I'm taking "season pass" here to mean a license that contains a set amount of DLC. In Assassin's Creed Odyssey, for example, the season pass will never expire.Little tough if the season is over.
I just don't get why we have to make it like there couldn't possibly be nuance in this. You can sell concert tickets second hand before the show, but they're useless after. These are not new problem for retail.
I'm taking "season pass" here to mean a license that contains a set amount of DLC. In Assassin's Creed Odyssey, for example, the season pass will never expire.
I'm taking "season pass" here to mean a license that contains a set amount of DLC. In Assassin's Creed Odyssey, for example, the season pass will never expire.
Microsoft wanted to implement such a system with the XBox One, lending digital purchases to friends and reselling them, but got a ton of flack for it as a draconian DRM system because it required occasionally being online to update the license to make sure you weren't playing a game you had loaned or sold, so they dropped the whole system.
Why is it bullshit? How is a video game license different than any other non-resellable software license?
But then you could argue that they would have to be part of the re-sold package so that's no incentive at all.
Moreover, this would encourage even worse and even more intrusive monetization/GaaS schemes, which, well, I don't know about you, but I sure as shit don't want. And it would kill indies.
UFC Que Choisir say they plan to take this consumer rights fight to more platforms and products.
Allowing resale of digital games would basically destroy every game company, big and small, that did not transition immediately to a subscription-only model or a physical-only model. Basically, developers & publishers would never see a cent from their games after the initial launch period because there would also be someone willing to sell a used copy at an undercut price and the used copy would be functionally identical to a brand new copy. Also, DRM would get FAR more intrusive and widespread than it is now.
How is Valve gonna earn money if everyone sells to each other?
I dont see how it's any worse for them than physical resale, which seems like it would be the same argumentWould be good for consumer's but shitty for developers in general.
How is Valve gonna earn money if everyone sells to each other?
"The free market will figure it out" is an extremely myopic viewpoint imo
How is Valve gonna earn money if everyone sells to each other?
How is Valve gonna earn money if everyone sells to each other?
Would be good for consumer's but shitty for developers in general.
My point is that you're assuming that the new status quo will be as sustainable for developers and publishers as it is now. The "new status quo" could very well just be a completely fucked up game industry (see werezompire's) post above.I don't believe that me saying "publishers and developers will have to adapt to the new status quo" is the same as saying that the market will figure it out. I am a strong believer in government regulation of capitalist markets.
That would only be possible if every game on Steam was forced to have extremely intrusive DRM, which they don't. The CS:GO/Dota 2 marketplace only works because those games are always online.Valve could probably take a cut if they had some sort of setup in Steam to handle the sale.
How devs/publishers handle this is the big question.
Which would end up being shitty for consumer in the end.Would be good for consumer's but shitty for developers in general.
I don't think so. The gaming market is extremely frontloaded, even when you can get games cheaper in a few days/weeks/months. Something like this would probably be restricted to one regional market so buying cheaper keys to make a profit would be limited (or regional pricing will just stop). The only way you're really affected by this is if your game has sold a big amount of copies, which means that you've find success already.
Sharing in a small circle might be an issue though.
My point is that you're assuming that the new status quo will be as sustainable for developers and publishers as it is now. The "new status quo" could very well just be a completely fucked up game industry (see werezompire's) post above.
How is Valve gonna earn money if everyone sells to each other?
I dont see how it's any worse for them than physical resale, which seems like it would be the same argument
If anything, Valve gets to be the "GameStop" in this used goods scenario. They take a percentage of every transaction as they would be best placed to be the controller of the process. They might well make out decently in the deal. It's pubs and devs that would best the brunt of the change.
...Any kind of paid software license? Can you resell your copy of Windows?
lol. "Basic rights"? We're talking about entertainment product, not clean water.I am philosophically opposed to the idea that customers should be deprived of some of their basic rights because of the possibility of publishers fucking up gaming even more. I consider it a form of blackmail, so to speak.
Because it'll be just like gamestop, and according to EU law, devs/publishers cannot recieve money from used game sales.How is Valve gonna earn money if everyone sells to each other?
The solution is for publishers and platforms to find ways to give better value and encourage you to want to buy new, or (yes) preorder. Banning competition isn't the answer.
That's a bit hyperbolic don't you think?EVERYONE would be selling their used games that they no longer play & EVERYONE would be buying used games since they would be identical but cheaper.
It would be a disaster for the game industry AND in the end, it would be a disaster for players because companies would just outright stop selling games and make them exclusive to subscription services.
Why would anyone buy a digital game new? It'll always be more expensive.
Allowing resale of digital games would basically destroy every game company, big and small, that did not transition immediately to a subscription-only model or a physical-only model. Basically, developers & publishers would never see a cent from their games after the initial launch period because there would also be someone willing to sell a used copy at an undercut price and the used copy would be functionally identical to a brand new copy. Also, DRM would get FAR more intrusive and widespread than it is now.
Actually you can lmao. Use the key on your machine and then it deactivates whomever used it last...Any kind of paid software license? Can you resell your copy of Windows?
...Any kind of paid software license? Can you resell your copy of Windows?
lol. "Basic rights"? We're talking about entertainment product, not clean water.
They can't. After the initial sale they have no rights to a percentage from subsequent sales
Why wouldn't the online pass also be resealable under this logic?Being able to buy/sell/trade digital games would be great at first, but I shudder to think of all the shit publishers will try to pull to get around it.
Yeah, like that.
Hmm, is that legal? Maybe my example wasn't the best then, but there's plenty of software that isn't resellable per the software maker's TOS.Actually you can lmao. Use the key on your machine and then it deactivates whomever used it last.
I've edited the title and added a source in English. "Convicted" here comes from a somewhat shoddy translation of the original French article on Reddit.
Why is it bullshit? How is a video game license different than any other non-resellable software license?
But then you could argue that they would have to be part of the re-sold package so that's no incentive at all.
Moreover, this would encourage even worse and even more intrusive monetization/GaaS schemes, which, well, I don't know about you, but I sure as shit don't want. And it would kill indies.
Agreed with this.
IMO anyone cheering for this hasn't thought things through.
That would only be possible if every game on Steam was forced to have extremely intrusive DRM, which they don't. The CS:GO/Dota 2 only works because those games are always online.
Hmm, is that legal? Maybe my example wasn't the best then, but there's plenty of software that isn't resellable per the software maker's TOS.
Actually you can lmao. Use the key on your machine and then it deactivates whomever used it last.
Oh yeah probably not allowed by TOS, but it happens anyways and honestly microsoft doesn't care because they make their bank on Volume keys.Hmm, is that legal? Maybe my example wasn't the best then, but there's plenty of software that isn't resellable per the software maker's TOS.
lol. "Basic rights"? We're talking about entertainment product, not clean water.
Physical products can degrade.The thing I don't quite understand is why this is any different then how the physical market already works. All of the things that people mention that would be disruptive (undercutting price etc) are things that existed in the physical market yet the industry was still able to survive.