New laugh at valve thread

Imagine thinking it will happen.

Attached: 66932077_3044753162217941_6975830189322272768_n.jpg (696x423, 29K)

you haven't been thinking very well lately have you user

It never should have been. These companies have been enjoying the profits from a fantasy bubble they've created where customers do not deserve to own what they buy despite the companies owning the money they take in return.

It won't change Steam either. The likely outcome is nothing will change. And at most, Steam will stop sales in France. They will never cave to the frog courts. It would be better to take the hit of losing the frog market.

>"buy"

you know when you "buy" a game on steam and you have to accept that agreement everytime?

you are not buying anything, you are subscribing

France would only be the tip of the spear if the legislation passed. Other countries would follow suit and use France's ruling as precedence.

Why only Valve? Literally everyone will get affected by this.

Subscriptions you only pay for once are licenses, and France determined that since other licenses are legally transferable video game licenses should be as well.

Read the TOS, even the same one from 2003. You don't own anything you buy on Steam. You are leasing the license for as long as the service stays up.
If they closed down shop tomorrow, you would get nothing back and legally would be entitled to nothing.
Don't like it? Don't use Steam... or any of the major digital distributors.
>inb4 muh gog

Fuck Corporations.
Fuck Developers.
Fuck Greedy Pieces of Shit.

fuck off zoomer

Yeah, just like Belgium stopping those loot boxes and micro-transactions.
>It's totally going to happen soon bro!.... any day now.... week now.... month now.... year now.....

Attached: 53604383_272837073612652_6459758313583149056_n.jpg (480x294, 28K)

Or we could just legislate that digital distributors play by the same rules other companies do and respect customer rights.

And in doing so they pulled the veil over everyone's eyes. They deceive people and they've been doing it for years.

The idea that you don't own something you pay for is laughable and we shouldn't have accepted it for as long as we have. It's time to start over.

Because OP wants valve fanboy attention desperately.

Nobody said it's going to be an instantaneous process. You're avoiding the point to make an irrelevant shitpost.

France is way bigger than Belgium and wanting to sell your digital games be legalized will hold more group than “REEEEEEEE I CAN’T STOP SPENDING MY OWN MONEY”

As proven over and over both in American and European courts, the Terms of Service is not legally binding and does not trump Federal Law.

You have no proof that any of these "le fight the corporations in the courts man!" ever pan out.
It's all hot air.

Which is why at most they will just close shop. Valve could easily survive without the frog market.

This is going to take god knows how long to actually be put into motion. Especially if Valve brings up the fact that the EU needs to apply this shit to the rest of the digital marketplace as well. Then they'll further open up a can of worms when they bring up the explosive effects of just suddenly introducing a digital aftermarket with millions of game circulating in it over night.

It WILL happen eventually. But it's going to take fucking forever because these retarded governments were too slow to realize the overarching implications of the digital era years ago. They should have done this when corporations weren't still entrenched in their ways.

Because governments add so many layers of bullshit and they all work extremely slowly.

Actual change is very slow unless you get a dictator. And most dictators end up doing fuck all for their countries in the long run.

France literally won. Steam is appealing the court's decision now.

Attached: 1289838616770.jpg (320x240, 23K)

Plenty of other digital distributor outside of the gaming industry operate the same way.
This is bigger than changing Valve, and seems unlikely that gaming, cinema, and streaming services are going to change any time soon. Way too much money involved.

Any nothing has change. Interesting how that works. It's almost as if Yea Forums doesn't understand how courts work.

>Plenty of other digital distributor outside of the gaming industry operate the same way.
Doesn't change what customers are entitled to. What they're asking for is not unreasonable. If I buy a movie I can sell that movie. If I buy an album I can sell that album.

You know that's not how it works in legislation. Don't be disingenuous.

Ah well, I guess Streaming and Rental is the future we will get now.

>But it's going to take fucking forever because these retarded governments were too slow to realize the overarching implications of the digital era years ago. They should have done this when corporations weren't still entrenched in their ways.

fucking this tbqh famalam
you can't just act like boomers and ignore the internet for years and then suddenly realize that you should have enacted more drastic policies that takes cyberspace into perspective only to not do it and end up using duct tape on all the leaks after years of laziness

It will be overturned. Screenshot this and remember it as you cry looking at your unsellable Steam library.

>turn licenses into tickets
>french forgs are kill.

>being retard

Reminder that Valve is just the Nintendo of PC gaming.

Attached: 1D1C8266-D8B2-47BD-BE77-E7B4E3D8CA72.png (800x1000, 820K)

You wanted an example of something that panned out. You got one. But the change isn't big enough for you to take notice so you're dismissing it.

You're also forgetting about Steam refunds. Remember that shit? Remember how customers demanded it? Remember how Steam caved?

Why does nobody report on this accurately.

The only thing the court ruled was that a part of steam's TOS was not legal and they had to amend it.

The clause was that Steam forbids you from reselling any games.

If they lose the appeal they will just remove that clause at most, you will not get some used market on Steam.

>You wanted an example of something that panned out.
What panned out?

You're projecting.

I have no qualms with the items on my steam account. That said, if I wanted to sell them, I should be allowed to, since I paid for them.

All they have to do for me to forgive them for fucking ever no matter how hard they fuck me afterward is to make HL3. That's IT.

Attached: 124768901232.jpg (742x767, 149K)

You will never be able to do that.

Just because they remove the clause doesn't mean they can keep the restrictions in place that enforce the clause. How can you be such a total fucking idiot?

Steam is investing millions of dollars to fight this. That's a real effect. Other companies are taking notice. That's a real effect. Companies are considering steps to mitigate the damage this might cause if they're over extended and this legislation goes through and starts affecting their bottom line. Make no mistake, people aren't ignoring this shit.

If it never happens, it never happens.

But it should.

Most of the Half-Life era staff are gone. So even if Valve did come out with HL3, it would be an entirely new team and direction.

If there was truly a ruling that would force these companies to provide second-hand digital markets it would end it all as we know it.

Streaming and rentals would be the only thing available.

I'm sorry but if you think you're gonna get some "Fight da power" ending from this you're delusional.

These dumb epic/steam flamewar threads need to be deleted. Both Steam and epic are private companies, you're a fucking retard if you take one side over another

Just like selling video games in stores and the ability for people to sell their games to other people destroyed the industry.

Oh wait. It was exactly that which allowed the industry to become the powerhouse it is today.

>millions
Wow, really puts a hole in the pocket of a multi-billion dollar company.
This stuff does happen all the time, and always ends in favor of the companies. Valve will pay their tributes to the courts and the organization that pushed it in the first place, and sales will continue on as usual in France.

Attached: 1506437219035.jpg (435x414, 15K)

see

Steamdrones are mentally ill and their extinction will be the greatest gift to PC gaming possible

Attached: Screenshot_20190921-222434.png (804x200, 60K)

All of the next-gen consoles are targeting digital sales and streaming services. This is the future of the industry. So of course they are going to fight against costumers wanting to resell digital games that you think you "own."

they probably have reams of HL3 materials to work with. There's no way they could fuck it up. right?

Attached: 70916402.png (296x282, 45K)

And this is just step one. The organizations and courts are basically asking for a chunk of cash to look away.
Valve will shit out a few million easily and sales will go on.
Show many any case where courts recognized and later enforced a change in digital ownership of games, music, or movies.

Duh. But those moves are already happening with or without this legislation. Stopping this legislation won't make that transition disappear. The pure greed occurring in the industry is well past the point of no return. Why shouldn't customers try to get a win every now and then? Are you insisting that nobody should ever fight for their rights?

The "restrictions in place" are that valve hasn't built the infrastructure of a secondhand game store into their client. There's no way that they can be required to do that. Secondhand sales are simply not part of their business model. It'd be like requiring Walmart to host a flea market in their stores where people can sell their old products to each other.

Because I have yet to see any industry give customers this type of victory. You don't own your digitally distributed movies or music either, and likely never will. I see no evidence for why anyone should believe this won't just fade away in the courts, like every other similar case before it.

Why do people think that only valve would be affected by this? Why would every other digital store by exempt from this law?

>if I wanted to sell them, I should be allowed to, since I paid for them
I don't see how paying for something should grant you authority to sell it. Like, if you paid somebody to keep your lawn mowed for a month, you can't reasonably expect to just sell his services to your neighbor half a month later.

There doesn't need to be any infrastructure. They could simply tie a unique key to each activation of a game so that whoever owns that game can give that key to another person and ownership would transfer with a simple confirmation. They're not responsible for handling any of the money exchanged between two people. All they need to handle is the removal of a game from one account and the addition of it to another which is something they're already more than capable of doing.

Prove it will happen.

> Just like selling video games in stores and the ability for people to sell their games to other people destroyed the industry.

Digital copies never go bad and are not scarce. There will be an influx of large amounts
of 1$ keys for pretty much any game that isn't AAA, supply will skyrocket over demand.
A game will have a few months to make a profit and after that they will pretty much never ever make a sale again.
Sales will be non-existant and forget about freebies.

Why do you people not understand the huge difference between physical retail and digital distribution.
You do know retailers actually paid upfront for all the physical copies right? That does not happen on Steam.

Used games did not make the industry a powerhouse, this is peak revisionist history. But the damage it does in physical space is marginal
because there's actual scarcity and degradation in physical copies.

50 cents you got a deal

Attached: bn6187kkfZWv4ZBuxvq19t79_GI5A8on_M2s7d48HJ0.png (256x256, 4K)

Doesn't even approach the actual argument. Whether or not customers have the rights to own what they buy. If you're a customer you should be advocating to own what you buy. Since you're a customer that advocates that you own what you buy why should it then be considered impossible for a government run by people to agree with you and legislate accordingly?

What is a PRODUCT vs. a SERVICE

We are currently arguing that digital video games should be a PRODUCT and not a service, which is how they are currently being treated.

You fucking retard.

It'll still be a polished shooter, I just wonder if it will have any lasting power in terms of community or how it will be inspired by modern shooters.

All it would do is kill indies and benefit AAA who are already migrating to more predatory practices.

You honestly think there could be $5 games on steam with a digital second hand market?

Consumers are cancer of this industry

>guys, we can resell our games
>what do you mean companies are no longer selling keys and we can only buy passes to rent them
>what do you mean every publisher and digital distributor is following suit

Attached: 1569002453827.png (782x758, 127K)

A company being able to create infinite copies of a product does not magically strip the concept of ownership away from customers. This is an erroneous argument that ignores the fundamental reason why customers should be able to own what they purchase whether it's physical or digital. The absence of this ability was always unethical, but you're insisting that because it's been occurring for so long that it should be permitted to continue. You are wrong.

Meet the Pyro isn't a Pony reference fag.

If developers can't make games worth playing why would I buy them to begin with? Whether they're AAA or indie I do not discriminate. I only buy good games. Good games generally succeed financially. My tastes would be completely unaffected by this legislation even if it were perfectly enforced.

All you're currently doing is buying passes to rent them. this law makes it so you actually own your digital content and Gabe can't decide one day that you don't

You'd hope at that point people would just abandon this shitshow of an industry.
As always, the market is undoubtedly the fucking problem. Too many retards. Saturation of a hobby, ruining it for everybody.

>tos
stopped reading there. Thanks for the laugh.

Yeah, but Steam is also providing services. They're essentially managing the copyrights of both customers and publishers for each others benefits. Allowing customers to exchange games is forcing Steam to ignore their copyright agreement with publishers and provide copies of their materials to non-customers.

help me out. do steamcucks unironically support not being able to sell games that they supposedly "own"?

Here's the kicker I think it should happen but instead of just dropping this bomb on Valve, or any corp really, and expecting them to fix it themselves I think everyone involved should step back, look at the current consumer rights laws we have, and heavily revise them within the context of digital products as well.

Only then do we actually make all these businesses resell games when a clear set of bylaws and policies are in clear view. Because going at this as blindly as possible without taking into account the larger implications of the change will hurt consumers more than they can imagine.

That's my point. There will be no "victory" no matter what the courts in any country rule.
They will just change the wording in the terms of services and continue with business as usual - or profiting even more from the same products.

Not the point. The point is that it hurts digital businesses to such a severe degree that they should receive priority.

Government is all about balance and consumers should not get EVERYTHING if it means they kill businesses in the process. Look around you and you'll learn that protectionist schemes exist everywhere in real life for almost any goods or services you can think of.

For the greater good platform owners should not be forced to offer a second-hand market for digital goods.

And you should be able to transfer your ability to access that service to another person as long as you forfeit the ability to access it yourself. Just like a physical good. Just because a company sells digital goods doesn't mean they're entitled to sell a unique copy of that digital good to everybody who would use it. If what they're selling is access then that access should be transferable if it was purchased.

(You)

Yes, which is a large part of the argument.

The system is not just one layer. There are many, many layers. Which is why this particular change won't mean anything. But it could lead to bigger changes.

Or it probably won't and consumers will continue to get fucked like they have for the past 50 years.

They can change the wording all they want and just get sued again and lose because their ToS is unlawful.

And it will never end. Some entities are too big to beat. If you think the "good guys" or underdogs can win, then you are young and naive.

see I'm all for digital ownership but not in the way the frogs are handling it. It's high time that we all swallow the cyberpill and realize that there needs to be more thought put into digital products than just simply thinking PHYSICAL = DIGITAL and be done with it.

>The point is that it hurts digital businesses to such a severe degree that they should receive priority.
They should have never existed to begin with when they're only alive due to unethical business practices that prey on customers by giving them a bill of goods in return for actual money.

I don't think Steam should be forced to do anything except transfer the games from one account to another which they are already more than capable of currently doing. A secondhand marketplace can exist elsewhere where people can communicate and discuss prices and terms for trading, buying, and selling. see for an example.

>Yeah, just like Belgium stopping those loot boxes and micro-transactions.
they did though, what shit are you smoking?
quite a few have been outright killed and all the other big names are getting gutted or have to be less jewish

For example where is the reasonable cutoff for refunds?

Should a consumer be able to get a refund for a game they bought 20 years ago?
Of course not, that's ridiculous! But why? Because it would decimate businesses all over the place.
And thus we have rules that are balanced to make sure consumers can coexist with businesses.

That's how the real world works.

Steam is already having massive issues even offering products to sell over the past year, they're a company that at this point is subsisting entirely off microtransactions for their f2p games, and rapidly decreasing revenue cuts. They're not some monolithic company.

>buy movie ticket
>watch movie
>yo wtf why can't I sell my ticket? th-this is robbery!

If the money they're asking for can be used in the same way physical money can, then the product they give me in return better be treated like a physical product as well, you god damned rube.

because you are able to sell it and there's no legal ramifications for doing so
stopping you from using their service in the future isn't illegal you fucking dunce

HL2 and to a slightly lesser extent HL were near-doom levels of relevant to the industry (and of course good games), and I don't think it's possible for a HL3 to do that

mlp wasn't pony
steam can be played offline
graphics whores are fags
casual games are fine, you just hate skyrim because its popular :^)

equating this with the belgian ruling is far different, anyway, this case is being appealed and well grounded appeals generally drag on longer than their original cases.

This case has been sitting in the french court for 5+ years, this appeal could sit for over a decade without being concluded.

The companies that have chosen to remove loot boxes was to save face, not for any legal recourse.

Pretty much this, although there's some nuance that you're not taking into account, namely that a digital license can't be damaged, unlike a physical copy, and that digital resales would be significantly more convenient. Personally I don't know how much of an impact those two things would have.

Honestly I hope that if this passes, it also leads to forced updates (and preventing access to former versions) being disallowed.

>buy concert ticket
>go to concert
>go back in time to when the ticket still possessed potential value because a digital game does not depreciate after use
>sell it in the parking lot
>everybody wins

Attached: 1340241143033.jpg (500x377, 46K)

>go back in time before buying steam game

why don't you just do this instead

The amount of people employed by digital businesses far outweigh the needs of consumers in this case.

Why should customers not have infinite refund periods? Why is that not unethical? Sounds silly? But why?

>The companies that have chosen to remove loot boxes was to save face, not for any legal recourse.
which is heavily due to legal reasons
all the companies were ready to lay low and let people forget about it for a year or two but EA had to keep making a stink about it

And what about the rights of the publishers and their products? You think they are just going to sit around and let you resell your games for $1 to all of your friends?
There are a lot of people involved with this beyond Valve and your entitlement to resell something you don't own.
You will not win this one. Screenshot it and hang it on the frig.

(You)'re pretty good, kid. See you on the memefields.

Do you have anything you'd sell?
I don't.

>Why should customers not have infinite refund periods?

Do you think restaurants should refund food after you eat it no matter what?

>people buy games
>they're satisfied with it
>devs make a shit update/patch that make the community mad
>people all resell the game in droves

Oh boy can't wait.

Why would I laugh?
This is a good thing. Being able to resell your games is a staple of actually owning something. This is just another step in the war of actually owning the things you buy and not having some unenforceable shrinkwrap contract commanding everything be owned by the corporation and us plebs are only worthy of leasing it.

EGS is next, GoG might implement it on its own, then the console stores will be the next targets. The days where faggots say "THEY'RE A PRIVATE COMPANY THEY CAN DO WHAT THEY WANT" are rapidly coming to an end.

Why would you, a Yea Forums user reading this right now, do anything but rejoice at this?

Anyone who disagrees with this ruling is a shill cocksucker.

Attached: 1520741879292.png (196x197, 34K)

>buy game
>sell game
>don't over saturate market because the game's copy actually has worth

vs

>buy steam game
>sell rights? to download game to steam or a different user
>right? doesn't have any worth

I just don't see this working.

user, to resell something there has to be a market that exists in the first place

I don't but I'm just trying to ask him why he thinks one thing is unethical but the other is not.

If the price consumers have to pay for a thriving digital market employing millions is that they can't resell their $5 indie game then fine, it's a worthy tradeoff.

>expecting any of the retards in this thread to have a cursory understanding of economics
MUHSUMER RIGHTS

>This is just another step in the war of actually owning the things

this is basically gamergate 2

gamergate was (((Journalists))) being scummy kikes, isn't this just steam being kikes at the worst?

It will create buyers clubs too, since it is digital.
Sure people can do that with physical too, but you're limited to your local friends.
Online people will just go in on a purchase for a few bucks, then pass the digital copy around within entire online communities. Meaning hundreds or even thousands could end up playing the same single purchase of a game.
But don't expect Yea Forums to acknowledge this.

>The amount of people employed by digital businesses far outweigh the needs of consumers in this case.
What the fuck are you smoking? Customer rights are absolute. Employees of companies are not entitled to their fucking jobs nor are their companies guaranteed to continue existing no matter what decisions they make. Employment is not a right. These people make their own decisions about what jobs they pursue. It's is not the responsibility of the customer to ensure a company continues to exist. It is the responsibility of the customer to seek the best value for their money.

Customers should have infinite refund periods if the product has not depreciated. The only thing I'll grant you is that if the current price of the game has changed in the storefront then the customer should only be entitled to how much money that game is currently worth. Customers should be able to transfer ownership of something they've purchased. The product being digital should not affect this concept.

And that's why the market quickly will plummet to cents for even good games, simply because people wanna offload their library to buy Death Stranding or whatever.

Good luck selling a new copy when you're competing with resellers circulation a a few thousand licenses over and over again for cents.

I wish it was, this should get 100%, no, 200% of the media attention gamergate got. This should be on every gaming website front page, magazine, and podcast. Every post on social media should be applauding the courts and demanding electronic games stores give actual credence to the things we buy.

But they don't, because games journalists are pawns working against the people who buy games. I'm glad the courts are still in our favor, at least.

Attached: Paid_Reviews_in_1995.jpg (1999x1499, 598K)

>buy concert ticket
>go to concert
>feel up drunk chick
>go back in time
>go to concert
>feel up drunk chick
>go back in time...

Attached: Carl.jpg (480x360, 16K)

Regardless of if this comes to pass in France, or even the whole EU, there's basically no chance of it affecting how Steam operates in the US right?

They'll either demand an upfront payment like Epic is already doing, or go back to physical media. this doesn't affect them at all, it's the same as the used game industry which has existed for decades.

>laugh at valve
Isn't it laugh at all publishers, EA, Activision, Ubisoft, Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo will have to do this too, won't they?

>Customer rights are absolute
what

in quite a few european countries they are, they aren't as cucked as we are

Can you imagine the Yea Forums threads we'll have over this?

>hey so I just finished "X Game" and I'm thinking of playing "Y Game" next
>oh hey user just finished "Y Game" want to trade?
>sure buddy
>anyone got "Z Game" they're willing to trade for "C Game"?
Literally just people endlessly "reselling" games to each other.

Now how do I do this with steam?

>in quite a few european countries they are, they aren't as cucked as we are

having a retarded boomer government in a different country. One that doesn't understand how memes work, dictate internet policies for your country is the definiton of cucked.

>expecting a bunch of neckbeards who barely leave their houses let alone interact on a social level to understand how anything works

>And what about the rights of the publishers and their products?
What rights do they have? You believe they have the right to create infinite copies of something at no additional cost and receive potentially endless profit off of it? They're undertaking no additional financial risk and you believe they are entitled to more and more money? This defies how fair commerce has existed since antiquity.

Imagine if you could duplicate bread indefinitely, and you sold your bread happily for years. Then you notice that people want to give their bread they bought to other people or sell their bread to someone else despite already giving you your money. Would you be clamoring that they can't do that? It's your bread. They can't do what they want with it. You only graciously allowed them to consume the bread but it never belonged to them. Imagine going to court to protect your right to continue selling infinite bread just to prevent people from doing what they want with the bread.

And then we get a subscription service to "trade" these games.

>having a retarded boomer government in a different country. One that doesn't understand how memes work, dictate internet policies for your country is the definiton of cucked.
right, america

>What the fuck are you smoking? Customer rights are absolute.
No they are not.

> Employees of companies are not entitled to their fucking jobs
According to many governments the world over THEY ARE and you'll be fined if you fire someone unlawfully.

You want government regulations for YOU but you scream out when others demand government regulations for them.

>What rights do they have?

Attached: 98fe0145c1ffc13c2160c6abf852b56d[1].png (718x718, 429K)

>No they are not.
Yes they are.

>According to many governments the world over THEY ARE and you'll be fined if you fire someone unlawfully.
And a company going out of business because they're not financially viable anymore is not unlawful.

>Employees of companies are not entitled to their fucking jobs
lol

>right, america

lol try EU

So you will defend when Yea Forums is passing around a half dozen copies to thousands of users?

You're not describing how a publisher is entitled to rights and a customer is not, you fucking moron.

Define absolute because there are definitely limits to customer rights in every single EU country.

They're not. If the company is floundering because it's bad at its business those employees are not guaranteed a paycheck. They'll be fired. Or layoffs will happen. Or the company will go bankrupt. Being employed is not a fucking right.

They aren't in most countries, including most states in the US.

Why would I complain about getting games for cheap? I'm a fucking customer. That's great value.

Attached: 1289648409560.jpg (464x388, 36K)

>entitled to rights and a customer is not
lol you're making up bullshit where you take away publisher rights and claim that anything you want is a customer right.

In fact I don't even think any of this is "rights" rights are things you're born with. What you're talking about are entitlements you fookin zoomer .

> What rights do they have? You believe they have the right to create infinite copies of something at no additional cost and receive potentially endless profit off of it? They're undertaking no additional financial risk and you believe they are entitled to more and more money? This defies how fair commerce has existed since antiquity.

They are practicing the definition of capitalism.
Games are ONLY valuable and can be sold because of government enforced intellectual property laws.

GAMES ARE NOT BREAD.

why would you want to kill steam when they do just that already?

You're not describing the publisher's rights. You need to give me a fucking explanation if you want me to take you seriously. A customer has the right to own what they purchase since if their real fucking money they've exchanged for it. They can't insist they still own the money they gave and spend it like it's still their fucking money. Ownership of that money has changed. What they get in return should be owned as well. That's a fair exchange.

>A customer has the right to own what they purchase since if their real fucking money they've exchanged for it.

no they don't. not everything they purchase is theirs.

How the fuck would that work with renting something?

>Imagine if you could duplicate bread indefinitely
And imagine if you only had to buy one loaf of bread. And that bread never ran out. And that you never even got hungry so the only reason you ever have to buy bread is because you like how it tastes. And you have no idea how they keep making new flavors of infinite bread, but you have a magical infinite space pantry made for you by the infinite bread shop and you deserve money for it!

Attached: 1568406448755.jpg (315x500, 18K)

Why not? Why should consumers be protected more than employees?

There's a reason why piracy laws exist, there's a reason why you can't legally take physical discs and make new prints of them for reselling purposes.

So what? These business stay in business on the concept that information is scarce and tightly controlled so that they can make unbelievable amounts of profits in return. They're treating this information like a physical good by exchanging it for physical money. So why the fuck shouldn't the digital good be treated like a physical good since it was exchanged in the same way a physical good would?

>there's a reason why you can't legally take physical discs and make new prints of them for reselling purposes.

The irony is the resale law is worse than piracy. Not only can you copy the game itself, you are legally entitled to selling the copy.

I just don't understand how france is so fucking out of the loop to think this will work.

I don't see a fucking argument anywhere. Why would I dislike being able to get games for cheap? You need to make a fucking point, you braindead cunt. You can't just post a picture of a book you never read and act like that's going to prove you right. You need to voice your shitty opinion so I can step on it.

You give the product back when you rent it.

Sublease moron

>Why would I dislike being able to get games for cheap?
Why get them for cheap when you can just pirate them.

you can tell when a thread is full of economic/socio-political illiterates when things devolve into food analogies

>Crysis 2
Nope.
Even if it was free, I don't want it.

To be honest, if this passes, it's going to kill every digital distribution service, Steam, Epic, or GoG or anyone else that relies on digital sales.

Because of their nature, digital media's main cost (After the upfront creation of said media) was simply bandwidth, which is absolutely pennies compared to what it takes to physically produce media on CDs or cartridges. Furthermore, you can easily distribute to any region with an internet connection and accept money from them, and also freely adjust the price based on the strength of the local market's economy since there's basically no minimum cost needed to profit from a sale -- every sale will net you SOME money, even if it's only a few cents.

Once people are able to resell the digital copies of games they've bought, the primary sellers for digital goods are going to lose a massive amount of revenue as end users will simply flood the market at cheaper prices than the primary vendor. Unlike reselling a physical object such as a DVD or CD, your market for the resale reaches the entire world. All you have to do is price your item slightly under the vendor (And everyone else) and the vendor will have to compete with that or never get another sale so long as used copies exist.

I don't think this is a bad idea, but the far-reaching implications of it should require some additional infrastructure to accomplish, as currently "ownership" of digital goods is all based on good faith of the holder of their digital key, which rests with the publisher. If it entails something like creating a national registry of digital goods and who owns what, I'd rather not go down this route at all if a third party or government entity would have access to that information. I could certainly see some establishment of a "Digital Goods Registry" happen if this law passes, with digital goods purchases being tied through there to some identifying item like a national ID or SS number.

>product

alright well we skipped past a bunch of questions.
what about anything you buy that isn't a product?

>Why should consumers be protected more than employees?
Employees are not entitled to their jobs. Customers are entitled to own what they purchase. This is real simple, bro.

Also this has nothing to do with piracy. This is not illegally distributing illegally copied versions of the game. It's transferring ownership of legally purchased games.

>Buy something for $60 and sell it for cents

Not every game can be pirated. Some games are worth supporting but not at the price they're asking. Are you going to come up with a fucking argument yet?

>so fucking out of the loop

People should be able to sell exclusive licenses the way they sell physical (essentially exclusive) products

I think you are the one out of the loop, user

Sublease, moron

We're discussing video games. Where do you rent video games and don't need to return the product after X amount of time?

>GoG might implement it on its own
To be honest I'm curious about how it's going to affect gog, since they're one of the only digital distribution services that give you the game installers without having to use some shit client.

>Not every game can be pirated. Some games are worth supporting but not at the price they're asking.

Lol why bother, pirating is way cheaper.

You guys don't realize how much this will fuck up the industry. Not just Valve, but the same will hold true for Epic, EA, Ubisoft. And of course this'll count for all the home consoles as well, just because it's not a PC doesn't mean it won't apply to everyone in the end.

I'm not saying it's good or bad, I'm saying this is a massive paradigm shift that no one is ready for. Be prepared for a lot of publishers to go bankrupt.

>buy something for $60 sell it for $59 or $1 less than whatever the developer is currently selling it for

Every single thread, without exception, regarding politics or economics on Yea Forums will be filled with uneducated morons, yourself included. That's why you posted, you're dumb enough to think you're actually better than everyone else there.

service, retard

Probably just take it from one shelf and put it on another. Or let you extract game keys from your games to 'sell'.

But it isn't exchanged the same way a physical good would though.

You can't do legal 3rd party reprints of physical discs without permission. But for a digital resell market
that's essentially what you are doing, circulating copies that can never degrade and never break.

But this is not how governments work and never have worked. Entitled according to whom? The government is granting you the right of ownership
just like the government is granting people the ownership of immaterial intellectual properties.

Also be prepared for publishers to create a dozen subscription services to bypass this law. Consumers are going to get fucked even more.

Obviously. Doesn't change any of the points I made. It's the customer's duty to seek out the best value. Sometimes customers will consider the most value to be financially investing into the company so that the company is more likely to continue making the game that customer enjoyed. As in an actual investment and an endorsement. Actual support for the developers. This concept would not disappear from existence if people could give their copy of a game to a friend.

Game development is a for profit industry, big shock I know.
Groups passing around the same copy. Keeping publishers from a high percentage of sales, and instead opting to resell for cheap in massive online groups with hundreds or thousands of owners of a single key
>what could go wrong

Attached: 1567677018692.jpg (702x694, 33K)

Good.
You should own the things you buy. Sure, it's a massive paradigm shift, no one is ready for it, and will throw all of our stores into chaos. What other choice is there, though? They won't change on their own. No pressure exists because everyone does it. So unfortunately it's 'kick in the pants' or nothing.

>Doesn't change any of the points I made.

the point you made is that buying stuff on resale is cheap.
That was "your point".

> It's the customer's duty to seek out the best value.

So pirating.
You are arguing for pirating.

>You can't do legal 3rd party reprints of physical discs without permission
And this is the problem. This exists to take your rights as a customer away. Your argument is reliant on this idea that the laws are infallible and should never be changed or amended to better suit the customers.

Day of the rope for game publishers soon.

Attached: 1569008206700.jpg (235x216, 17K)

>What other choice is there, though?

have special scenarios so you can allow other types of concepts to flourish, instead of just treating everything like bread?

Why do animefags love breadlines so much?

Don't think so. It's my understanding that the US is the only place where the attempt to present games as services rather than products has been successful (from a legal point of view).

Pretty sure having a government that eagerly bends over for companies and businesses cucks you. And yeah that describes us too but we're not nearly as far gone as you are.

>Game development is a for profit industry
I know. I don't care if that current way of doing business evaporates. Customers are constantly being fucked over as things stand right now. There needs to be a better compromise, and artificially limiting what people can do with the shit they've paid good money for isn't the mother fucking answer. Just because the industry has gotten so bloated now doesn't mean it deserves to grow even larger or even stay the same size. It's been operating using rules that no other kind of physical industry can play by and customers are not seeing any of the benefits of this.

esl mother fucker

>Pretty sure having a government that eagerly bends over for companies and businesses cucks you

you're right user, governments should just introduce fucking tarifs whenever they feel like it.

Thank god your government cares so much.

>yet another self proclaimed capitalist and lover of capitalism who has no capital; no house, no car, and no job

loving every laugh

>you can resell games now
>yay the consumer won. Now I can sell my copy of super stroker 6
>Wait why are there so many people selling super stroker 6 too
Why is it being sold so cheap, I payed $60 for it.
>What do you mean devs are leaving by the boat load
>What do you mean the store is going to close down because lack of sales
>What do you mean that gaming is dead? Lol just make more games so I can resell them.

>Also be prepared for publishers to create a dozen subscription services to bypass this law.
They'll just collapse, then. That's fine, too. It'll be like the streaming service apocalypse coming to us in the next few years.

And like I said sometimes piracy isn't the best value if you're considering more things than simply the price. Stop ignoring the shit I'm typing out just for you to read. Even pirates support games they want to see more of because that's what's in their own best interests. A customer is supposed to be selfish. That's the most accurate way for the market to understand the truth about what would be most profitable.

Well feel free to read that book you claim I've never read. But it is clear you don't understand economics. People aren't going to do the right thing, ever. People are self serving and so are corporations. You are not entitled to be treated in any certain way.
It's either the give and take system we have now, or kill the industry. Looks like you want the latter.

No one actually cares about selling their games, most people won't even do it or care. most people don't sell their physical games now, so it doesn't matter anyway.

It's about owning the thing you buy. That's why this is so important. You bought something? Some EULA can't tell you that you actually don't own it and you're only leasing it. If this were any other industry; this ruling would have come a lot sooner.

The entire reason games exist at all as a viable market is because of intellectual property laws giving exclusive ownership of them to the authors.
That's true for books, movies, music and everything else.

Either you have these markets or you don't.
Games are not bread and there are no laws that treat them as bread.

Our laws should be balanced to cause minimum harm to consumers and businesses. If digital reselling would prove devastating
to businesses en masse then it's reasonable that governments prevent that consumer right.

>piracy isn't the best value if you're considering more things than simply the price

So... the service.
your saying you value the service.
but then want to treat it like its a product.

Nah. I did grow up in a socialist country though. I have way more in America than I could ever dream of back home.
Things are improving there though, funny enough because of "evil" capitalist economic reforms.

The entire reality of digital goods is the fact that corporations and governments insist on treating them like physical ones. The digital data requires nearly no effort to replicate, as if it was simply a matter of "making your own," piracy wouldn't be looked down upon. Governmental solutions to this is to attempt to bridge the gap between physical and digital goods by attempting to apply constraints to them just like physical ones -- this creates an issue where corporations lobby for all the "positives" of physical media and none of the "negatives" like being able to freely trade, sell, or give said item away. Naturally, because most voters don't have this issue on their radar, such things are allowed to fly until someone gets upset.

The solution to media in general is to change the method of payment. Currently, people make goods, and customers pay for them, just like a physical item. This leads the entire legal battle of how to police piracy and illegal copying, etc. Instead, we should be looking at a patron system that sees items crowdfunded as a one time payment, and then released for free with no strings attached. With this method, digital goods become impossible to pirate as they simply don't exist before being paid for, so there's nothing to steal. Once released, no security like DRM would be needed to protect them, as there'd be no money lost for their redistribution.

The only issue with this is that you're essentially paying for a product before you know what you're getting, and it's entirely possible, just like Kickstarter, you get a shitty product. This could be mitigated by sticking to known groups that produce quality items, as reputation would help to ensure quality. Still though, even with this risk, the idea of getting a DRM free game that can be easily downloaded by anyone on release day is pretty appealing to pass up.

There will be no compromise. The industry will change, and none of that change will be good for gamers. Games will be broken up into even more pieces that can be monetized individually. Single player and indie games will disappear or only be accessible through subscription services. You'll own your games less than ever.

>You are not entitled to be treated in any certain way.
Consumer rights actually exist you boot licking shill. If left untethered companies would sell you into slavery without a second thought. There is no give and take with the current system. It's customers give their money for a bill of goods they could possibly access for some entertainment as long as they follow a laundry list of arbitrarily decided rules of conduct or else their purchase will be nullified and their money not refunded.

He might not have those things but he have a right and possibility to acquire those things.
The stock market is open for anyone. Steam direct is only $99. Get to it.

Oh not from a technical point of view, but in terms of how it'll impact it. Since they give the installers without glorified DRM attached, they can't prevent someone buying a game, grabbing the installer and reselling it while keeping the installer.

If it kills DRM-free digital distribution, that would be a pretty big negative.

>Not just Valve, but the same will hold true for Epic, EA, Ubisoft
That sounds good though.

Don't conflate the shit I say. I was referring to investing in companies that make good games. Not services. Pay attention.

>investing in companies that make good games

Investing? you think buy buying second hand a game you are now investing?
what the absolute fuck are you going on about.

valve is one of the only digital distributors set up to accomodate something like this, how would this even work on something like bethesda's store

>If digital reselling would prove devastating
to businesses en masse then it's reasonable that governments prevent that consumer right.
And according to you it should be the mother fucking businesses and companies that decide what will be devastating and not the mother fucking courts? You should be endorsing this decision from the court because it's the courts that are built to protect your rights. The companies are fighting for themselves. Not you. If a court has decided that something is good for you, perhaps you should stop and fucking consider why.

>whines to the government because he is too stupid to weigh out his purchases
>calls other people bootlickers

Attached: 1568034042608.jpg (1000x1113, 81K)

Not him, but then it'll just fail. The market will shrink faster than the industry can support it, and the people willing to put up with it will decrease to lower than ever. Subscription services has not worked out well for TV, it's just driven everyone to piracy. This will be the same thing with games, Epic Game Store platform wars times a thousand.

Is there even a way they can force people to do that and come out on top? It seems compromise is the way more profitable solution than digging their heels in and trying to skirt the law.

In your moronic brain you seem to think that exposing people to games they've never played before is somehow going to reduce sales. You really have no idea how this shit worked before digital.

Look, I'm for refunds, I'm for the right of access to your purchases.

But I don't need or think it's healthy overall to FORCE platforms like Steam to maintain a second-hand market.

Imagine being such a cuck that you are against consumer rights

>exposing

holy shit so you're one of those exposure fags. thats rich lmao.

not only are you a moral pirate fag, you also think that games getting "exposure" is an "investmant"

Attached: 8a0bac947f299ea8456e7cdbf013838d[1].gif (400x224, 735K)

I'm not French, fucko. I'm explaining to you why customers are entitled to own what they've purchased since the money they've sacrificed is now owned by the company they've paid. It's the only way for the trade to be considered fair and equitable. I do not possess the means to prevent the company from spending the money I've given them. They should not possess the means to prevent me from doing whatever I want with what I purchased. Full stop. You can't reasonably have one of these abilities without the other and still consider the situation fair.

This. I'd resell SC2 in a heartbeat for 50c less than Blizzard if I knew it would have a buyer.

I think in actuality, this would just lead to more things publishers would do to get people to buy their copies new. Perhaps they would make a service portion of their game that you can't access with the game itself (Thus moving everything to a free to play model and selling tiny pieces of content over time that aren't affected by the resale market) or moving to a subscription fee for everything. I could definitely see Blizzard making a "unified subscription service" where you don't buy any of their games anymore, you simply pay a tiered subscription plan to play all of them (With the more expensive subscription plans giving you faster access to new games).

Bottom line is that publishers are always going to find a way to jew you out of your money right up until it pisses off the masses enough that they stop buying. Anyone on this site is usually more discerning with their purchases than the masses, so don't expect them to care that they're being fleeced until it becomes egregious.

That mode of thinking made sense but our current economic situation is a absurdist house of mirrors that makes no sense. You can invest in a game that you enjoy and pay the full $60 retail, but the publisher can still at the end of the day fire 90% of their workforce and replace them with rookies whenever and however they see fit, and you enabled them to do this by giving them money. The money isn't going to where it used to anymore. Digital platforms at least give indies a chance on the free market.

Attached: 1564112145725.jpg (901x933, 295K)

This isn't the US system m8

Not a good idea when you're currently being overtaken by a competitor.

Lmfao at all the steamies on max damage control. Tick tock, clocks ticking kids

You're still not making any sort of argument. All you're doing is repeating what I'm telling you. People deserve to own what they purchase. Any consequences resulting from an enforcement of this concept are irrelevant to customers because this situation should never have existed in the first place.

Can all of you HL3 bootlicking beggar boomers just fucking go and storm valve offices demanding your shitty fucking sequel so gabe can skin you alive with his fucking knives already

France has a lot more pull than Belgium. They're in the top 10 wealthiest countries.

Why would anyone do that? They're still paying a dollar for.. nothing?

>own theater
>buy a movie
>pay for shipping
>can't resell it

you're a fucking negro

>All you're doing is repeating what I'm telling you

because you're a fucking riot.
I don't need to make an arguement when you sound like a entitled communist that thinks games need to be free, "but don't you dare pirate that's illegal and will hurt those "based" devs that need exposure"

>Not a good idea when you're currently being overtaken by a competitor.
Lol thinking EGS will be relevant in 5 years. Off to the pile with Origin, UPlay, etc.

Attached: 1567757176342.gif (320x240, 2.65M)

Please name 2 court cases in Europe that Valve has won.

Not him but there's a reverse to this, too. Publishers can also fire 90% of their workforce and releases a patch that utterly breaks/ruins the game to where none of the workforce can fix it. What I just described has happened before, many times. That's kind of why people keep up with the actions of the publisher, because it can directly impact their game if they decide they want to make the wrong move.

Indies could still exist and even flourish in a market where people can trade and sell their games at will. Because their budgets aren't insanely bloated and their marketing expenditures are almost non-existant, the ability for people to give good games to their friends just increases the likelihood of more purchases. Time and time again you see this occur with music and books even though what this describes would be vilified as piracy according to video game publishers.

>France has more pull than the focal point of the EU

Attached: 1568190512448.jpg (224x205, 4K)

>own theater
>rent a projector
>projector company pays for shipping
>can't sell projector
>sell it anyways and "claim you lost it"
>get in trouble and move to france

Rich coming from someone who doesn't know how to spell argument. You're not presenting an argument because you don't have one. People who have legitimate opinions aren't afraid to express them. You're a moron and you can't keep up. You're ignoring the dozens of points I'm making because you can't address any of them. All you're doing is telling me that I'm right when you run away every post you make.

based retard

>mfw games as a "service" is deemed to be unlawful and video games are legally treated as goods

Attached: e10.jpg (960x599, 94K)

How can they do this Yea Forumsro's? Have SJWs taken over in the French courts? Why would they ever rule against based valve. Did epic pay them off? This is the end of all video games unless valve gets its way!

>You're not presenting an argument because you don't have one.

if you can't deny what I'm calling you, its clear there is no point arguing.

And yet it continues to take over.

this doesn't make sense, you're using your own hardware including monitor

you have to go back

Attached: 1542395480993.png (750x730, 476K)

good I hope this becomes a thing before the console generation ends so I can sell all my ps4 games besides bloodborne

Eventually they can get fined billions or have their assets seized

Valve isn't a big company. They're worth a few billion, which is fucking nothing in the business world. Is Gaben going to bankrupt himself to fight shit? He can't rely on stockholders because he has none. Does he want to become poor?

He just isn't that rich in the grand scheme of things. He isn't Jeff Bezos, a guy with like 80 times the wealth of fatty mcbeard

I assumed the theater was the "hardware" for this analogy. You can just as much claim to "rent" the movies then instead, and the renters pay for the shipping.

It goes without saying that your ad hominems are irrelevant and only being summoned because you don't have a fucking argument.

>I don't need to argue with you because I'm so right and you're so wrong
>but I'm going to waste time replying anyway without ever actually taking a stance

Exactly who in the blue blazes do you think you're fucking fooling you corporate cock sucker? I'll make it simple for you. I'll ask one question and all you have to do is answer it. I'll make it a simple question.

Should customers own products they purchase?

Epic would get fucked the hardest out of anyone in this because they can't even manage to code a SHOPPING CART much less a second hand market.

>so I can sell all my ps4 games besides bloodborne

Did I miss something

Attached: 1681843448.jpg (220x251, 12K)

>"Laugh at Steam"
>Even though this would affect all digital storefronts, and Steam would be the most likely to survive a new world where this is allowed

Allowing phoneposting to give consolefags more ability to shitpost was a mistake

Look at how google, a company worth like a trillion dollars, literally jumped when the US President told them to kill huawei and said they had no option due to the government telling them to. Companies aren't as powerful as you want to believe.

>Should customers own products they purchase?

these aren't products

Not necessarily.

Attached: MW-FX964_Nerd_r_20171108120139_ZH.jpg (890x501, 142K)

My question is a yes or no question. You need to answer it with a yes or a no. It's a really, really simple question. It needs a really, really simple answer. I hope you can handle this. Here we go again.

Should customers own products they purchase?

Attached: 1311157685582.jpg (228x243, 31K)

>drones single overriding circlejerk is how 'pro consumer' steam is compared to epic
>Valve not only have to be taken to court to provide basic consumer rights, but it also trying furious to back out of it
Maybe Valve aren't your friends after all?

Attached: 5644.png (591x527, 527K)

Does it fucking say Meet The Pyro? Gabe Newell is a MLP fan, and there's several fucking pony hats and voicelines in the game that reference it

Attached: Furry.png (375x534, 213K)

>Anyone who disagrees with this ruling is a shill cocksucker.
We're just not SJWs

>Should customers own products they purchase?
lol yes, but these games aren't products.

You know EGS would have to implement this as well right? This ruling would effect every single digital store, not just Steam. Given how EGS can't even get a fucking shopping cart, cloud saves and preloading working they're not "overtaking" anything any time soon.

The literal fact that loot boxes have been massively cut down in the last few years? They are still around but not every game is a literal slot machine anymore. EA would have NEVER dropped loot boxes if not for the belgium shit.

Gamergate was about forcing right wing shit into vidya.

OK let's dive down this rabbit hole. Why do you think video games sold in exchange for the same kinds of money in the same kinds of ways to all kinds of products worldwide are not considered products?

You need to explain now why you believe video games are not products. This is the claim you have made. This is the hill you will now die on. Explain yourself.

>compared to epic

Read those words over and over again until you understand what's being siad

What's SJW about this?

>Gamergate was about forcing right wing shit into vidya

did you actually fall for the gamers rise up meme?

Attached: numbers.png (601x601, 339K)

the difference between purchasing and renting for an undetermined amount of time is that in the first case you don't get scammed like a fucking nigger

Attached: 1536851784646.gif (200x153, 2.48M)

They aren't.

This ruling just BTFO Epic forever
They dont even have a SHOPPING CART, yet now they'll be expected to create a resale system. They're fucked

Attached: 1566501978870.gif (256x224, 8K)

Belgium is more of a formality, France and Germany dictates the daily agenda.

>You need to explain now why you believe video games are not products.

because steam games are a service. You don't actually own the games you download on steam. You don't own a portion of the IP, and you're also not allowed to redistribute the IP because that would generally inhibit sales.

I don't think you know how EU laws work my man, you can't just pay a fee and get off following that shit. If Valve's appeal fails (It will), they'll have to pay a fee or follow the law. If they don't the fee will be increased with ZERO cap.

Valve would quite literally be put out of business with fees alone if they don't comply. EU laws are serious shit, its why stuff gets done, stop thinking think the world works on the same system America does.

>is that in the first case you don't get scammed like a fucking nigger
owning shit is a meme unless you can live in it or eat it.

Yeah, epic is a shitty anti consumer company that is more interested in sucking off their chink overlords.

Meanwhile Valve are literally the same shit, only difference is less of Valves overlords have slanty eyes.

This is why they'll either force a subscription fee there or simply drop EU.

>inb4 b-but the EU is so big

if theyre losing more money than they gain, there is no reason to stick around.

Customers should own what they've agreed to own. If you spent money on a transaction that precludes your ownership of a product, you don't get to say you own it after the fact.

Video games themselves are the product of hours of work and labor by real life people in real life companies. They are exchanged for real money. They are products of development.

I'm not talking about Steam. I'm talking about video games. You made the claim that video games are not products. Your reasoning only involves a digital distributor; not the games themselves.

I'll run it by you again. You need to explain yourself. Explain to me why video games are not considered products. Forget what a company is telling you what the games are. It's in their best interest to fool you into thinking they are not products. I need you to look at the object itself, the concept itself, objectively.

You've made this claim. The onus is on you to now defend it. You have not done a sufficient job to convince me because I know what products are and I know what video games are. Why do you think differently? Is it just because a company told you?

Do you eat shoes and live in your pc?

>They'll simply drop the EU
And not a single dev will have any interest in steam anymore, because why on earth would you limit yourself to NA and Leaf sales alone? This would be nothing but a good thing for us, as it would basically make GOG the steam replacement, and GOGs already a better service.

Attached: 1399809136950.jpg (172x169, 17K)

Should video games be excluded from things people can own? Is this what should be happening? Can you reasonably defend this result? You're going to have to do a better job at defending the act of preventing people from owning what they've spent their money on. Should a company like Steam be permitted to sell you a bill of goods and not actually grant you ownership of something you've exchanged with real money?

>Valve are literally the same shit
>Proton to support all games on Linux
>Universal controller support that's continuously updated
>User reviews (not the shitty opt-in system Epic's suggested)
>Lets devs and publishers generate keys for free to sell to third-party distributors, which leads to cheaper games for people to buy

>Video games themselves are the product of hours of work and labor by real life people in real life companies. They are exchanged for real money. They are products of development.

just saying they're a product doesn't make them a product. A product of labor doesn't turn a backrub into a product.

>I'm not talking about Steam. I'm talking about video games. You made the claim that video games are not products.

this thread is about steam, and a ruling to resell a service. which you think is amazing.

You can already resell physical games that you own.

>These games
does not cover "all video games".

look at what valve did to the poor soul

>because why on earth would you limit yourself to NA and Leaf sales alone?

are you an amerimutt or a europoor.
China exists.

So you think this will only effect Steam?

Attached: 1568428877104m.jpg (1024x1017, 83K)

>Should a company like Steam be permitted to sell you a bill of goods and not actually grant you ownership of something you've exchanged with real money?
Yes. If you don't like their business model, you're under no obligation to do business with them.

Fine with me. Those companies deserve to die if they cannot possibly adapt to changes. The oldest companies around stuck around because they could adapt. If companies not even 10 years old end up going belly up because of one change, then they were never going to last long.

>loot boxes have been massively cut down in the last few years
Hah, get a look at this faggot.

the only answer to steam's faggotry and the platform wars is console exclusivity

jesus christ how did it come to this.

Attached: nrlxs84qzA1reoref.jpg (318x159, 9K)

>And not a single dev will have any interest in steam anymore, because why on earth would you limit yourself to NA and Leaf sales alone?

how the fuck are they going to sell to EU when EU thinks everything should just be free.
Seriously how does this math out in your head.

Or they could just shut down digital marketplaces and go back to before. No company has a right to exist if it can't manage itself.

what

I just want the indiecuckery to die

>just saying they're a product doesn't make them a product
Just saying it's not a product doesn't suddenly turn a static sequence of 1s and 0s into a mother fucking service.

>this thread is about steam
My question wasn't.

>You can already resell physical games that you own.
The question at hand is whether physical games should be treated differently from digital games when they method for purchasing them involves the same amount of money.

>does not cover "all video games".
Irrelevant to the discussion.

Explain why video games are not products. You acknowledge that people should possess the right to own the products they purchase. You're unable to convince me thus far that video games are not products. You're failing. You're failing to win this argument. You're not sufficiently discriminating between products and digital video games. You're not giving me the smoking gun that makes video games different from other products that people can and should own.

>They'll simply drop EU
How can someone be so retarded? Do you have any idea how poorly that would go? Let me list the ways.
>Limiting countries results in less sales, obviously
>Devs are not going to be interested in a limited storefront.
>Storefronts such as epic and gog are already fighting steam and limiting themselves at this point would be retarded and a nail in the coffin
>Ditching the EU due to the law would paint Valve as being MASSIVELY anti-consumer, this along with the precedent made in france would make it incredibly easy for consumer groups in the US and other countries to pass the same shit
There is no running from this.

>I just want the indiecuckery to die
why

Lmaoing at americans being completely unable to grasp goverment siding with the population over corprations
Guess fucking what, if the jews come up with mire tricks, they're gonna get shut down again. Once the EU sets it's sight on a jew they won't stop firing until the swindles stop. This isn't a one time thing because senator NotMonarchy didn't get a sizeable enough "contribution" to his "campaign", so he had to slap the wrist that feeds him. Valve can't just up their "lobbying" budget to make this go away. This is what having rights looks like. This is what having actual laws looks like. Instead of the precedent bs "well, looks like judge retard-who-never-saw-a-compuer interpreted the law this way so now I have to go with his adaptation"
Get fucking rekt you slaves

Attached: 1558254444437.png (480x469, 248K)

>The question at hand is whether physical games should be treated differently from digital games when they method for purchasing them involves the same amount of money.

they should be treated differently because one doesn't exist, outside of 1s and 0s. Of fucking course they should be treated differently.

How will Epic sell games in the same limited market?
You don't honestly believe Steam is the only platform that doesn't let you resell digital games.
In fact I can't think of a single platform that does.

You can resell console exclusives because they use physical media still. They also choke out the competition by depriving them of games.

If valve pulled out of Europe and lost around 13.60 billion dollars that would probably bankrupt them m8.

>we're going to take 101% of your profits
>well we won't work with you
>Y-YOU'RE MAKING A MISTAKE, YOU'LL SEE!

no one will work with eu until they calm their tits and play nice.

I'm mostly baffled that apartently in America you can just pay a fine to not follow a law. That can't be how it really is, right? In the EU if a law is passed and you don't follow it, you get fined, and that fine increases till you go bankrupt. Because its the law.

I'm already aware I'm under no obligation to do business with them. That's not what I asked. According to you it's fine for any business to revoke ownership of something they've sold to you simply because you agreed to an arbitrary EULA or TOS beforehand that waives your rights to that thing? How would you live in an environment where every single business in existence operates using tactics like this?

You need to acknowledge why I'm asking this question. When companies are doing shit and step out of line they need to be regulated. Just because a prominent company has gotten away with something that's unethical for a long time doesn't mean they deserve to continue to be permitted to do it. It's why regulation exists.

If you don't like how the government is run you're more than welcome to fucking vote.

This is pointless because the argument you are making is that every game company will pull out of the largest market around because....reasons? You can't do that, really.

Germany?

If Valve were left with no choice but to leave then no company could fill the void.
So EUniggers need to accept the gaming market or not have one at all.
There is no digital distribution that allows you to resell games. Steam isn't alone in this, lol.

>You can resell console exclusives
you can also resell non-exclusives.

Don't bother, Americans think the EU is made up like five people.

You seem to think I care if other shitty companies go belly up.

>Because its the law.

I'm honestly baffled how the EU can make laws to bankrupt companies without a simple understanding of economics.

In america you're not allowed to take someone back to court over and over re-trialing them for the same offense.

So this is the corner you've painted yourself in. Am I right in understanding that you believe no customer has the right to own anything digital? Am I misinterpreting what you just said? Because that's how I'm interpreting it and I want to make extra special sure that's exactly what you meant to say because if not this is going to be your chance to clarify what you mean.

Attached: 1322599256175.jpg (2048x1536, 664K)

Consumer rights are generally a left wing thing. Conservatives push for more corporate freedom.

> Suddenly, Yea Forums is full of law graduates

>In america you're not allowed to take someone back to court over and over re-trialing them for the same offense.
Yeah thats really retarded, how do you not see that?

Hi Jarred

>Am I right in understanding that you believe no customer has the right to own anything digital?

no actually, I simply say the rules should be different. Do you honestly think they should be identical?

No, I was actually hear to see it happen and didn't just read about it on reddit like you.

Imagine this thing spirals out of control and affects ALL kinds of online distribution services, including streaming sites like netflix or spotify. Jesus what a nightmare that would be, PLEASE happen

Attached: 1b9.jpg (913x1024, 80K)

>He thinks conservatives aren't in favor of consumer rights
>He gets his political knowledge from /pol/

Attached: 134624246.png (300x250, 26K)

is that a tiny piece of poop coming out of that creatures ass?

>Yeah thats really retarded, how do you not see that?

If you commit a crime, you go to court and the judge rules a fine. The judge can't then take you back to court for the same offense you commited and ruled on, and then add more to the fine.

Then those companies will go bankrupt due to suddenly in a single day losing oover half their profits.

What are you even defending kike?

>No, I was actually hear to see it happen and didn't just read about it on reddit like you.

are you sure you're not from reddit, it really sounds like you're from reddit.

>My question is a yes or no question. You need to answer it with a yes or a no
>You need to acknowledge why I'm asking this question
Make up your damn mind.

Same for people? Can I kill someone, do my time and from then on I'm free to kill anyone I please?

But that's incredibly retarded.
>Valve, you need to make X happen. Its the law. If you don't follow it we will fine you
>Okay fine us then.
>Okay I guess you don't need to follow this law now
That CANNOT be how it works in America, I outright refuse to believe your country has its mouth so firm around corperate lips that they can simply buy their way out of following the law.

America is not a nation of laws. Pay attention to their current political situation for instance. Laws really don't matter in the US if you are rich or powerful. You can publicly flaunt them and straight up say "Fuck you gonna do about it?" and get away with it. In most countries you'd be in prison.

how will that cause steam to "go bankrupt"?

how will not selling to a certain location cause steam to lose money? Especially when that location is costing them more money than they would have made.

I'm having a hard time following this.

lets say steam make 64 billion from sales across the world. Then they lose 18 billion in fines to EU. So they compare it to the 16 billion they make, and say "well we're actually going to make a profit from leaving" and duck out.

Sure a lot of people in the EU will lose steam jobs, and that will ripple out and cause some damages to EU itself. but that's not going to cause bankruptcy.

Unironically kind of. You can't be tried for the same crime twice. Not the same TYPE of crime, literally the same crime. Example, if you kill your bitch wife but are found innocent, then years later DNA evidence proves you did it, you can't be tried again and you're perfectly safe. Its absolutely fucking hilarious.

>Do you honestly think they should be identical?
The money paid for them is identical. What is given in return should be treated identically.

You're saying the rules for digital video games should be different from all other kinds of digital goods? Because what you stated was that 1s and 0s don't exist and therefore should be treated differently from physical games. If this is your reasoning for games it should stand to reason that this line of reasoning is why you believe ALL digital things should not be owned by customers because it doesn't actually exist beyond 1s and 0s.

Since that is your reasoning I'm going to conclude that your line of thinking does not treat video games differently from other digital things. If you think video games are an exception to things people should own despite being digital then you need to explain why they're supposed to be treated differently.

Is that clear? You need to explain. You're saying things without any explanation. You need to give me the reasons why you think so. I need to see your reasoning. I've explained to you my reasoning because I've actually given this shit a mere modicum of thought. Do me the fucking courtesy of doing the same.

I'm pretty sure they can if you continue to do the same crime over and over again. What do you think a "repeat offender" is?

If you kill someone.
go to jail.

No, you cannot go to jail for the same crime that sent you to jail again. it bothers me how that's normal in europe really.

Not the guy you are replying to but you both are drastically misinterpreting the law practice of America.

>how would a company losing half its income in a single day possibly bankrupt it?

Not hard to figure out bro.

>how would a company losing half its income in a single day possibly bankrupt it?
>EU is half of steams income

post source.
And that's why they're paying a fine first. They're going to slowly leave the EU over that period of time.

This other user meant the same incident. If you commit the same crime in two different incidents then yes you can be tried and it would be sperate cases.

So, when valve is bought out by epic, can I laugh at you?

Don't quote from two different posts and pretend like the statements were made back to back while ignoring the context that the conversation has continued. Obviously when I tell him he needs to acknowledge why I'm asking the question I'm referring to the question I asked in the previous fucking paragraph, not a previous fucking post. Shut the fuck up. If you're not going to take a stance and actually engage in the discussion you don't get any air time. Give me the mic.

Yeah sure user.

Yea Forums pretending to understand law and misinterpreting recent events

Attached: 1568149911735.jpg (264x289, 10K)

>how will not selling to a certain location cause steam to lose money? Especially when that location is costing them more money than they would have made.
user its incredibly simple and you are over thinking it. I'll greentext it for you.
>Valve sells Y companies game
>Valve make X amount, company makes X amount
>User resells their game
>Assuming there is no steam cut (There would be but for the sake of argument)
>User makes X amount, another user buys it
>Second user did not pay Valve, however..
>Second user is still a steam user, and will continue to buy games
>Even if the second user ONLY buys resold keys, its fine as the cost of having an active user on steam is nothing for Valve.
>All in all, Valve has retained users, lost one sale
Now if they leave the EU, thats millions of users. MILLIONS that are not buying games, not buying steam marketplace trash.

Valve are not the ones who would be killed by resellers, its indie devs. Valve are only fighting the lawsuit because yes, its STILL bad and STILL a loss of profit, but nowhere near as much as it would be if they just abandoned the EU. Anyone claiming they should is an absolute fucking idiot.

This, they're just euros speculating we still use archaic shit like fine. Wtf would anyone write the law so they get fined later

Well explain it then.

Who is jarred

Here's me shedding a tear for all of those publishers and developers that expected to make infinite money from copying a product an infinite amount of times. That business model should have never existed in the first place.

This is all hypothetical if valve actually loses money from this.

what you seem to be describing is a scenario where valve makes just enough money that they can still sell games, but won't be as cheap there.

>lost one sale
...multiplied by millions of customers, who are most likely going to each buy multiple used games.

Jarred your mom

Jared Christen. Public mouthpiece for Valve.

>bad food analogy

>make small offense
>get sent to court
>judge rules
>actally judge doesn't like you so you get sent back to court again
>judge rules
>actually judge really doesn't like you
>judge rules
>etc

What the ToS says doesn't matter if it's illegal in terms of law--as is the case with France and the EU potentially.
Moreover, if the ToS says some bullshit or is grossly unfair I'd argue it needed be respected as well. Law != right/moral.

And what would happen if they left the EU? They would lose millions of customers. Unless you're going to strawman that literally every EU steam user would only ever buy resold keys, you have no leg to stand on.

one bread can't satisfy someone for their whole lives. you will always need new bread

copyright has nothing to do with "capitalism"

No thread is complete without one. It's like a burger without a dill pickle. You don't notice it when it's missing for the first few bites, but once it shows up you realize what you've been missing.

Attached: 1397610607895.jpg (669x380, 22K)

>Here's me shedding a tear for all of those publishers and developers that expected to make infinite money from copying a product an infinite amount of times

>the cost of making the game doesn't factor into this at all

And I'm perfectly fine with budgets for video games being brought back down to reasonable sizes and development cycles being shortened. Better games result from that environment. At least in my subjective opinion because those kinds of games are ones I appreciate much more.

holy shit you are retarded

I'm just saying that reducing the issue to "one lost sale" is overly simplifying the problem.

>development cycles being shortened

uh they're near anual right now.

> Better games result from that environment
Thats subjective. I'd say more variation at best.

>And I'm perfectly fine with budgets for video games being brought back down to reasonable sizes and development cycles being shortened. Better games result from that environment
Yes that's what will happen. We'll get better games. Devils advocate here but perhaps instead wages will be drastically cut, overtime will be ignored and crunch will be pushed harder than ever, and the limited budgets will be pushed into marketing to up sales not into the games themselves? You know, like what publishers do now but even fucking worse?

Attached: 45849549.png (174x231, 16K)

I hate pickles. Especially when I'm halfway through a burger and find out they left them all piled on one side.

>uh they're near anual right now.
The word you're failing to find is annual, and what you've just told me is a fucking joke. Game development cycles have never been longer. Never. Not in the history of humanity has video games taken longer to create than right now and it shows no sign of speeding up despite all of the new tools and techniques being introduced.

>Thats subjective.
No fucking shit you moron that's why I explicitly stated that it was my subjective opinion. This is to help you understand that I'm fine with the result I describe.

This could be avoided if you just listened. DRM, account-bound games, licenses instead of copies. Had you treated your customers with respect of the three freedoms, you could now say "if you want to resell you have to do it on your own" instead of being forced to make a marketplace where they can circulate their copies forever

Attached: RMS.png (450x399, 293K)

>Game development cycles have never been longer

that really depends. 2000s had decade long developments. in 2010s I've seen a lot of 3-5 year ones.

And I suppose annual is a bad word, they release annually, but spend 2 years working on them.

>No fucking shit you moron
lol don't get your fucking panties in a twist.

Pickles make you enjoy the burger more, even when you take them out.

Didn't he get metoo'd and kicked out of his own organization?

Attached: 7.jpg (352x468, 40K)

>That CANNOT be how it works in America, I outright refuse to believe your country has its mouth so firm around corperate lips that they can simply buy their way out of following the law.
That is exactly how it works sorry, most of the big businesses have money squandered away specifically to deal with those fines.
You're right that our country is a joke though.

Developers that don't know how to do this efficiently will flounder. As it stands there's far too much garbage and far too little quality. I'm not going to sweat a little pressure on the industry to do a better job at making mother fucking video games instead of investigating new and exciting ways to introduce gambling or cutting content to be sold as DLC later. I'm sick to death of that shit, and the current industry supports this shit because customers were stripped of their rights long ago. Give customers a little bit of power and you'll see the industry polarize. AAA publishers that don't know how to change will double down and entice more regulation. Indie developers will continue doing what they currently do and they will be fine. They already operate on a shoestring budget with no advertising. Word of mouth is invaluable to them, and giving players the ability to lend games to a friend just promotes a much more positive environment where people can share their interests and have fun together.

Even if we are given the right to resell our games, we all know gaming companies are just going to structure the process in a way that maximizes profits for them.

>Be part of the GOG master race
>If a friend wants a game I just give him a usb stick with an installer on it
>Can both play the game, no limitations
Feels good not being a drone for a company that is massively anti consumer but hides it all behind a jolly fat man and the nostaliga of their by gone era.

Attached: 111.jpg (521x574, 44K)

something happen recently?

>buying games ever

Attached: 134879878988.jpg (225x225, 11K)

Even saying 2 years of development is being unreasonably gracious. 2 years to reach a beta stage or an early access stage is exceptionally more common than a legitimate launch after 2 years of development. This is also assuming that the games are released in a playable state which is becoming less and less common as patches and bugfixes that should have occurred during beta stages take a year or more to be fleshed out. Then comes the DLC that actually attempts to complete the game's experience but you're also charged for in many cases.

It takes MANY games 4 to 5 years for games to reach a final stage and are no longer in development. Some games upwards to 10 years and even more in extreme cases.

Attached: 1365914632861.jpg (1280x720, 61K)

EU told valve they need to let people sell their games, basically telling Valve that no, game keys are not 'renting' but ownerhsip.

Valve cried about having to be pro consumer for once and are trying to fight it.

Nothing of importance. Yea Forums doesn't understand court rulings and thinks some backwater court case in France is going to somehow give everyone access to sell "their" used games on Steam.
Nothing will happen or change.

You realize this impacts every service, right? Don't try to turn this into some pro Epic thread, or you might just get blindsided by that same gavel.

I didn't mention epic you rent free faggot, stop trying to start something. user asked what happened, I told him.

You guys made the same excuse when some backwater court in Australia ruled against Steam's old refund policy and look what happened

>Its another user doesn't understand how precedent works post
>Its another user doesn't understand the world doesn't revolve around America post
"Backwater court case" says a lot about your mentality.

France says they need to allow resales.
EU laws contradict France's position, but their laws also requires Valve follows every EU country's laws while providing the same service to all of EU. So Valve has to either put up with France's shit or leave the entire European market.

Clearly we should give up our right to own the things we buy, hell why not give up our rights all together.

Yeah, nothing happend.

If Valve gets BTFO will they just pull out from France? Cause that'd be hilarious

And by setting Valve right they'll set the whole digital market straight in the EU. Thankfully I live in the U.S. and have the seasonal sales with coupons to look forward to.

Valve doesn't have to help people sell their Steam games, they just can't ban people for selling their Steam accounts (and that rule was rarely enforced anyway). Counterparty risk from account recovery scammers is already enough to make buying Steam accounts fairly unpopular. People will continue to purchase new games because it's simply more convenient to do so.

Is this a ManlyTears shitpost?

A lot of people are acting like it is just about the Epstein comments. The MIT community and FSF was up in arms not just over that but at the mountain of shit Stallman has gotten away with over the last few decades, including crap like telling female researchers he'd kill himself unless they dated him, keeping a mattress in his office and inviting people to lay topless on it, defending child rape. He's been making women at MIT uncomfortable for years, and it just finally caught up with him. This Epstein shit is the tip of the shitberg, and it finally capsized.

A whole lot of people sayin stuff like "VICE has misrepresented what he actually wrote in his email!" I mean, maybe that's true, but this latest controversy is like 1% of why he's finally being ousted.

Source: went to MIT, several of my female friends in CSAIL have been complaining about this for years.

That's right, absolutely nothing happened, Valve didn't pay millions in fines or revise their TOS and Steam still doesn't offer refunds. Yep.

You dirty horse fucker!

No one cares. Grow a pair you little bitch.

It's a safeguard to keep them from just throwing a case at someone over and over until they get it to stick, guilty or not.

Apparently people do care, else he wouldn't have been fired.

>they just can't ban people for selling their Steam accounts
Yes they can. At least, they can ban those accounts same as any other game service where account selling is against TOS. I'm not that user btw, the whole "nonscarcity means you don't own the things you buy" argument is dumb

Valve don't have to obey it, they should just close the France branches and cut ties with these faggots

"People"
This is what letting women into various industry does. Lies because niggers like you believe muh vagina complaints.
And no you didn't go to MIT.

BOILING

Can you sell an album on itunes?

And its massively flawed, I do see the reason behind it, but its still flawed.

>Valve don't have to obey it, they should just close the Australian branches and cut ties with these faggots

this is fucked up all digital distributors would have to abide by this ruling and it would really fuck up the industry

>This is what letting women into various industry does.
Causes men with asbergers to threaten suicide because co workers won't literally suck their pencil dicks. And no you don't have a dick

>Lies because niggers like you

Hahahahahahahaha get fucked you worthless faggot

Yea Forums doesnt understand economics beyond getting NEETbucks from mommy

This but fuck Valve and everyone else too.

Doubt it, but it would be nice if you could transfer that album to a different account on itunes. I imagine that's a feature a lot of customers would like for all sorts of reasons. It's obvious why Apple wouldn't want this to happen though since they stand to gain everything by preventing it.

See

No proof.

It would just accelerate the push towards streaming/pure rental everything. Granted, that might end up forcing ISPs to stop being complete shitdicks and upgrade their infrastructure with that government bailout money they said was infor improvements, but it's more likely they're going to standoff against the gaming industry and force their hand first.

Imagine being an unironic industry apologist, on Yea Forums(nel) of all places. I can't imagine a more worthless existence

Attached: IMG_20190724_211807.jpg (454x324, 20K)

Cry more commie

This post has less self awareness than the shit I just took

Itll kill all online distributors, its nothing unique to valve

wtf bros this would kill sites like humble bundle and G2A thats fucking horseshit all so these french fucks can get high off of their own farts

>uuurrra a CCHKOMMUNIST!!!1
Let me guess you also shit your pants over emulation. Cry more, kike enabler.

Do these places deserve to exist if they can't offer customers any value?

G2A's entire business model is reselling game keys, you dumb faggot.

The only value these useful idiots care about is maximum value for the industry kikes who's dicks they suck

Answer my question or shut the fuck up.

Make me cocksucker

Yeah but European Law goes above some TOS agreements. If you sign a TOS that Mr X is allowed to kill you wherever he wants and he kills you he will still go to jail, no matter the TOS.
And this is why companies will finally get fucked because "You don't own" argument doesn't work, since you actually OWN those games according to the European Law.
Get fucked burger and keep sucking corporate cocks.

Looks like you're not answering because you're ashamed the fucking answer is no which is why I asked it in the first place to make you acknowledge that you need to shut the fuck up about those places. They're worthless. If you think they're worth a shit then you would have said yes. But you didn't because the answer is no. You just got fucking served, faggot.

Try that again shit for brains

its so fucking pathetic that we have to rely on europe to fight for our consumer rights, america is so fucking cucked by corporations it's hopeless

You're not disagreeing so that means I'm right. If you think they deserve to exist you're not explaining why which means I'm right that they don't deserve to exist.

That's how this discussion works, retard. Your refusal to answer my question IS YOU SHUTTING THE FUCK UP. I've already shut you up.

Attached: 1295367354640.png (300x300, 8K)

Not only that but burgers on this board are trying to protect corporations that are sucking them dry because "muh freedom" while companies fuck them in the ass. They are literally the stupid goyim they themselves are memeing about.
Imagine being such a corporate slave that you not only willingly take their cock up in your ass but also defend it and say that it's a good thing.

>If Valve refuses to change its rules and post the court’s decision to Steam within a month, it will have to pay a fine of up to 3,000 Euros per day for up to six months.

Can't they just pay that shit then?
It's pennies for them

(extremely nerds voice)
>but muh industry

Attached: SUPER_laughing_goku.png (198x198, 60K)

>what could go wrong

Nothing, since used physical copy market existed even before digital copies and nothing bad happened since.

Make me cocksucker

Already done. You're not making a peep about those shitty places that don't deserve to exist. You're not defending them at all. You got put in your place, retarded faggot.

This.
Fuck all of people defending steam on this.
I will fight for my wallet not for gaben

I doubt it since Australia forced Valve to pay fines for their no refund policy on Steam and yet they still changed it

Wrong again gamer, better luck next time.

PLEASE GAMERS
STOP
THINK OF THE MICROTRANSACTIONS AND MOSHE GOLDBERG'S PROFITS

You're proving me right every post you make and aren't defending some shitty key reselling site. You desperately want to defend them judging by your first post but as soon as someone rightfully flushed them down the toilet you haven't been able to so much as utter their names again. I told you to shut the fuck up about them and that's exactly what you did. You're just mad that I did it so efficiently.

I am glad that a danger that was never really imminent has now been somewhat mitigated.

This compensates for all the immigrants currently raping people in the EU and the fact that all the inner industry has been sold off to the Chinese.

I mean, sure, if you are a zoomer or a millenial you are now entitled to your videogames which is tantamount in practice to saving them in your hard drive which is something piracy enabled me to do anyhow but now that is legal yeah this is awesome, who needs job security, pensions or career advancement when I can know play Spec Ops the line however I please because the law says so, despite the fact this all means shit if Valve does go under and files chapter 11.

Really when did Yea Forums become a collective of socialist retards? The Sjw have really won I guess.

The only solace this is only effective as long the European Union exists which is 5 years tops.

resetera defends DRM and microtransactions all the time you faggot

You're only saying that because you're a communist. True free market capitalism is when a small handful of cartels i.e. Disney control most media and force everyone else into rent seeking for the rest of eternity.

>The days where faggots say "THEY'RE A PRIVATE COMPANY THEY CAN DO WHAT THEY WANT" are rapidly coming to an end.

Are you a britbong by the way? Only someone who enjoys being a bootlicking faggot would enjoy more government up his arse.

This is honestly really unnecessary, much like all changes made to Steam thanks to the EU, it will fuck the customer in the ass and piratefags were never affected by any of this, this is more of a fuck you to developers and consumers.

Meanwhile the Russian Mafia and the Mexican Cartels can sell drugs in Europe freely and that is noe of the EU business. Really fuck this socialist world and their bullshit.

>other things matter
>so stop thinking about this
You're more than welcome to talk about political shit on /pol/ since that's clearly what you want to do. You've got a lot of balls to call people fighting for customer advocacy socialist retards. People should own what they purchase. They should have always owned what they purchased. Digital goods getting away with not having this guaranteed is an anomaly.

how bad are Bordermeme 3's sales on PC?

Socialism is being allowed to resell the things you buy from corporations. Also piracy is socialist and Valve will file chapter 11 because pirates stole all the games

>Socialism is being allowed to resell the things you buy from corporations

Attached: 1331601734546.jpg (1087x746, 386K)

Randy said its better than console

Corporations not having infinite control over the products they already sold to customers and customers having the right to resell and ask for refunds is true government bootlicking

Based based BASED thread!! Fuck steamdrones. We're finally winning, epicbros. Can I have a yeehaw for all the epicbro BADASSES over here in this thread dabbing on steamshills?

I do not read those sites and DRM is a genuine response to the rise of loud piratefags that simply cannot shut the fuck up about how they get their games.

piratefags are the people who are not content with simply getting shit for free, they must also announce it and make shitty youtube tutorials about it which have in turned ruined many of my favorite torrents and file sharing services.

Really how hard is to keep that shit to yourself? You are already getting good for free why do these people need to be loud faggots about it.

Everything was better when people discreetly pirated their games.

You americans are truly a laughingstock.

Valve could take your XP/Achievments and give them to whoever purchased the game or even straight up delete them.

Play neko para
Jack off to catgirls
Play nekopara
Jack off to catgirls

>t. welfare tranny.

>This is honestly really unnecessary, much like all changes made to Steam thanks to the EU, it will fuck the customer in the ass and piratefags were never affected by any of this, this is more of a fuck you to developers and consumers.

Just like refunds amiright?

>Meanwhile the Russian Mafia and the Mexican Cartels can sell drugs in Europe freely
And why shouldn't they be able to? That's the free market at work, what are you some socialist retard? Only someone who enjoys being a bootlicking faggot would enjoy more government up their arse.

>being happy about this
You know that companies are just going to stop selling full games and you will now be required to SUBSCRIBE to multiple publishers to play games?

t. welfare tranny

>>being happy about this
>You know that companies are just going to stop selling full games and you will now be required to SUBSCRIBE to multiple publishers to play games?

Attached: 1569054571033.jpg (708x800, 95K)

Being able to resell your games is very anti-socialist. Socialism is centralized control.

Valve already tried that. It didn't work

seethe that nobody wants to buy your shitty aids ridden globohomo leftist agenda game nigger

No skin off of my dick. I'm not going to be giving them any of my money in that case. You act like video games are a necessity and that people should put up with being stepped on at every turn. I've got plenty of other things I could be spending my money on and the money would end up in the hands of people that don't treat me like a sucker.

>Just like refunds amiright?
Yes, just like the fucking refunds, now games are much more expensive and have restrictions. I gained fucking nothing with this, I used to buy more games before this shit. It was a terrible trade off.

You fucking retard.

>bUT user now U hab con SumEr Rights!

I have less liberty as a consumer now you stupid cuck.

The whole point is that the EU is fucking retarded and so are you.

Restrictions were they are not needed and real issues are not solved at all. I swear I am voting right for as long as I live.

>Being able to resell your games is very anti-capitalist

fixed that for you. socialism is when customers have rights and companies don't get their dick sucked. Also you're a tranny

Refunds make sense. You make a purchase, find it unsatisfactory, you get your money back.

Resales are essentially the same thing, but it implies satisfied customers deserve their money back as well.

Literally cry more

Attached: tenor.gif (300x206, 921K)

Say that to my 3200€ paychecks

You'll notice that piracy is much more prevalent and popular among games that are made by developers and publishers that treat their customers poorly. Those are the loud instances you were referring to. There's an element of justice when it comes to certain motivations behind piracy. If your potential customers are pirating your game because they're exacting revenge then your company has failed their customers in a very profound way. No customer should be left feeling like piracy is the moral course of action as a response to mistreatment.

>i can't get enough of AAA dick

You are a simple reactionary. Simple minded idealist nonsense in a rose tinted fantasy world you invented. How are you different than a Neoliberal?

What the fuck? What rights do you have when the state and/or corporations dictate your terms of existence? Man, I hope this is a falseflag.

ITT: EU tards think the world revolves around their dusty old shit heap and their ramshackle alliance

>socialism good
>working bad

People like you need to be deported to Venezuela or China, you know, places where those crony capitalist don't exists. I am sure it suits you.

t. welfare tranny

Based

>now games are much more expensive and have restrictions. I gained fucking nothing with this
1. Games are not more expensive nor do they have any more restrictions. This is 100% fantasy you're pulling from your ass.
2. You not using the feature does not mean the feature should go away. Millions of people are now trying games they never would have spent a penny on and being pleasantly surprised. Millions are refunding some games instead of having to eat those unwise purchases. Insisting that we should go back to a draconian system where customers are expected to gamble their money on something they think they will like but turns out they absolutely hate is insanity.

Refunds for products are important. You've never encountered a scenario in which you've bought a faulty product and something terrible actually happened as a result. Refunds are crucial for customer trust. If your customer base is extremely untrusting by default they're MUCH more frugal with their spending overall and that significantly impacts sales. Allowing refunds is literally better for business.

Attached: 1409147346404.jpg (737x1000, 164K)

Someone give me the rundown. Seems like Valve is mired in controversy all the time these days.

Capitalism doesn't mean "corporate rule," you fucking moron. That's called "cronyism," which is halfway between free market capitalism and socialism.

>It implies satisfied customers deserve their money back as well.
They do, just not from the original seller. To argue otherwise implies that companies should retain full rights over products after they have already sold them to you.

Court case in France says that you have a right to resell your digital games.

small french court makes dumb decision because it doesn't understand how digital distribution works
said decision states people can resell their games once they're done with them, and this has to apply to digital distribution as well
steam says fuck you, takes it to high court, likely gets it repealed very easily

>now games are much more expensive and have restrictions
Lmao you're a fucking retard

>I have less liberty as a consumer now you stupid cuck.

Being allowed to resell the things you buy mean less liberty? What a mush brained faggot you are

>I need to play Mass Effect Andromeda free
>My baby will die of starvation if I do not play Mass Effect Andromeda sir.

….what a retarded argument.

Look, piracy is great to make a lot of things that DRM quite frankly prevents me to do, such as ripping assents or examining the game, things that can actually be productive.

The point you just make is idiotic.

>Fuck this company because they mad I do not e a twitter post I do not like, I am entitled to the work of all the collective group of developers now.

This is more like it, this is the right attitude.
Just enjoy your free game and stop being a faggot who talks about muh justice. You are already getting away with it, you need to morally justify it too? What a bunch of little shits.

Looks to me like digital distribution platforms are the ones that don't understand how equitable trade is supposed to work and they've gotten away with it for far too long. Just because something is digital doesn't mean is operates in some fantasy land where customers don't have any fucking rights. The money they take is real enough. They product they give should be treated like it's real.

>Just enjoy your free game and stop being a faggot who talks about muh justice.

Before I could trade games across nations and even buy keys cheap.

Now I cannot they way I used to.

>But that is imaginary
>Refunds are very important if you are a illiterate nigger who cannot read descriptions or tell when a game is going be bad or even be asked to read who are the people behind the title.

You are drooling over your keyboard user.

>My baby will die of starvation if I do not play Mass Effect Andromeda sir.
>….what a retarded argument.

That's because you made it up, you strawmaning fuck

This place will be gold again once your totalitarian country bans you from accessing Yea Forums in the near future.

I'm explaining to you why games are pirated by some people. You were confused. Now you have a little bit of a better understanding. Whether you would do what they do is not fucking relevant. Whether you condone what they do is not fucking relevant. What's important is that you understand why they're doing what they're doing. I know you don't agree. I don't give a fuck. I'm educating you about the truth. Stop trying to deny the truth. This isn't an argument for piracy. It's an explanation for it. You're complaining that piracy is negatively affecting the games you like. Well the solution is to force developers to start treating their mother fucking customers better. The solution is not to bitch about piracy on god damned Yea Forums, you stupid piece of shit.

You are comparing a necessity to an optional entertainment product to which are millions. If you dislike a company that much buy from a better source or don't, imbecile.

This conversation is worthless, I am clearly talking to an idiot.

>yikey yikes
Back to resetera, tranny

>Small

Its the main in paris, you know, the capital.

And btw consumers rights overcome greedy jew rights.

>Before I could trade games across nations and even buy keys cheap.

Which I can still do. Sorry you can't but that's your problem and your pathetic attempt to scapegoat refunds is beyond retarded

>You are drooling over your keyboard user.
Your lack of self awareness is failing you

Like I just told you just because you don't use the fucking feature doesn't mean other people shouldn't be able to you fucking moron. Also allowing refunds has fuck all to do with region locking or your bullshit side business. Go back to sucking your G2A cocks elsewhere, faggot. I know it's you. I already made you shut the fuck up about this shit earlier and now you're back after you think I've gone away. Cry about this shit all you want you fucking infant. Refunds are better for customers. If you're a customer you should be happy. Why aren't you happy? You have more options as a customer now.

Oh that's right. You're only interested in skimming off the top of stolen credit card purchases because you're a third worlder ESL cunt and you think you're entitled to money leaking from an inefficient system.

The product they give is a license to download the game from the service. Resale of a license and resale of a physical disc are two very different things.

>fags on Yea Forums are still impotently raging against refunds

Attached: 1553193366385.jpg (370x359, 18K)

>a rambling legalese filled 50,000 word document that no-one ever reads means valve can do what they like

>Before I could trade games across nations and even buy keys cheap. Now I cannot they way I used to.
Literally who gives a shit, just pirate. Stop whining like a little bitch and grow a pair.

Reminder the refund policy forced Phil Fish to suicide.

French court has ruled that game licenses should be transferable like other licenses. Since the purchaser is forfeiting the right to access that service and the license to access that service is only changing hands this sort of transaction should be legal and permissible. You would have an argument against it if the purchaser duplicated that access and sold it to another person resulting in two different people having access, but that's not what's happening. It's still only one owner of that license at any given time which is a reasonable thing to expect if you've paid for it.

Refunding a digital game returns your money to you and has no impact on good games

Reselling a digital game means it never has to be bought again

That one gem of a game you loved to hell and back? Yeah the developer will only see a few hundred sales, it'll never get another update, and the sequel isn't happening.

You're acting like they didn't already try this shit with online passes.

Why is Yea Forums for corporations to fuck people over in every case that isn't lootboxes or banning you for saying nigger?

This is how you get live services.
Companies will lose nothing. They always come up with a shittier and shittier solution, each time without fail. Enjoy the end of single player games, story driven games, or anything you might enjoy that isn’t literally just anthem.

it's not it's the trannies that are pro corporation every time

Any evidence for your claims?

Dumb Mutt thinks every countries justice system is for sale like theirs

There is literally nothing stopping you from selling your ticket. Go ahead.

If you want to support developers you like you're more than willing to bankrupt yourself in the process. It is not the responsibility of the customers to ensure the survival of the company. It is up to the company to make the best financial decisions to ensure its own survival.

Lmao. PC gaming is fucked.
Enjoy your subscription based platform and mobile f2p.

I'm from the other side of the globe, lol.

>huuurr i dont see how i can happen, it will fuck up the economy.

STFU and listen, used physical copy market did not arm the industry, the just went full greed and tried to grasp any pennies they could by adding online passes to games.
However since the digital market evolved, they dicted their rules, those rules that permitted them to get more and more money from the consumer.

The idea is simple, valve have to create a platform for reselling and buying used keys.
The users sold the games they want for a price, the stock of used key for a game is not unlimited and refers to the number of keys that have been sold to valve in the first place.
If there is no more keys, you cand buy it brand new.

Just like a good old used games reseller.

You outright strawmanned user's argument and put words in his mouth using greentext nonsense pulled straight out of your ass. Your entire argument is worthless and you have no credibility.

>don't like it don't buy it
Degenerate kike enabler

>no brand new Lamborghini

Who gives a shit.

theres nothing stopping you from selling your steam key

>Refunding a digital game returns your money to you
That's a good enough reason for it to exist. Only brain pozzed retards still subscribe to caveat emptor garbage, the rest of the world has moved on

>That one gem of a game you loved to hell and back? Yeah the developer will only see a few hundred sales, it'll never get another update, and the sequel isn't happening.

>implying consoles wouldn't take the opportunity to follow suit
they've been trying to get you to go strictly digital for a while now, used game sales actually, unironically eat into their profits, and have done so for years
I can't wait till a generation of consoles is unveiled with no disc drive, and you faggots here sing its praises.

The difference is reselling a physical copy is a physical thing, it can only be in one area of the world at a time, a digital copy can be anywhere once it's up for sale.

People keep buying physical because they are not in the vicinity of a used copy for sale, a """used""" digital copy can be bought from any location, there is no need to give the developer more money.

>small french court
Paris is the biggest French court.

see You are not just getting your money back, you are getting someone else's money, and then they can do that too, and so can the next person. That's four entirely separate people having played the same game for the price of one copy.

>French court has ruled that game licenses should be transferable like other licenses
I'm actually curious how this applies to other types of licenses? I mean, they're essentially a form of agreement between two different people. Should one side of an agreement really be allowed to swap in another party without the other side's consent?

Which is an advantage digital distributors have used to make insane profits with no risk for a very long time. Now that customers want to be on an even playing field again just like they used to be with physical goods now suddenly there's shrieking of bloody murder and how this will spell the end of video games as we know it?

If it worked just fine with physical games it will work just fine with digital games. The market has gone on way too long with no power in the hands of the customers.

Thats the way used market works, once i gived my money to the devs by buying it brand new if i want to sell my useless game to another person, its my right, the devs get paid anyway in the first place

>saying the C word
you are a CONSUMER not a c*stomer filthy goy. we make liberal garbage filled with niggers and you CONSUME it, then steal your money when you complain as if you are a c*stomer... you have no agency in the matter, CONSUMER NPC GOLEM.

I think he meant "insignificant" court

The consenting parties in this context are only the person selling it and the person buying it; not the original seller. I don't consult the person who used to own my car when I'm selling my car. Steam should not be permitted to prevent this transaction from taking place between two people. That is a company dictating what people can do. They'll try to use language like subscriptions and access to a service so forth to obfuscate the fact that money was given and a product was sold. That product is the ability to access the service. As long as the seller no longer has access and the buyer is granted access that should be a legal transaction because the fidelity of the product is maintained.

>used keys
There are no "used keys" you retarded consolenigger. Your keys are only an activation tool to tie your account with the game and store servers to authenticate your license. Digital product have no depreciation. Even when you transfer your product to another account, the condition is still the same like when they were released 10 years ago when you bought them.

>even
If by even you mean everyone in the world can play a game by purchasing it one time? Then yes it's completely even.

But personally I would call that a market crash.

>Will Valve leave an entire continent
No. Why would any publisher use them then?

Refunds are destroying video games, much in the same way it killed the music industry and the movie industry. Refunds are such a powerful force that it can cause massive damage despite obstacles like “baseless supposition” and “lack of evidence”. It’s the Freddy Kreuger of any industry: you can’t ever see it because it damages you in your dreams, with the injury magically becoming real...but then it’s too late. It’s just that strong.

Attached: IMG_20190717_203545.jpg (720x540, 48K)

Sounds like BS.

They just wont admit that limiting the game to the ES dented their sales and consumer interest. By the time it's on steam it will have lost it's novelty, although some of the bugs will be fixed by then I am sure.

If only they didn't allow refunds and second hand sales we could have avoided this future

Attached: 1559891229283.jpg (435x435, 96K)

>Why would any publisher use them then?
Why would any publisher want their product in the hands of millions of people?

Not once it's used.

Good. Maybe someone will sell me their Dark Souls: Prepare to Die Edition copy then, because obviously Namco doesn't want to.

I'm perfectly fine with a video game industry market crash because the current industry is ignited garbage juice. People will support developers that make good games. People will stop supporting publishers that constantly swindle customers.

This idea you have that digital distributors should possess the sole right to sell video games and normal people should not is asinine. If I spent money on something I should be able to give it away or sell it to someone else even if I've already used it. This idea that a digital video game is a consumable, transitory resource is a lie fed to you. It needs to be treated appropriately. It is a product that retains value even after use. People should have the ability to own it, or be able to transfer the access or license to access a service or subscription to other people for free or in exchange for money.

If I have a parking spot that I've paid for, and I want to give that parking spot to my fucking mother instead, nobody should be giving her shit for parking in my spot when I've given it to her. It's my spot. I can do with it whatever I want as long as the time I've bought has not expired. It's a service and not a physical product, but I've still paid my money so I should be able to dictate that it is used by me, anyone I want, or remain completely fucking empty if I so choose. I can buy out every seat in a movie theater and sit in the mother fucker alone if I want. The movie theater does not have the right to fill those seats with more patrons just because there's room. Steam doesn't have the right to sell a game to every individual person on Earth even if there's plenty of people that haven't bought it yet.