it's about Valve and most gaming companies (or any media for that matter) being greedy and the apparent majority that thinks it's ok for them to do so.
Yes, companies are greedy. Of course companies are greedy. You know who else is greedy? Consumers. The entire point of monetary transactions is that both sides are greedy, but can come to an agreement that they both think benefits them personally. It has been such ever since ancient times.
Yes, music sales are still prolific, the same can be said for other digital media. However, giving people the right to resell digital content such as music, games and books will hurt indies, simple as that. They have the ability to make a living only because of the digital age. So lets take away their profits and give them to consumers? You must realize that I'm not defending corporations here, but the individual and the small dev team.
Nothing is as simple as that. What we're talking about is a legal change of ownership or right to use digital goods that are routinely pirated and traded illegally right now. A drop in the bucket of lost sales compared to piracy.
We live in a world where we have both, physical and digital distribution of games. The physical copies can be and are routinely re-sold and traded especially for console games, but digital copies can't. There is just something about that system that does not compute.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I think in the end, many French consumers would be hurt if this holds up in court. This would extend beyond games to many different forms of software. After all what is the difference between a game and an office suite? Facing future lawsuits based on precedence of this case, I could see many software companies moving out of the French Market or having purely buy the box significantly marked up.
I think in the end, many French consumers would be hurt if this holds up in court. This would extend beyond games to many different forms of software. After all what is the difference between a game and an office suite? Facing future lawsuits based on precedence of this case, I could see many software companies moving out of the French Market or having purely buy the box significantly marked up.
The laws in dispute here are relevant to all the EU, not just France. Should anything come of this, it is not likely to be helpful to the residents of the EU.
I think in the end, many French consumers would be hurt if this holds up in court. This would extend beyond games to many different forms of software. After all what is the difference between a game and an office suite? Facing future lawsuits based on precedence of this case, I could see many software companies moving out of the French Market or having purely buy the box significantly marked up.
IF the specific french consumer rights organization wins this case it will impact all EU countries. After the Oracle case this can hardly come as a surpise for Valve or any other electronic distributors.
We dont need casuals in our games!!! Errm... Well we DO need casuals to fund and populate our games - But the games should be all about "hardcore" because: We dont need casuals in our games!!! (repeat ad infinitum)
I think in the end, many French consumers would be hurt if this holds up in court. This would extend beyond games to many different forms of software. After all what is the difference between a game and an office suite? Facing future lawsuits based on precedence of this case, I could see many software companies moving out of the French Market or having purely buy the box significantly marked up.
Come off it, they won't neglect the whole of EU just because their laws supercede their TOS. They would lose close to 30% of their profit margin and the cost of allowing digital trading would easily be overshadowed by that loss of income. Anyone that agrees with allowing corperations to do as they please are truely dense. We aren't the slaves of their entities, they serve us, remember that.
I think in the end, many French consumers would be hurt if this holds up in court. This would extend beyond games to many different forms of software. After all what is the difference between a game and an office suite? Facing future lawsuits based on precedence of this case, I could see many software companies moving out of the French Market or having purely buy the box significantly marked up.
Come off it, they won't neglect the whole of EU just because their laws supercede their TOS. They would lose close to 30% of their profit margin and the cost of allowing digital trading would easily be overshadowed by that loss of income. Anyone that agrees with allowing corperations to do as they please are truely dense. We aren't the slaves of their entities, they serve us, remember that.
Do you think it will have no impact on how business, costs, or sales work going forward?
Oh no! Things might returning to the the way they were in the 80's, 90's, and 2000's! The sky is falling! The industry will collapse! It will be a massacre! Nothing will be left but EA!
The only thing Steam will hurt by pulling out of the EU is Steam. Someone else will be more than happy to take their place and sell games in the EU, competition is just as much if not more of a factor than sales and cost.
I think in the end, many French consumers would be hurt if this holds up in court. This would extend beyond games to many different forms of software. After all what is the difference between a game and an office suite? Facing future lawsuits based on precedence of this case, I could see many software companies moving out of the French Market or having purely buy the box significantly marked up.
IF the specific french consumer rights organization wins this case it will impact all EU countries. After the Oracle case this can hardly come as a surpise for Valve or any other electronic distributors.
Don't you guys realize that this would hurt the big corporations like EA much, much less than the small indie teams? Big corps rely on preorders and day one sales. That is the entire purpose of the huge advertising campaigns they have leading up to launch. Indie games on the other hand rely on the long term. They don't have millions to spend on advertising the launch of their game.
So the big publishing houses would lose a few sales to people reselling the millions of copies they bought on launch, while the small dev houses would go bankrupt from the 20 thousand copies they sold being resold eternally rather than people buying the game new from them.
Why would you argue this? You are saying that you have the right to purchase a game at full price, say $60, enjoy that game to completion, then resell the game for $40 - $50. So in the end you spent $10 - $20 to enjoy the entirety of a game. Are you insane?
Stop comparing this to physical media. This is not physical media. Physical media is becoming completely irrelevant, and will be within the next ten years.
I'm all for consumer rights. When you purchase a product you should receive a working product that behaves as advertised. If it doesn't, Steam allows refunds with no questions asked if you play for less than two hours. That is good consumer protection. This law goes completely overboard. This isn't consumer protection, it's developer endangerment and neglect. If I was a developer why would I want to release my product in a market that doesn't give a shit about me or my craft.
Valve and Steam have been a godsend for pc gaming. Without Valve pc gaming would be shit today. There would be very few indie games, if any. Big publishing houses would have stopped delivering games on PC long ago. The other digital distribution platforms WOULD NOT EXIST because Steam would not have demonstrated the viability of the model. You like gog? Thank Valve for the existence of gog then.
This shit about Gamestop is ridiculous as well. Gamestop is a parasite that has been feeding off the work of developers since it was created. They should have lost that case.
Don't you guys realize that this would hurt the big corporations like EA much, much less than the small indie teams? Big corps rely on preorders and day one sales. That is the entire purpose of the huge advertising campaigns they have leading up to launch. Indie games on the other hand rely on the long term. They don't have millions to spend on advertising the launch of their game.
So the big publishing houses would lose a few sales to people reselling the millions of copies they bought on launch, while the small dev houses would go bankrupt from the 20 thousand copies they sold being resold eternally rather than people buying the game new from them.
Why would you argue this? You are saying that you have the right to purchase a game at full price, say $60, enjoy that game to completion, then resell the game for $40 - $50. So in the end you spent $10 - $20 to enjoy the entirety of a game. Are you insane?
Stop comparing this to physical media. This is not physical media. Physical media is becoming completely irrelevant, and will be within the next ten years.
I'm all for consumer rights. When you purchase a product you should receive a working product that behaves as advertised. If it doesn't, Steam allows refunds with no questions asked if you play for less than two hours. That is good consumer protection. This law goes completely overboard. This isn't consumer protection, it's developer endangerment and neglect. If I was a developer why would I want to release my product in a market that doesn't give a shit about me or my craft.
Valve and Steam have been a godsend for pc gaming. Without Valve pc gaming would be shit today. There would be very few indie games, if any. Big publishing houses would have stopped delivering games on PC long ago. The other digital distribution platforms WOULD NOT EXIST because Steam would not have demonstrated the viability of the model. You like gog? Thank Valve for the existence of gog then.
This shit about Gamestop is ridiculous as well. Gamestop is a parasite that has been feeding off the work of developers since it was created. They should have lost that case.
Man, that's just your opinion. My opinion I don't give a damn if these corporations loose money with their schemes.
We are always in a race what our intelligence can do for us and what our intelligence does to us.
I can see the new trend if steam loses. buy a digital game. complete it as quickly as possible. sell it, get good profit since the game just came out. same for certain softwares. All of the smart/patient people are going to be crowding the the selling site where the new digital game will be resold.
If steam loses. developers that make single player games are going to halveto take minimum wage, because people are going to be completing their games within a week and head straight to the selling site to resell.
I can see the new trend if steam loses. buy a digital game. complete it as quickly as possible. sell it, get good profit since the game just came out. same for certain softwares. All of the smart/patient people are going to be crowding the the selling site where the new digital game will be resold.
If steam loses. developers that make single player games are going to halveto take minimum wage, because people are going to be completing their games within a week and head straight to the selling site to resell.
Not so long ago you could sell your game and the gaming industry still became huge. This gaming industry is getting quite comfortable with their huge profits.
Less game for more money these days.
We are always in a race what our intelligence can do for us and what our intelligence does to us.
I can see the new trend if steam loses. buy a digital game. complete it as quickly as possible. sell it, get good profit since the game just came out. same for certain softwares. All of the smart/patient people are going to be crowding the the selling site where the new digital game will be resold.
If steam loses. developers that make single player games are going to halveto take minimum wage, because people are going to be completing their games within a week and head straight to the selling site to resell.
These are the types of fallacies that gets everyone confused. Lets start with the simple stuff:
A. Steam doesn't hold the licences for the game that they sell (except the games that they also make). B. Steam can not re-negotiate these licences after the fact, they were sold under certain rules, and if those rules change too much for the actual licence holders, then the sales become invalid. C. End users are note likely to get any more out of this than before. However, it may force a change on how things are sold.
Simple pushback on this is to sell the game, and the activation separate (or give the game for free, and sell the activation). They could charge per install. They could lock each game to a CPU. They could put the game itself online. Etc, etc, etc.
There is no sudden improvement if this were to go against steam. Just changes that would likely be more onerous to the customers.
I can see the new trend if steam loses. buy a digital game. complete it as quickly as possible. sell it, get good profit since the game just came out. same for certain softwares. All of the smart/patient people are going to be crowding the the selling site where the new digital game will be resold.
If steam loses. developers that make single player games are going to halveto take minimum wage, because people are going to be completing their games within a week and head straight to the selling site to resell.
This does not end up happening. We heard the same thoughts when Steam was forced to change their refund policy due to another lawsuit. People were concerned indie devs would have their games purchased, sped through, and then returned. Fortunately it has not ended up that way at all.
If I had to guess why, I would say that any gamer willing to speed through the game like that does so at the expense of their own enjoyment of it, and those types of people would rather pirate a game than go through the hassle.
it's about Valve and most gaming companies (or any media for that matter) being greedy and the apparent majority that thinks it's ok for them to do so.
How exactly is Valve greedy? They are a privately owned company that employs and pays many individuals. They provide an excellent service through the Steam platform to millions and millions of consumers. They charge for this service.
Valve single handedly saved PC gaming with the Steam distribution platform, to think otherwise is pure ignorance.
You also never answered my question. Do you as an individual expect to get paid when you go to work? Of course you do. Everyone is entitled to be compensated for services rendered. Whether that is for creating digital content or flipping burgers. Allowing trade and reselling of digital goods would be taking food directly from the mouths of indie devs, artists, and authors.
I think yur assuming that many many games will be re-sold. the only games I would think of selling are the ones I consider shitty. and if that's the case then developers of shitty games aren't really going to lose out on too much. are they? cause who wants to buy a shitty game?
and valve is being greedy because they bid on certain games (Fallout 4) for example. so you can only play fallout 4 if you have a steam account. they are a monopoly.
Much of this is related to VAT as some have posted. This isn't good for anyone. This type of litigation drives up costs that ultimately get paid by someone. (Go look in the mirror.. Yep.. Us.)
I actually think Steam offers a pretty good value and format for game purchases. As others have suggested, you certainly don't have to purchase from Steam. There are other merchants selling digital content.
Year ago, I represented a variety of software companies assisting them in selling to retailers. Selling software wasn't unlike selling mass market books (paperbacks) It was expensive in the "middle." with the cost of transport of media, merchandising, returns, etc. driving prices up. Today's paradigm allows for better pricing with fewer hands in the middle of the transaction.
Also, a point of fact, digital rights have never really been about any of us "buying" software. We buy a right to use it and there has long been debate about our right to make archival copies of it. Formats like Steam solve a lot of problems. I can register my right to use the software then install and play a game on any of my PCs. I find that far superior to having to keep physical media; media that often in the past was riddled with copy protection.
Anyway, we can choose. Imposing too many restrictions will drive up costs and/or drive out merchants if there isn't enough market to justify the expense.
Personally, if a game is crappy, I can determine that quickly and Steam has a pretty amazing refund policy. Reselling for me really isn't an issue.
Much of this is related to VAT as some have posted. This isn't good for anyone. This type of litigation drives up costs that ultimately get paid by someone. (Go look in the mirror.. Yep.. Us.)
I actually think Steam offers a pretty good value and format for game purchases. As others have suggested, you certainly don't have to purchase from Steam. There are other merchants selling digital content. .......
Anyway, we can choose. Imposing too many restrictions will drive up costs and/or drive out merchants if there isn't enough market to justify the expense.
Personally, if a game is crappy, I can determine that quickly and Steam has a pretty amazing refund policy. Reselling for me really isn't an issue.
A refund policy that came about as a result of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission pursuing a case on behalf of Australian consumers. They insisted that Australian law applied to sales made in Australia to Australian customers. Steam went on to apply that refund policy to all customers, but the original impetus was compulsion in the Australian courts.
Now we have a case about French customers buying (and selling) goods in France, the argument is that French law applies.
For some reason people in the US are more than happy to impose US law on people doing business outside of the US but are opposed to countries applying their own laws to transactions inside their borders, simply because a US firm is involved.
Much of this is related to VAT as some have posted. This isn't good for anyone. This type of litigation drives up costs that ultimately get paid by someone. (Go look in the mirror.. Yep.. Us.)
I actually think Steam offers a pretty good value and format for game purchases. As others have suggested, you certainly don't have to purchase from Steam. There are other merchants selling digital content. .......
Anyway, we can choose. Imposing too many restrictions will drive up costs and/or drive out merchants if there isn't enough market to justify the expense.
Personally, if a game is crappy, I can determine that quickly and Steam has a pretty amazing refund policy. Reselling for me really isn't an issue.
A refund policy that came about as a result of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission pursuing a case on behalf of Australian consumers. They insisted that Australian law applied to sales made in Australia to Australian customers. Steam went on to apply that refund policy to all customers, but the original impetus was compulsion in the Australian courts.
Now we have a case about French customers buying (and selling) goods in France, the argument is that French law applies.
For some reason people in the US are more than happy to impose US law on people doing business outside of the US but are opposed to countries applying their own laws to transactions inside their borders, simply because a US firm is involved.
That's Americans for you. Hating the government is almost a religion where I live. They loath having to follow their own government's regulation but the idea that somewhere an American is being forced to follow French regulation just for taking French money, as you can see, really gets under their skin.
and valve is being greedy because they bid on certain games (Fallout 4) for example. so you can only play fallout 4 if you have a steam account. they are a monopoly.
Valve does not bid on games in order for them to be Steam exclusive. Any game released that requires a steam account is released that way on purpose by the publisher to help avoid piracy, Valve has nothing to do with it. The publishers pay Valve for the service and benefit of having their product on Steam, not the other way around.
Much of this is related to VAT as some have posted. This isn't good for anyone. This type of litigation drives up costs that ultimately get paid by someone. (Go look in the mirror.. Yep.. Us.)
I actually think Steam offers a pretty good value and format for game purchases. As others have suggested, you certainly don't have to purchase from Steam. There are other merchants selling digital content. .......
Anyway, we can choose. Imposing too many restrictions will drive up costs and/or drive out merchants if there isn't enough market to justify the expense.
Personally, if a game is crappy, I can determine that quickly and Steam has a pretty amazing refund policy. Reselling for me really isn't an issue.
A refund policy that came about as a result of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission pursuing a case on behalf of Australian consumers. They insisted that Australian law applied to sales made in Australia to Australian customers. Steam went on to apply that refund policy to all customers, but the original impetus was compulsion in the Australian courts.
Now we have a case about French customers buying (and selling) goods in France, the argument is that French law applies.
For some reason people in the US are more than happy to impose US law on people doing business outside of the US but are opposed to countries applying their own laws to transactions inside their borders, simply because a US firm is involved.
That's Americans for you. Hating the government is almost a religion where I live. They loath having to follow their own government's regulation but the idea that somewhere an American is being forced to follow French regulation just for taking French money, as you can see, really gets under their skin.
Nothing I have said has anything to do with french money. The consumer rights law allowing the resale and trade of digital media is what I have a problem with. Anyone with a brain can see that law is an extremely bad idea.
While the refund policy put in place by Valve was and is a great thing for consumers, allowing the resale and trade of digital media globally would be a disaster.
Much of this is related to VAT as some have posted. This isn't good for anyone. This type of litigation drives up costs that ultimately get paid by someone. (Go look in the mirror.. Yep.. Us.)
I actually think Steam offers a pretty good value and format for game purchases. As others have suggested, you certainly don't have to purchase from Steam. There are other merchants selling digital content. .......
Anyway, we can choose. Imposing too many restrictions will drive up costs and/or drive out merchants if there isn't enough market to justify the expense.
Personally, if a game is crappy, I can determine that quickly and Steam has a pretty amazing refund policy. Reselling for me really isn't an issue.
A refund policy that came about as a result of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission pursuing a case on behalf of Australian consumers. They insisted that Australian law applied to sales made in Australia to Australian customers. Steam went on to apply that refund policy to all customers, but the original impetus was compulsion in the Australian courts.
Now we have a case about French customers buying (and selling) goods in France, the argument is that French law applies.
For some reason people in the US are more than happy to impose US law on people doing business outside of the US but are opposed to countries applying their own laws to transactions inside their borders, simply because a US firm is involved.
That's Americans for you. Hating the government is almost a religion where I live. They loath having to follow their own government's regulation but the idea that somewhere an American is being forced to follow French regulation just for taking French money, as you can see, really gets under their skin.
Nothing I have said has anything to do with french money. The consumer rights law allowing the resale and trade of digital media is what I have a problem with. Anyone with a brain can see that law is an extremely bad idea.
While the refund policy put in place by Valve was and is a great thing for consumers, allowing the resale and trade of digital media globally would be a disaster.
Anyone with a brain can see that this law is an extremely good idea for consumers.
/Fixed
We are always in a race what our intelligence can do for us and what our intelligence does to us.
Never understood lawsuits like this. If you don't like the way Steam or any other platform does something then don't use it.
And good luck forcing Valve into doing something like this. They are an American company with their European assets & legality falling under Luxembourg and likely zero servers in France in the first place.
In the digital age, you can sign in to something like Steam from any country. However, that certainly doesn't mean said digital service must change their terms for each and every country. That burden falls on the user not the service (unless said digital service specifically states otherwise in their terms of use which includes legal).
Never understood lawsuits like this. If you don't like the way Steam or any other platform does something then don't use it.
And good luck forcing Valve into doing something like this. They are an American company with their European assets & legality falling under Luxembourg and likely zero servers in France in the first place.
In the digital age, you can sign in to something like Steam from any country. However, that certainly doesn't mean said digital service must change their terms for each and every country. That burden falls on the user not the service (unless said digital service specifically states otherwise in their terms of use which includes legal).
As I said before in this or the other thread:
"Your consumer rights under EU rules normally also apply to purchases
from non-EU online traders targeting consumers in the EU. However,
please be aware that you may have more difficulties in claiming your
rights against traders based outside the EU."
That is not that difficult to understand, quite straightforward. You want do business here and expect to reap the benefits when blatantly disregards its obligations?
Uhhm yeah right.
Post edited by LoveRemovalMachine on
We are always in a race what our intelligence can do for us and what our intelligence does to us.
And good luck forcing Valve into doing something like this. They are an American company with their European assets & legality falling under Luxembourg and likely zero servers in France in the first place.
Well that kind of ignorance on EU law is something they can't get away with.
Much of this is related to VAT as some have posted. This isn't good for anyone. This type of litigation drives up costs that ultimately get paid by someone. (Go look in the mirror.. Yep.. Us.)
I actually think Steam offers a pretty good value and format for game purchases. As others have suggested, you certainly don't have to purchase from Steam. There are other merchants selling digital content. .......
Anyway, we can choose. Imposing too many restrictions will drive up costs and/or drive out merchants if there isn't enough market to justify the expense.
Personally, if a game is crappy, I can determine that quickly and Steam has a pretty amazing refund policy. Reselling for me really isn't an issue.
A refund policy that came about as a result of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission pursuing a case on behalf of Australian consumers. They insisted that Australian law applied to sales made in Australia to Australian customers. Steam went on to apply that refund policy to all customers, but the original impetus was compulsion in the Australian courts.
Now we have a case about French customers buying (and selling) goods in France, the argument is that French law applies.
For some reason people in the US are more than happy to impose US law on people doing business outside of the US but are opposed to countries applying their own laws to transactions inside their borders, simply because a US firm is involved.
That's Americans for you. Hating the government is almost a religion where I live. They loath having to follow their own government's regulation but the idea that somewhere an American is being forced to follow French regulation just for taking French money, as you can see, really gets under their skin.
Nothing I have said has anything to do with french money. The consumer rights law allowing the resale and trade of digital media is what I have a problem with. Anyone with a brain can see that law is an extremely bad idea.
While the refund policy put in place by Valve was and is a great thing for consumers, allowing the resale and trade of digital media globally would be a disaster.
Anyone with a brain can see that this law is an extremely good idea for consumers.
/Fixed
The price hike that this law would cause would be disastrous for consumers. The consumers are the ones who will end up paying a lot more in the long run.
How do you not see this?
Oh, that's so funny and unfounded. The proof was here not so long ago when we could sell our games.
How do you not see this?
We are always in a race what our intelligence can do for us and what our intelligence does to us.
Comments
Yes, companies are greedy. Of course companies are greedy. You know who else is greedy? Consumers. The entire point of monetary transactions is that both sides are greedy, but can come to an agreement that they both think benefits them personally. It has been such ever since ancient times.
We live in a world where we have both, physical and digital distribution of games. The physical copies can be and are routinely re-sold and traded especially for console games, but digital copies can't. There is just something about that system that does not compute.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
IF the specific french consumer rights organization wins this case it will impact all EU countries.
After the Oracle case this can hardly come as a surpise for Valve or any other electronic distributors.
We dont need casuals in our games!!! Errm... Well we DO need casuals to fund and populate our games - But the games should be all about "hardcore" because: We dont need casuals in our games!!!
(repeat ad infinitum)
MurderHerd
The only thing Steam will hurt by pulling out of the EU is Steam. Someone else will be more than happy to take their place and sell games in the EU, competition is just as much if not more of a factor than sales and cost.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-02-07-court-favours-valve-in-not-allowing-digital-content-resells
It can also be noted that Oracle (and other software developers) have changed how the sell/licence software in response.
So the big publishing houses would lose a few sales to people reselling the millions of copies they bought on launch, while the small dev houses would go bankrupt from the 20 thousand copies they sold being resold eternally rather than people buying the game new from them.
Why would you argue this? You are saying that you have the right to purchase a game at full price, say $60, enjoy that game to completion, then resell the game for $40 - $50. So in the end you spent $10 - $20 to enjoy the entirety of a game. Are you insane?
Stop comparing this to physical media. This is not physical media. Physical media is becoming completely irrelevant, and will be within the next ten years.
I'm all for consumer rights. When you purchase a product you should receive a working product that behaves as advertised. If it doesn't, Steam allows refunds with no questions asked if you play for less than two hours. That is good consumer protection. This law goes completely overboard. This isn't consumer protection, it's developer endangerment and neglect. If I was a developer why would I want to release my product in a market that doesn't give a shit about me or my craft.
Valve and Steam have been a godsend for pc gaming. Without Valve pc gaming would be shit today. There would be very few indie games, if any. Big publishing houses would have stopped delivering games on PC long ago. The other digital distribution platforms WOULD NOT EXIST because Steam would not have demonstrated the viability of the model. You like gog? Thank Valve for the existence of gog then.
This shit about Gamestop is ridiculous as well. Gamestop is a parasite that has been feeding off the work of developers since it was created. They should have lost that case.
If steam loses. developers that make single player games are going to halveto take minimum wage, because people are going to be completing their games within a week and head straight to the selling site to resell.
Not so long ago you could sell your game and the gaming industry still became huge.
This gaming industry is getting quite comfortable with their huge profits.
Less game for more money these days.
A. Steam doesn't hold the licences for the game that they sell (except the games that they also make).
B. Steam can not re-negotiate these licences after the fact, they were sold under certain rules, and if those rules change too much for the actual licence holders, then the sales become invalid.
C. End users are note likely to get any more out of this than before. However, it may force a change on how things are sold.
Simple pushback on this is to sell the game, and the activation separate (or give the game for free, and sell the activation). They could charge per install. They could lock each game to a CPU. They could put the game itself online. Etc, etc, etc.
There is no sudden improvement if this were to go against steam. Just changes that would likely be more onerous to the customers.
If I had to guess why, I would say that any gamer willing to speed through the game like that does so at the expense of their own enjoyment of it, and those types of people would rather pirate a game than go through the hassle.
I think yur assuming that many many games will be re-sold. the only games I would think of selling are the ones I consider shitty. and if that's the case then developers of shitty games aren't really going to lose out on too much. are they? cause who wants to buy a shitty game?
and valve is being greedy because they bid on certain games (Fallout 4) for example. so you can only play fallout 4 if you have a steam account. they are a monopoly.
I actually think Steam offers a pretty good value and format for game purchases. As others have suggested, you certainly don't have to purchase from Steam. There are other merchants selling digital content.
Year ago, I represented a variety of software companies assisting them in selling to retailers. Selling software wasn't unlike selling mass market books (paperbacks) It was expensive in the "middle." with the cost of transport of media, merchandising, returns, etc. driving prices up. Today's paradigm allows for better pricing with fewer hands in the middle of the transaction.
Also, a point of fact, digital rights have never really been about any of us "buying" software. We buy a right to use it and there has long been debate about our right to make archival copies of it. Formats like Steam solve a lot of problems. I can register my right to use the software then install and play a game on any of my PCs. I find that far superior to having to keep physical media; media that often in the past was riddled with copy protection.
Anyway, we can choose. Imposing too many restrictions will drive up costs and/or drive out merchants if there isn't enough market to justify the expense.
Personally, if a game is crappy, I can determine that quickly and Steam has a pretty amazing refund policy. Reselling for me really isn't an issue.
Seaspite
Playing ESO on my X-Box
Now we have a case about French customers buying (and selling) goods in France, the argument is that French law applies.
For some reason people in the US are more than happy to impose US law on people doing business outside of the US but are opposed to countries applying their own laws to transactions inside their borders, simply because a US firm is involved.
Nothing I have said has anything to do with french money. The consumer rights law allowing the resale and trade of digital media is what I have a problem with. Anyone with a brain can see that law is an extremely bad idea.
While the refund policy put in place by Valve was and is a great thing for consumers, allowing the resale and trade of digital media globally would be a disaster.
/Fixed
And good luck forcing Valve into doing something like this. They are an American company with their European assets & legality falling under Luxembourg and likely zero servers in France in the first place.
In the digital age, you can sign in to something like Steam from any country. However, that certainly doesn't mean said digital service must change their terms for each and every country. That burden falls on the user not the service (unless said digital service specifically states otherwise in their terms of use which includes legal).
"Your consumer rights under EU rules normally also apply to purchases from non-EU online traders targeting consumers in the EU. However, please be aware that you may have more difficulties in claiming your rights against traders based outside the EU."
Source:
http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/internet-services/rights-e-commerce/index_en.htm
That is not that difficult to understand, quite straightforward.
You want do business here and expect to reap the benefits when blatantly disregards its obligations?
Uhhm yeah right.
Well that kind of ignorance on EU law is something they can't get away with.
How do you not see this?