But yes, you’re right that this will bring a new factor to the gaming industry that everyone has to take into account. Keep in mind that your financial security in the indie gaming sector is fully dependant on wether you develop something worthwhile. You are in no way entitled to be able to make a living from publishing games regardless of their quality. Which is the beauty of the indie games segment: the more love and care you put into your game, the bigger the chances are that it’ll be a success.
Please enforce this for console games as well. Digical games and DLCs are typically more expensive than both new and used physical games. Physical games prices usually decrease few months after release, digital one rarely do.
It’s obvious that vendors rely on digital restriction (aka DRMs) to kill the used market and sell older games at higher price. I’m avoiding digital games and DLC because of this, and I’m reluctant to buy a new console given the hard push toward digital games and attempts to kill the used market.
It would be cool but they probably wouldn’t pay money directly to your bank on sale. It would still be locked to Steam. Wish valve let you transfer money out.
They literally just need to add a way to “repackage” a game from your library into an inventory item and then they could use the Marketplace they already have
Am I wrong or is this article simply re-reporting a Eurogamer article from 2012? Because the only source this article cited is a 2012 article from Eurogamer.
I see a massive downside to this ruling as a gamer. This is talking about resale of a digital game. In reality what would happen is someone would download a game, copy the file to a harddrive, sell the “digital license” or whatever it’s called for a lesser amount and still own a copy of the game. It’s basically simplifying piracy.
This might actually necessitate game companies to have a hardline DRM approach to their games. Ironically the only games that are protected from this kind of resale are the those that heavily dipped in microtransactions since you can’t resell those and would push the market more in that direction.
IMHO this ruling is shortsighted and pushes for a future with increased monitisation that isn’t in the box value of the game and targets to hurt the Devs that make consumer friendly games while giving games with loot boxes and microtransactions an advantage in the market when talking in terms of overall sales for the devs.
Edit: My mind has changed from the piracy perspective. Still don’t like how this feels from the overall market perspective.
Steam has a sub 2-hour game time no questions asked refund period - what prevents someone from doing exactly what you said using the refund process instead of resale?
As a gamer, that’s some ridiculous whataboutisms. What’s to stop me from buying a physical copy of a game, copying it, and reselling the game? Only time, experience and know how, and yet that isn’t seen as much of an issue. This isn’t any different, it’s just digital.
Most people aren’t going through the effort of buying a physical game or any media these days, it’s why digital stores are so effective. But the other commenter did say that steam already has a 2hour refund window that basically has the same impact so I might have panicked for no reason.
Though my other point about micro transactions vs full box value still stands.
Because pirating games is not something that the majority of the population is either aware of or wiling to do due to perceived difficulty. This can be done through steam which is the biggest host of PC games and significantly less risky than going to some site and figuring out which copy of a game is legit.
Edit: I retract comment, other comment about the steam refund changed my mind.
Any protections to consumers are a win. I think overall this will be a positive for gamers.
IMHO this ruling is shortsighted and pushes for a future with increased monitisation that isn’t in the box value of the game and targets to hurt the Devs that make consumer friendly games while giving games with loot boxes and microtransactions an advantage in the market when talking in terms of overall sales for the devs.
Your last paragraph could hold some truth if publishers think this will affect profits. I don’t know if this would significantly impact profits since we’re talking about a new secondary market that did not exist in the digital space before. There’s probably some historical data for how physical used game sales affect new game sales but it might be hard to quantify since that market has existed pretty much from the beginning.
I would anticipate another across the board price increase for games as a result, but I see this more as an excuse for greed on the publishers’ parts rather than a cost to offset any actual lost revenue.
My problem is traditional consumer friendly sales model for digital games are already on the back foot. This ruling only works to dissuade any new or existing Devs from persuing that model over one with microtransaction.
If anything I want this method of purchasing digital content to be pushed further into any game with purchasable in game items to even the playing field.
This is an important observation; slowly, it becomes better for EA releasing their next singleplayer adventure to restructure: The base is “free”, and then you can buy passes to access the singleplayer world as microtransactions that are not easily transferred.
A lot of RMT content is not easy for a court to define resellability of; think things like orbs that increase a weapon’s stats through a one-time forging process. We don’t want to make that a safer vending process for publishers than full games.
gamingbible.com
Gorące