Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Royal☭]

Which is where the entire supply demand model breaks down.  Since the supply is infinite, the price should be infinitely nothing.  The game, in essence, has no value whatsoever.

[Disposable Ninja]

With digital distribution, there is no degradation, no scratched discs, no mint condition or limited quantities. Every version of a digital game is identical and infinite.

...but it still loses value over time.

In fact, it is now guaranteed to lose value over time, as it is now impossible for demand to outweigh supply, as is the case with, say, legitimate copies of Klonoa.

Okay. What's your point? There's still an infinite supply of identical copies. Resale is still pointless.

[Detonator]

With digital distribution, there is no degradation, no scratched discs, no mint condition or limited quantities. Every version of a digital game is identical and infinite.

...but it still loses value over time.

In fact, it is now guaranteed to lose value over time, as it is now impossible for demand to outweigh supply, as is the case with, say, legitimate copies of Klonoa.

Okay. What's your point? There's still an infinite supply of identical copies. Resale is still pointless.

Pointless to whom?  Not the person selling it or buying it, just the company that wants you to buy every copy for full price.  Publishers want to snuff out secondhand sale of physical games too, but that doesn't mean it's pointless.

[Disposable Ninja]

No, it's pretty pointless for the people buying and selling. In order for resale to be viable, the product in question has to cost less than it does at retail. However, with digital distribution, there's no reason for the preowned version to cost less than the retail version since they're both identical.

[Kashan]

No, it's pretty pointless for the people buying and selling. In order for resale to be viable, the product in question has to cost less than it does at retail. However, with digital distribution, there's no reason for the preowned version to cost less than the retail version since they're both identical.

You... you don't understand commerce do you?

[Detonator]

No, it's pretty pointless for the people buying and selling. In order for resale to be viable, the product in question has to cost less than it does at retail. However, with digital distribution, there's no reason for the preowned version to cost less than the retail version since they're both identical.

If I no longer wanted a game, I would sell it for $5 less than retail so someone would actually buy it.  I get money, he gets a cheaper game.

[Romosome]

Which is where the entire supply demand model breaks down.  Since the supply is infinite, the price should be infinitely nothing.  The game, in essence, has no value whatsoever.

Interesting point here.  Steam, Gametap and all that prevent the infinite proliferation thing by providing games as a service rather than a product.  Without the service provider, you don't have access.  I think this is a big reason why MMOs do so well, too. (until the non-enormous ones crash and burn from other, different reasons)  You can't pirate an MMO because it's a service and not a product.  You can duplicate the data of the program, but it's still just a client.  Going even further, you can set up your own private server and even theoretically find people to run it who aren't shitheads that will just muck about with it, and theoretically have it run exactly like the actual MMO does, but it would still not be the same because the huge playerbase that populates the world and gives you plenty of people to trade and kill with...is part of the service being provided.

[Mongrel]

DING DING DING.

[Brentai]

...so legally, Steam and every game on it should have a Service Mark instead of a Trade Mark.

BUSTED

[Royal☭]

When that logic is applied, though, that means it shouldn't be illegal for me crack the game to play without the service.  If their selling me the service of running the game, I should be able to run the game without the service.  But if that comes as a violation of copyright or whatever, then they are selling me a product and not a service.  They can't have it both ways.

[Romosome]

Well, I'm almost of the same mind there.  Having the cracking of the game be actually illegal, while a useful tool for the business, is kind of overkill and to be honest ultimately it's usually unenforceable.  It only means you can sue people after the fact.

However, why can't they have it both ways?  I said games were shifting to being MOSTLY service rather than product.  You can provide a service that involves property.  The service provided just dovetails with the product enough to make using the service appealing and having the game without the service less appealing.

The problem is that there's the Steam model and the Gametap model.  Gametap is renting you a jet-ski and you can drive it around in their lake for however long you pay them for the privilege.  Steam is, uh, letting you buy a jet-ski for full price, and letting you use their lake for free, but you can't leave with it.  I guess.

[Brentai]

When that logic is applied, though, that means it shouldn't be illegal for me crack the game to play without the service.

Er, is it?  I did not know that they said it was.

It is illegal to crack the game to play and distribute it, obviously.

It's definitely not illegal to modify software you own for your own use.  Bethesda would be out of business if it were, because man oh man would that bread taste bland without the butter.

[Arc]

Steam could do it by changing the accounts of the buyer and seller in order to reflect the sale.  I'm not sure how it would work if there wasn't some sort of DRM in place to make sure the seller didn't just make a copy of the program before selling it.

As someone who buys used products the majority of the time, a digital aftermarket is a model that I feel needs to be implemented. Even minimally. Say, after uninstall, a user is able to sell the game back for store credits. GameStop swears by this model as increasing sales for newer titles, so the proof in the pudding could now be evaluated by a second party.

[JDigital]

No, it's pretty pointless for the people buying and selling. In order for resale to be viable, the product in question has to cost less than it does at retail. However, with digital distribution, there's no reason for the preowned version to cost less than the retail version since they're both identical.

[Disposable Ninja]

Okay, you're right, I'm wrong. There's no reason why you can't sell your games to other people... on Steam. Valve should facilitate an eBay-like Buy it Now system wherein people can trade games and Valve makes no money and no wait it's still stupid

Here's an idea, just sell the game back to Valve through Steam.

[Brentai]

Shut up, DN.

[Kazz]

I am all for more freedom as opposed to less, here.  I see where Valve can do things better, but I don't see where they're doing anything badly.

[Detonator]

Okay, you're right, I'm wrong. There's no reason why you can't sell your games to other people... on Steam. Valve should facilitate an eBay-like Buy it Now system wherein people can trade games and Valve makes no money and no wait it's still stupid

Here's an idea, just sell the game back to Valve through Steam.

You're right, it is a bad idea for Valve.  Except you said:

No, it's pretty pointless for the people buying and selling.

Why does the buyer or seller give a shit whether Valve gains any money from their transaction?  The argument is that Valve should let us do resell games because we are legally allowed to under the right of first sale, not because it would give them loads of cash.

The key term here is "legally".  Either Valve stops saying that we are buying games when we aren't, or they take off the protections that prevent consumers from exercising their right of first sale.

[Thad]

Purchase without right of resale is an artifact of the medium. It's impractical to allow resale of digital purchases, much like you can't return underwear to a shop.

Congratulations, JDigital, you have produced the single worst analogy in a debate comprised almost entirely of bad analogies.

Consider also what would happen if Valve gave everyone the ability to sell Steam games to each other. Suddenly, there's real money in hacking Steam accounts. Valve employee accounts, which get every game free, are now worth thousands. A third-party Steam game trader site would spring up, and clever players would simply trade their way through a dozen or more games for the price of one.

Standard "Yes, because people TOTALLY DON'T PIRATE STEAM GAMES ALREADY" response goes here.

But normal games come on game discs which can degrade and come in limited quantities. When you buy a used game, it could have scratches on the game disc just from being played and from being moved from box to console. There's a reason why you can buy a used, physical game for half the price.

My copy of Suikoden 2 would like to remind you that it works both ways.

As someone who buys used products the majority of the time, a digital aftermarket is a model that I feel needs to be implemented. Even minimally. Say, after uninstall, a user is able to sell the game back for store credits. GameStop swears by this model as increasing sales for newer titles, so the proof in the pudding could now be evaluated by a second party.

Problematic.

Requiring an uninstall does not provide for the case where my hard drive crashes.

I am all for more freedom as opposed to less, here.  I see where Valve can do things better, but I don't see where they're doing anything badly.

GJ, Kazz, you have now caught up to five pages ago.

[Bongo Bill]

Disassociate the game from your Steam account and one friend you designate gets a discount when they buy it. Steam still gets money, you still get right of first sale. The discount is likely to be small, of course.