As far as I understand it, the situation in Germany is that Steam isn't obliged to adjust their infrastructure to make transfers easy or even possible. Comparable to some copy protection schemes: they can't forbid backup copies, but they're not obliged to make them possible.
Selling Civ 5
- Thread starter kooboo
- Start date
katipunero
Prince
let's just say that the claim for breach of contract (of adhesion in this case) is way too insubstantial compared to the amounts to be paid to litigate the claim. selling a steam account is not piracy and neither is it a criminal offense. if anything, the subsequent transfer or sale of a service account which has outlived its purpose is only incident to the exercise of the right of ownership.
heck, even if the companies were so minded to file a lawsuit, it would only result to bad press. a negative hit in reputation can hardly be afforded by anyone in such a competitive market.
heck, even if the companies were so minded to file a lawsuit, it would only result to bad press. a negative hit in reputation can hardly be afforded by anyone in such a competitive market.
CiV is my first steam experience.
I didn't know I wouldn't be able to resold the game (who read terms and conditions ?).
I did it for all of my games before.
This and the 5$ DLC for a beta-game makes me feel really sick.
I can easily afford the expense, but I don't like to be the target of greed.
Very, very disappointed.
It was the greatest game license. It was...
I didn't know I wouldn't be able to resold the game (who read terms and conditions ?).
I did it for all of my games before.
This and the 5$ DLC for a beta-game makes me feel really sick.
I can easily afford the expense, but I don't like to be the target of greed.
Very, very disappointed.
It was the greatest game license. It was...
katipunero
Prince
CiV is my first steam experience.
I didn't know I wouldn't be able to resold the game (who read terms and conditions ?).
I did it for all of my games before.
This and the 5$ DLC for a beta-game makes me feel really sick.
I can easily afford the expense, but I don't like to be the target of greed.
Very, very disappointed.
It was the greatest game license. It was...
yes, indeed, who reads terms and conditions, esp those in fine print and drafted in favor of the other party? esp when the only way to play a game is through monopolized channels of distribution? the terms and conditions are one-sided and just unfair. i actually feel bad for you.
alpaca
King of Ungulates
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2006
- Messages
- 2,322
I think the situation is different because with copy protection I can still sell the disk. With steam, the disk is for all intents and purposes worthless because the relevant thing is account activation. So they have to offer you a way to transfer account activation to somebody else. If I buy a car with a lock that's imprinted to my fingerprint, can I not re-sell the car and have the lock re-imprinted? Lock manufacturers have to offer you a way to change the person who can open the lock, and so should Steam, even if it costs money.
Also, there are cartel regulations to consider
swordspider
Dread Multiplayer
First, let me say I like this game and I'm not selling my copy, BUT... as for these gaming companies...
IT IS ABSOLUTELY a VIOLATION of YOUR RIGHTS NOT to be able to SELL YOUR PROPERTY, unless there is a CLEAR DISCLAIMER at the time of purchase that says you can not (which there definitely is not).
It should say on the FRONT OF THE BOX in BOLD LETTERS that once you buy this game you can NEVER GET RID OF IT. You are paying $50 for a CONSUMABLE not a piece of PROPERTY.
Blizzard is the same way and I absolutely HATED Starcraft2 and I DID SELL IT and I gave away my account in the process (as outlined in this thread). NEVER TO RETURN TO BLIZZARD AGAIN!!!
So to those of you who say that this is 'fair' and 'good' and that the gaming companies are coming out ahead, you are WRONG and so are THEY. People won't put up with it forever. People like me who have been dedicated gamers for years and spent thousands of dollars on games will LEAVE.
It is sad, I wanted to play Diablo 3 soooo bad. But nope. They lost me when THEY said that I can not sell MY property. I bet you in the grand scheme of things they are coming out almost exactly even to where they would if you could transfer your games. So sad.
IT IS ABSOLUTELY a VIOLATION of YOUR RIGHTS NOT to be able to SELL YOUR PROPERTY, unless there is a CLEAR DISCLAIMER at the time of purchase that says you can not (which there definitely is not).
It should say on the FRONT OF THE BOX in BOLD LETTERS that once you buy this game you can NEVER GET RID OF IT. You are paying $50 for a CONSUMABLE not a piece of PROPERTY.
Blizzard is the same way and I absolutely HATED Starcraft2 and I DID SELL IT and I gave away my account in the process (as outlined in this thread). NEVER TO RETURN TO BLIZZARD AGAIN!!!
So to those of you who say that this is 'fair' and 'good' and that the gaming companies are coming out ahead, you are WRONG and so are THEY. People won't put up with it forever. People like me who have been dedicated gamers for years and spent thousands of dollars on games will LEAVE.
It is sad, I wanted to play Diablo 3 soooo bad. But nope. They lost me when THEY said that I can not sell MY property. I bet you in the grand scheme of things they are coming out almost exactly even to where they would if you could transfer your games. So sad.
Senethro
Overlord
Hey, I got a controversial idea.
Second hand selling can be as bad as piracy.
Yep, that ones going to require some explanation. Here goes.
Games are software. Software is information. Information is not degraded through use like furniture or even some of other products that have been mentioned in this thread like board games or books. These last two have large information components which are strictly tied to a physical item that yellows with age, gets stained, gets foxed, whatever.
So game developers are in a tricky situation. A furniture maker probably isn't too worried about second hand sales of his product because they will be inferior to what he is making due to degradation. But a game developer selling his product is in direct competition with second hand sellers who are providing something of equal quality to him.
Why should second hand sellers get to sell something equivalent to new that they had no hand in making?
Need a bit of a split here. Theres the brick and mortar stores that make a business of reselling and also license transfer between individuals.
So, to a developer, what is the difference between piracy and a second hand sale? They both see absolutely zero money going to the developer. Piracy is a non-sale and if pirates are to be believed, are often people who wouldn't buy the game anyway. Second hand selling could be considered a lost sale that also has a secondary effect of depressing the price of new software due to competition. Furthermore, the retailers make more profit on a second hand game sold at 1/3rd retail price than on a game sold new due to not having to pass any money along the chain.
The developers are caught in a tough position here. They need the retailers to sell their stuff, but these retailers have more interest in selling the games second hand. These parties who should be partners are actually also competitors. I can't think of very many other situations where a business is forced to supply their competitor.
How are you supposed to compete against someone who sells your own product more cheaply for greater profit? (actually, skip to the end of my post for a few ideas)
I don't think I can make an arguement against individuals transferring the game between them, its not nearly as harmful on the scale of the GamePawn shops. I suspect that developers/publishers see this form of second hand selling as an acceptable piece of collateral damage in trying to limit the retailers.
Here are some things to think on, see if you can make sense of them in light of this post: Pre-order bonuses, DLC, premium features with a 1-time redemption code sold with new games,
Second hand selling can be as bad as piracy.
Yep, that ones going to require some explanation. Here goes.
Games are software. Software is information. Information is not degraded through use like furniture or even some of other products that have been mentioned in this thread like board games or books. These last two have large information components which are strictly tied to a physical item that yellows with age, gets stained, gets foxed, whatever.
So game developers are in a tricky situation. A furniture maker probably isn't too worried about second hand sales of his product because they will be inferior to what he is making due to degradation. But a game developer selling his product is in direct competition with second hand sellers who are providing something of equal quality to him.
Why should second hand sellers get to sell something equivalent to new that they had no hand in making?
Need a bit of a split here. Theres the brick and mortar stores that make a business of reselling and also license transfer between individuals.
So, to a developer, what is the difference between piracy and a second hand sale? They both see absolutely zero money going to the developer. Piracy is a non-sale and if pirates are to be believed, are often people who wouldn't buy the game anyway. Second hand selling could be considered a lost sale that also has a secondary effect of depressing the price of new software due to competition. Furthermore, the retailers make more profit on a second hand game sold at 1/3rd retail price than on a game sold new due to not having to pass any money along the chain.
The developers are caught in a tough position here. They need the retailers to sell their stuff, but these retailers have more interest in selling the games second hand. These parties who should be partners are actually also competitors. I can't think of very many other situations where a business is forced to supply their competitor.
How are you supposed to compete against someone who sells your own product more cheaply for greater profit? (actually, skip to the end of my post for a few ideas)
I don't think I can make an arguement against individuals transferring the game between them, its not nearly as harmful on the scale of the GamePawn shops. I suspect that developers/publishers see this form of second hand selling as an acceptable piece of collateral damage in trying to limit the retailers.
Here are some things to think on, see if you can make sense of them in light of this post: Pre-order bonuses, DLC, premium features with a 1-time redemption code sold with new games,
katipunero
Prince
but it's still not piracy.
electronic commerce and transactions are on the whole the wave of the future if it isn't already at present. sophisticated laws are needed to regulate, and in the end encourage the development of the market for information and software technologies.
however, while these great innovations in software development are going fast apace than existing regulations can cope with, still we can't do away with basic and traditional principles of commerce and contracts like for instance, consent.
shrinkwrap, clickthrough and end user license agreements are basically contracts of adhesion. they are prepared and drafted by a battery of trained legal professionals. the terms and agreements in these kinds of contracts are specifically designed to meet the self-serving ends of the seller. worse, in most instances, the purchaser/buyer gets the first opportunity to read thru these agreements, in the rare instances that they do indeed take the time to peruse the entire contract, only after the product has already been bought. thus in some cases, the EULA was not enforced simply for lack of consent (intelligent or otherwise).
in the case of steam, the only way to play the game is to agree to the EULA. similarly, in a case where the buyer was left with no other option and can not bargain for other terms and conditions that are more congenial to his needs, the contract of adhesion was not enforced. etc. etc. etc.
...there's also this funny thing called the first sale doctrine.
well. forgive my rambling and pardon me if i don't make any sense. i'm sure the interwebs has enough material available to instruct everyone here about his/her rights as end users/purchasers.
I have downloaded many books off of torrent sites, all one has to do is go to the most famous torrent site and select ebooks there are tons of them out there. also some of the more popular books are $25.00. I do agree though that a game cost significantly more to make.
Moderator Action: We do not support piracy in any case. If you like to own a thing, then pay.
Lol I was suprised by this as well, I have become a fan of the dexter tv series and I mentioned to my brother in law that I wanted to check out the books but there was a long wait list at the local library he said just download them on torrents I pulled them right up and they downloaded almost instantly. I agree the book industry will need to do something about this soon since the files are so small it takes no time to download them and get to reading.
alpaca
King of Ungulates
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2006
- Messages
- 2,322
Yeah, a marble statue doesn't degrade much either, yet I can re-sell it without the artist's consent. It is a question of ownership, and sorry, if I buy a copy of the software then I own it - and the right to play it - and I can pass that right along legally. In fact, games were much more rarely sold second-hand than almost everything else, even before steam and this kind of crap, simply because by the time most people would sell them nobody wants them anymore. So a software developer is in a way much less "harmed" by second-hand selling than somebody who makes long-lasting furniture.
Different rules apply if they state before selling you the game, and obviously, that you are only buying a limited right to play it, personally, for a specified amount of time (which can be unlimited), rather than buy ownership of the software. It's like the difference between buying and leasing a car. But I've never seen a game where this is explicitly stated before you buy.
Books have been pirated since you could photocopy them, I doubt it's a significant problem. Although I also doubt it's a really significant problem for music or software so I might be wrong.
Senethro
Overlord
What was the last piece of software you "owned" and what country do you live in?
And are you seriously trying to make a comparison from a unique aesthetic item with a high labour and materials cost which is difficult to reproduce to some 1s and 0s?
Shows what you know.
business week
The important sentences: "Used games and consoles are critical to the company's success. In the second quarter, for example, used game products accounted for 31.4 percent of GameStop's sales, or $565.5 million."
Well you don't buy games. That's propably the reason why they get away with this method. But there are still some good games left that don't have an online activation build in.
But I think soon all are ruled by Valve. Ruled by one or two big companies. Now that, that is sad
yes? And then?
I do not see very well your point paperback, as selling something second hand obviously means that it has been used...
If you buy a house or a flat, do you refrain from buying it because some one else already slept in the bedroom you are going to use?
Except if you meant what I mean in the last paragraph of my post...
The O.P. wishes to transfer a license. a right to play, to someone else, or even do a gift if he wishes.
I am like him: I own Civ 5 on DVD, bought at Amazon.co.uk, and it is something I would like to sell second-hand as I am not pleased with the product...
Amazon always offers the possibility to sell your second-hand item. I asked them: they simply replied that the DVD is "part of the Steam system", and, as such, cannot be transferred without Steam allowing it.
I asked Valve/Steam. They said: it is against their policy. You buy. no refund. No transfer, only if - when buying - you say it will be a gift. With Steam, you can transfer the ownership of a NEW item, not if it has been "used".
The 50$/euro you paid did not give you the right to own the product !
Hence, you may not sell it (you can not sell something you do not own).
Your money bought a 1-way ticket that is barely the RIGHT to use the software.
You and me, we bought it. Even if you did not open the box and never play, the fact that you ACTIVATED the game has consumed your single right to play.
You can only sell the DVD and allow the purchaser to use your Steam account, using your login / password, which, of course, we will never do.
As English is not my language, I hope my explanations make sense...
In other worlds Kooboo, we bought (Steam) toilet paper, and the right to use it.
When used, you cannot sell it back.
Do we really need another thread to assert once again the crappiness of steam. Don't you fellow people, at the precise moment of signing with them, felt that hard & thick stick climbing up your a..es?
Whatever the figure, it is not the money the game publisher/developer deserves... and therefore they shouldn't greed on that money.
This thread teaches me, I should buy each STEAM game with a newly created account, in case I need to sell the game to someone else.
STEAM can put whatever in their licensing agreement... I just DON'T care.
It is ridiculous for a seller to stop his customer from selling a bought product... that is too much. It is no other than stopping a girl to marry another man after her first divorce simply because she has been fk... that is too much!
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
While they certainly should allow you to get a refund for any purchase before you click their EULA, non-transferable licenses mean just that. You can't transfer them. In other words, if you click "I agree" to a License Agreement that says you can't resell the game to someone else, you can't resell it. It sucks, but it's becoming the standard in the video game industry.
Do they realise that these games can never become old classics (10+ years down the line) as they wont be able to be played without authenticating to steam, which could be very different by then and not work at all. Hm no - pirated versions will work fine.
Law-wise, I think it's a loophole that they have somehow got passed without the people passing it really knowing what it meant or how it affected things.
If you buy something and no longer want it, you should have the right to sell/gift it on. I can't see how software is any different, it's just another commodity you buy into.
Law-wise, I think it's a loophole that they have somehow got passed without the people passing it really knowing what it meant or how it affected things.
If you buy something and no longer want it, you should have the right to sell/gift it on. I can't see how software is any different, it's just another commodity you buy into.
Sullla
Patrician Roman Dictator
Absolutely they can. Make games that people enjoy playing and don't want to sell. Problem solved.
The argument that games, as information technology, do not degrade over time and therefore are somehow exempt from consumer right to resell is similarly flawed. Of course IT products degrade over time. The same game that was $50 when it came out can be had for $10 in a bargain bin five years later. Windows XP was extremely expensive back in 2000, and can be purchased for a fraction of the price today. Perhaps the products didn't degrade physically, but it's impossible to argue that they maintained the same value as newer, better products were released over time. The arguments that publishers and developers are asserting to strip away consumer rights are complete strawmen. There's nothing inherently different about information technology. They simply need to make better games so that there isn't an incentive to sell their crummy products.
Senethro
Overlord
Why?
I suggest you also use different credit cards and non-public forms of account trading.
Uhhhh.... yes. Yes, I'm sure its exactly like that.
Similar threads
