F

U

Its bad.

And? Why are we saying "F"?

S

IT'S OVER

The French government has ruled that you are allowed to sell your Steam account.

Oh shit.

why is this bad?

Oh no... that sucks.

Attached: aKxZRdQ_700b.jpg (469x464, 30K)

No,they ruled that you should be able to sell your digital copies. Greedy corporations btfo, consumers won this one

When steam dies I Switch and/to PS4

N

>french
nobody will care.

Why would this kill Steam?

The ruling said that Steam must allow French players to resell their games. If France is doing it, that means that the rest of the EU will soon follow. Why would anyone ever buy a Steam game as new again if you can just buy them for a fraction of the cost from other users?

Because it's bad thing and all bad thing is company death as far as this spastic-filled place is concerned.

Well if Valve gets a cut like they do with their item markets then what's the problem? In fact, since Steam is the only one with a good enough community run market that they can restructure to also accomodate second hand games then.this would also one up all the other competition who'll get hit by this ruling as well.

Can you imagine Ubisoft and EA putting up games on Steam again just so they can use the market place there?

It absolutely doesn't mean the rest of the EU will follow. It will only become EU law if the EU lawmakers give enough fucks about it to put a motion before the EU parliament. This was a motion passed in a middle level French court which will doubtless go to appeal court and then the supreme court of France. Only THEN will it have any chance of being put before the EU.

Each country has a fuckton of laws that apply only to their country. France for instance go full retard with road safety laws with mandatory safety markers and high-vis jacket despite their neighbours not doing so, meaning you can drive from one country into another (No border stops) and suddenly be breaking road safety law.

>Why would anyone ever buy a Steam game as new again if you can just buy them for a fraction of the cost from other users?
Why would anyone buy a console game new again when you can just buy it from Gamestop for cheaper?

inb4 physical discs break down over time which makes my point moot while I sit over here with Playstation discs that are over 20 years old and work fine

S

It doesn't matter if the discs break or not as long as people believe that their quality degrades over time. Copy of a digital game is identical to the original.

>Well if Valve gets a cut like they do with their item markets then what's the problem?
Why is this even a factor? Valve doesn't need a cut of the transfer of my digital license and they can go fuck themselves.
Has anyone ever said "Geez, poor Microsoft is not getting a cut of the resale of OEM Windows licenses?"

This case was made based on EU laws, not just French laws. If the decision is upheld, it will set a precedent for all EU countries.

Attached: Screenshot_20190920_030808.png (1054x166, 48K)

>Copy of a digital game is identical to the original.
These old games I bought at tag sales sure seem to be identical to the original.

Good, even better.

Are you normally allowed to resell digital copies in Baguetteland?

It's fine if you believe so, but you're in a minority.

What happened to Steam?

Attached: 05483928525.png (1280x1280, 649K)

You can already do that. In fact i sold an old one several years ago for $20 that had civ 5

ALRIGHT, WHO KEEPS POSTING THIS EVERYWHERE?

lol, I don't "believe" the copy of Super Mario World I bought at a yard sale is identical to the one sold in 1991, it literally is.

>Well if Valve gets a cut like they do with their item markets then what's the problem?
The developers don't make money because everyone's buying their games secondhand?

-loss of exclusives
-getting their playerbase taken by epic
-will eventually be phased out like how myspace was devoured by facebook

read the thread you gamer

Attached: 1339908623883.jpg (740x740, 77K)

Why are we only focusing on Steam? This sets a precedent for them to go after literally every other digital market out there. And yes, even Epic.

We're in for a wild ride tonight boys.

Sure, but it's forbidden in Valve's anti-consumer ToS and if they found out, they'd disable the account. Valve has been disabling the accounts of people discovered to have bought them for over a decade, most recently for Dota2 players who purchased leveled, ranked accounts.
But now, once this ruling takes effect, those people who live in France and possibly the EU don't have to worry about that.

Gog will get out unscathed out of EU protectionism

>Buy games on Epic Store
>Sell on Steam for slight markup
>Profit

>The developers don't make money because everyone's buying their games secondhand?
Odd, I never knew that console game devs do not make money.

Goth girls have always been overrated

>Steam goes down
>Epic is the new monopoly
Oh the ironing.

>Buy games when they're on sale.
>Sell it when it's off-sale.
>Competing with other fucks that are doing the same thing.
>Valve get a cut of every transaction since it's all done through steam.
The problem is that developers and publishers wont want to put shit on steam as much since everyone that buys 'used' is not giving them money.

I swear to god you fucking frogs you better not force steam to make a fucking subscription service like every fucker else.

Attached: He doesnt have Battletoads.jpg (1024x1326, 215K)

Steam is eventually going to be strong-armed into letting users resell their games. This is for some reason a huge problem as if no one is going to buy games from Steam ever again because of this.

This fuck forget videogames. this shit will have a domino effect across all entertainment mediums. no one is going to leave unscathed

It will just mean that more and more companies will start making F2P gachashit.

Okay.
1) Doesn't this also apply to every other game store (GOG, Uplay, Origin, Epic, etc.) and basically any other digital retailer? It's just as bad for them.
2) How would this even work? To comply with this rule, services like Steam need to provide the means by which "used" digital content is to be re-sold. I'm sure the people who made this decision think selling a used Steam game is analogous to selling a used disc purchased from Walmart, but it's actually more like requiring Walmart to provide a space in which third parties can sell second-hand Walmart goods on Walmart property.

Nobody is getting their playerbase taken by anybody. They are free services in a massive market, the odd exclusive doesn't do shit.

Valve always knew this, the fight wasn't against any other provider, the fight was against piracy, pirates don't have to deal with shit like exclusives or cost. The trick was to make using their service a nicer experience than pirating so that people would pay the money rather than pirate. At this they were incredibly successful.

Epic have brought back a wave of piracy because of people disgruntled about pricing/crappy service/the concept of exclusives.

Can epic games even implement such a feature on their bare bones store?

You thought stores had to send money to the devs/pubs every time they sold a second hand game? That would be a massive ballache for both sides.

Why do you think the whole one-use codes in box epidemic happened? Devs wanted to kill the second hand market.

What you kids need to understand is that polices that are beneficial to the consumer are inherently bad for multi-billion dollar corporations with strangleholds on their markets.
Stop arguing against your own self-interests because the CEO of Valve is a meme. Use your brains for once.

Question. What happens when regional pricing gets involved?

You collosal fucking idiot. Think about it. Those licenses only exist on Steam. Steam is Valve. When you re-sell a license, YOU ARE WORKING THROUGH VALVE. THEY ARE ALSO THE DISTRIBUTOR FOR THE SECOND HAND COPIES. THEY CAN AND WILL TAKE WHATEVER FUCKING CUT THEY LIKE AND CALL IT A SERVICE CHARGE, BECAUSE THEY ARE LITERALLY PROVIDING THE VENDOR SERVICE FOR YOU.

All this fucking law does is allow them to sell their own fucking games twice. Jesus fucking christ. Is this entire thing a steam shill false flag operation?

>How would this even work?
Just give people option to move a game from one account to another. That's all. Like gifting, but also for games that you have already played.

They are applying the UE legislation, this affects all the countries belonging to the UE.
And at the end of day such legislation was already part of plenty uropean countries before the creation of the EC, it just wasn't applied because nobody gave a damn and corporations love to take advantage of that.

Attached: 7517fdc1a2738339658319f0c9d87f86.gif (500x303, 442K)

So the government can do this but can't stop companies from perma banning my accounts? Kind of stupid

I guess that would be the easiest implementation. Let the users arrange payment by themselves. Disclaim all responsibility. Sit back and laugh as thousands get ripped off by scammers.

>Why is this even a factor? Valve doesn't need a cut of the transfer of my digital license and they can go fuck themselves.
But you are doing the reselling through their platform.

>Buy movie online
>Sell movie online for -£1 cost
>Bought movie for £1

This is just going to lead to rental or subscription services being the only option from now on.

They stop existing or you can only sell games in say SEA in only SEA.

Wait, so you can resell the albums and movies you bought digitally in Yurop?

>68 replies and no one posts a link
fuck you all

>You thought stores had to send money to the devs/pubs every time they sold a second hand game?
What?

>Expecting anything from the Gatekeeping squad
kotaku.com/french-court-says-valve-must-allow-steam-users-to-resel-1838259529

That's my take, and probably why Valve will win on appeal. If this goes through Google's Stadia really becomes the only viable business model for game producers, though tin foil hat me says maybe that's the point.

archive.is/HhVXs

They can, it's illegal as it supposes a case of unjust enrichment unless the company returns the money you spent on them.
But you are too retarded to sue them so they laugh at your face.

>kotaku

Every game bought 'used' is a potential sale that the publisher / devs does not see at all.
That is a problem for them and by extension the consumer, since the pub / dev will make efforts to circumvent it entirely.
Xbox and playstation are ahead of the game with their subscription services, so expect more of that kind of shit in the future now thanks to these french fucks.

>You dont own the games, you pay for access to the game, there is nothing to resell.

>So the government can do this but can't stop companies from perma banning my accounts?
Valve will not be able to ban you for selling your account once this ruling takes effect; at least in France and possibly the entire EU. This is a bad thing, apparently.

>But you are doing the reselling through their platform.
Says who?

>yes goyim, now you can buy old used virtual licenses from your friends through our Steam marketplace!
>well, naturally, we'll be taking some of that money for letting you do this through our platform
>no, of course the devs won't see a penny of this, we put all the effort in to allow you to move all this information!
>silly goy!

stadia is not a subscription service, it is entirely free unless you go pro which only comes with free games the free version is exactly like steam except your games are in the cloud stop repeating this nonsense games are still $60 on stadia it is not like Netflix it is not a rental service you own your games exactly the same way you do on steam

>Pirate game
>Use key-gen
>Sell key

LMAO

based frogs saving videogames

>resell the user license
There, done.

You're welcome.

First goth bitch I met was some chick who had a ton of cut marks going the wrong way to look edgy. Bitch if you're gonna play cut, do it in the right direction.

>Valve lets you sell your games to others on the Steam Market
>Valve gets a substantial cut everytime it's sold
checkmate

Attached: 1476610932119.jpg (479x720, 40K)

FUCK YEAH

Attached: mb gang.jpg (487x558, 87K)

>Monthly service
>License expires 30 days after paying
>Sell license with 10 days left
>Person who bought license enjoys game
>Buys monthly license
And now you're basically just giving out demos of your games. You're getting other people to pay your customers to advertise their games to them. What the fuck kind of batshit nonsense is this?

They're just going to add games to the steam marketplace, and put a fat 30% fee on transactions.
They will either profit off of resales or make it unviable to resell.

>Creates a domino affect
>Every other digitial game publisher now has to let players do this
>Now games are forced to have microtransactions, lootboxes, subscriptions just to make money

Attached: 1477949940371.png (350x357, 105K)

Fair enough, Anyway valve could get some huge advantages out of all this, after all they could use their own platform as a mean to easily resell the games, getting a cut out of each sell.
Most people would use their platform out of comfort and easy use. Publishers on the other hand would be fucked, but who cares.

Honestly this is the only way I can see them going about it. The jewtax will probably be pretty substantial in their secondhad market so either way they come out on top.

SCAMMERS ARE BACK ON THE MENU

WW@ LADS?

This thread is just a reskin of the refunds thread a couple cycles back.

this will impact mobile app stores more than steam

Making is unviable to sell sounds like a pretty smart thing for them to do.

> if you can just buy them for a fraction of the cost from other users?
You can do this already, by buying keys from 3rd party sellers.

>by buying keys from 3rd party sellers.
Those are new games, not used games.

The implications of a digital aftermarket is much more interesting than just refunds.

>tfw you can just give your bros your old games when you're done with them

The implication is that nobody in the EU understands how a computer works, which sounds about right given Article 13.

You know forget Steam. Does this mean Fortnite and League and all those other f2p games will be forced to implement a market place in their cosmetic system as well?

No.

Probably not for a few more years til the fat boomers in charge of the EU learn how that works.

Why not?

No, the implication is that not a single one of you know how rights of disposition over goods and licenses work in the union and how they can't be ignored independently of the "digital or physical" nature of ownership.

Attached: 1507990773847.jpg (640x622, 60K)

That doesn't contradict what he said.

You can say goodbye to buying digital games altogether then. This is going to accelerate the shift towards subscription services and pretty soon you won't be able to own games anymore at all.

It's on my interests that games remain pay once. This law makes this unprofitable, thus games will either go F2P with mandatory microtransactions or stream only (ala stadia).
This sounds pro-consumer in the short term but will fuck up the industry even more and will cause overall dissatisfaction.

He is implying that the basic rights of disposition should be ignored when dealing with digital licenses, that's wrong on so many levels i wish i could drill a hole in your thick skulls using my penis through the fucking internet.

>valve drones seething over the fact they have their right to first sale with digital products now
>but think about the massive losses the publishers and developers will face

Only with this industry are "consumers" so fucking cucked and brainwashed. They wanted to erode physical copies for this very reason - to prevent resale of their games. Plus being digital helps them save on needing to make discs, cases, packaging, etc. They only needed to worry about that 30% cut valve took.

you can already sell your steam account so what's the problem?

NOOOOO OYOU CANT TALK NEGATIVE ABOUT STEAM Yea Forums LOVES DOTA NAD DOTA UNDERLORDS AND ARTIFACT WAS GOOD DO NOT TALK ABAD ABOUT STEAM DO NOT NOT NOTN OTN CBHINA SHILLS

Attached: dfgvas.png (233x217, 9K)

>and pretty soon you won't be able to own games anymore at all.
So the alternative to not being able to own our games ,like it happens to you americans, is to.....not being able to own our games?

Reselling is neat but I think this is a bit of a gungho maneuver from the frogs.

Digital is an entirely different beast and I think you can't just pass a ruling willy nililly and let everyone else get the head ache trying to figure shit out. This will ripple across every consumer and distributor, both big and small, that no one probably has the proper foresight to see what the market will look like after this comes to pass.

But it is very explicitly an issue with their nature that makes those rules and regulations over the disposition of goods extremely wonky. It seems to me like they're trying to jam a round peg in a square hole by adamantly ignoring the fact that the goods are digital, insisting it doesn't change the fundamental nature of the problem, and attempting to apply the laws anyway despite the fact that given the context they are almost invariably complete nonsense.

Neither the judge nor the jury understand the core of the issue, but the defendant and prosecutor are using a lot of very interesting sounding words. Welcome to Clown Court.

>he thinks this is only going to affect one specific platform and not the entire industry

>tfw going to sell my Ghostbusters game for 200$

State intervention meant for businesses always ends up costing the customer in the end. What do you think, they're stupid? They'll just pass to buck to they customer, and you'll end up with higher prices or some other scheme meant to mitigate the effects of the regulation.

The free market already regulates businesses well enough.

>milliona of secondhand games flood Steam overnight
What do you think is going to hapoen Yea Forums?

>Why sell a digital key to your old game on ebay when you can hand over your credit info to a money laundering scheme for free?

>oh no those damn consumers can resell their digital copies now too?! better find more draconian ways to control what they can do with it!
>a billion dollar industry is scared that it no longer has as much control over what people can do with their products

DRM everywhere.

I hope the devs also get a cut. But who am I kidding.

You fucking liberal morons think this is good?

Get a grip, this is just liberal TRASH
Valve worked hard for their money and you are justifying giving it away and dividing it up
FUCKING COMMIES
GET THE FUCK OUT CHINA SHILLS

They have plenty of control, it's their product. The AAA studios will go f2p microtransaction with all their games, while the indie devs will increase their prices to AAA prices to account for the lost sales. Also there will be a lot less games being made.

What about game trading? Each user must provide at least one game and they need to be at least 2 months old. Maybe that would work.

They don't pass their savings onto the customer with how much money they save selling digital copies. They then used the excuse that they couldn't sell digital copies cheaper because retailers would refuse to sell their physical copies. Now gamestop is doing bad financially and yet digital copies are still the same price of physical.

They can raise the prices of games all they want to pass the buck but people will just outright refuse to pay past a certain price point. Tons of people are willing to pay no matter how expensive a new game is but the majority has a cap where they would just rather wait for a sale.

>54 posters
>none has read the actual article
you guys never learn

Attached: YOU.gif (480x320, 1.59M)

Not ignored. Never ignored. But when those rights cannot effectively be applied, a new schema of rights must be created. They aren't going to do that. They're going to use stone age logic and unga bunga the existing laws into the problem without accounting for the fundamental contradictions, utterly mutilating the original purpose of this fiasco and turning it into a farce.

I know this will happen because Article 13 happened, and that was exactly the same story - A problem arose that the laws could not account for because of it's digital nature. Should we revise the laws to accommodate this problem? No, of course not, let's just put our fingers in our ears and stubbornly insist that our current solution is fine so long as we put in writing that it applies. Thus: Completely unenforceable bullshit solution that everybody in the entire world laughs at and doesn't give a fuck about.

I have, not that you would have any way of knowing that you baiting cunt.

If I were a dev and saw my games being resold 2nd hand, I would literally disable steamworks and any online service I provide for resold copies.
I ain't fucking paying for someone else to use my servers by selling my own game.

Couldn't Valve set resale prices so that the seller makes less than they spent and the buyer pays new copy prices, similar to how GameStop does it?

They have had plenty of control for over a decade. The fact that people will be able to sell their copies gives some control back to customers. They were banning people for arbitrary reasons and just pointed to their terms of service for all of it. At least people can get some money back from that bullshit.

honestly this. Valve would probably get a cut, the only people who would get jipped is the publishers and companies making the game. Getting gamestop to allow a flea market on property would not hurt gamestop

>30 days for $10
>Sell the license to someone else.
>No one will ever buy less than 30 days for equal or more than your intial price.
>Add a region lock to prevent currency fuckery.
>Zero way for you the consumer to ever make a profit or break even from this.

The only time you will ever sell your user license in this scenario is if you for some reason dont want to play those games anymore right after or half way through your sub and want to recoup some of the money you've spent.

Attached: Temi armor.png (540x695, 171K)

>valve lost a lawsuit against australian government
>loses a lawsuit with french court
holy fuck valve is so retarded
b-but you can say nigger on csgo!!!

reminder they lie to courts and said they are a subscription service, and in australia they said they dont sell in australia

Attached: aewr.jpg (206x244, 10K)

If ever the day were to come where the unthinking masses of brainwashed Valve fans displayed their cult-like beliefs for the world to see, then today is that day.

You sound like a typical entitled indie developer. I bet you would flip out over customers being able to review your game too.

Yes, that is almost 100% what they are going to do.
This means nothing because Valve is the primary vendor, but also the platform used for second hand sales.

>The French government
What're they gonna do, wave a white flag at me?

Well good thing you're a Yea Forums poster and not a gamedev.

I think the dev (and steam) taking a large cut of the resell would be good enough to make it non viable for the consumer. The consumer will still get some money, so it's better than nothing.

N

>Every single other digital storefront must subscribe to the same rules
>The Epic Games Store goes out of business because they can't survive this new financial burden with only a 12% take

I don't know why people are saying Steam is the storefront that's screwed

Attached: 1269807525051.png (341x341, 128K)

>they won't have to pay a single cent to the devs if it's a resale

>Welcome to Clown Court.
Only administrative licenses and licenses obtained thanks to the specific qualities of the owner of such license are non transferable. By stablishing that the company/publisher/ original seller can unilaterally impose the non transferable nature of the license to the consumer you are eliminating basic rights of ownership present in basically most countries of the UE.

It's the companies the ones that have to adapt to those basic rights, not the other way around, specially when you are implying the alternative would end having the same effect in the consumers as keeping the actual situation without applying the law (that is, lack of effective ownership rights).

>entitled
But it's literally the opposite. You're not entitled to someone's server storage and CPU cycles unless you pay them.

>lie to court
>lose
>WTF!?!??!

>take something like 90% off of resells
>restrict resell cost (must be within a certain range of default price?)
>region lock
Problem solved.

>The free market already regulates businesses well enough.
Dude, no, seriously, no, this is something aknowledge by economist from all over the world since the fucking 30s.
Jesus Christ, Americans.

Because steam is unironically the one that matters the most.
GoG is a close second but as they sell their shit DRM free this doesnt really effect them much.

EGS falling over this would be amusing though.

SOMEBODY'S GETTIN

They're literally paying for games so they can give it out for free. People can't refund games they got for free so Timmy doesn't need to worry about that.

>"Okay, you can sell your games, but we get a 95% cut in order to compensate the developer"

Attached: 1555392902383.jpg (381x500, 190K)

>People can't refund games they got for free so Timmy doesn't need to worry about that.

Why would he not worry? The free games are just a method to get people using the EGS. If they can't make a fucking profit off of actual game sales on the store it's useless to them

Fuck off commie, go stand in a bread line.

But that is effectively meaningless because Valve can get around it by playing with some extremely obvious loopholes. It becomes an issue of wording, at that point, and thus entirely pointless.

The fact of the matter is that effective ownership rights simply do not work in the context of purely digital goods with no physical backing, and no matter how much anybody tries to force it, without being arbitrary to the point of ridiculousness, the problem can't be solved in such a simple manner as just saying 'Ownership rights that apply to physical or physical-backed goods must also apply to digital goods'. It's just not that simple.

>valve can get around it
obviously not since they are stupid enough to lie to courts twice

I would imagine if Steam actually does this they would put some restrictions on when you can sell games or even what prices you can sell them for. Even if they don't that still sounds awesome, as much like in reality I have tons of shit games in my library i regret buying and would love to get rid of.

>it's at current market price
>you don't even get back 5% of what you paid for

Basically this. Between Steam still being "gamer facebook" and games like Dota or TF2 there's no reason to think Steam will die out. Indies still go there first to sell their shit and while Epic is gaining momentum they are ran terribly and their client is a botnet, ensuring Steam will remain top dog for a long time.

Attached: 1551787393032.png (900x1200, 410K)

It's not even really a lie, it's just a wonky interpretation, which is all this comes down to.

>not really a lie
steam is not a subscription service and courts agreed it was a lie
steam also does business in australia which was the first lie, they obviously do business in australia, second lie
probably countless more, lying wont work or get them out of anything and it's just been proven over and over again

Epic is giving away the Batman Arkham trilogy for free and also the Lego Batman trilogy. If there's one thing that will get normies to install EGS, it's free capeshit.

i can't wait to resell these games i got for free. Thanks tim for the pure profit

That stove has no burners.

That stove is a sink, dweeb

You can only sell games that you have bought, not ones you got for free.

maybe for you steamcuck, but based tim is going to give us that free bux

they actually ruled that game resales must be allowed
the ruling can be (and is being) appealed and will not be enforced until the appeals process is finished, which if it's anything like american courts could take years

Attached: hoodie2.png (500x558, 282K)

based if true fuck developers they should take a page from the jannies and do it for free

Attached: 1561136265556.gif (320x240, 1.39M)

Yea that makes sense

ASD WASSDADDDDSSSSSSS SADA

Ah shit hit the chat button.

... is for Friends who do stuff together.
U is for U and ME!

CONSUMER RIGHTS BAD
CORPORATE TOTALITARIANISM GOOD

Attached: 1536632314338.jpg (220x229, 4K)

>consumers fight for rights
>get rights
>corporations leverage their massive bankrolls to effectively invalidate any gains from rights granted to consumers
>"but at least we have rights!"

>caring about anything france has to say

>steam has to pay half a million in the span of a few months if they don't comply
Why should they care again?