Would people be upset if Steam allowed resale of games, but only if you sold it to them for 10% of what you paid originally, and then they resold it again for about 80% of the original sale price. This is exactly what stores like GameStop do.
On more than one occasion I have looked at games in a GameStop style store and the used copies have costed *more* than a new copy at Target or Best Buy.
On the plus side, if you buy a used game at GameStop and beat it/give up/don't like it within a week, you can return it for free, and you can get something else. That's more hassle-free than you'd get out of a Craigslist buy.
Would people be upset if Steam allowed resale of games, but took a cut of the sale?
I would not have an issue with some kind of transactional service fee. Say you and I wanted to trade a title, I'm done with title X, your done with title Y so we arrange a swap over Steam that Valve charges some kind of reasonable transaction fee for, I would think that would be awesome.
Now, I don't think it will happen because a big part of why Steam has gained steam (bad pun intended), is because Valve has done a good job building relationships with 3rd parties, who would likely oppose any attempt to offer any such service in order to protect their business interest.
Perhaps in the future of digital distribution we will see some different purchasing options? Perhaps a base price for a single owner, then perhaps a markup for some rights to exchange or share, Who knows? Long term I could think of a few ways to make the system better for gamers while protecting the interest of the developers.
Why the EULA is BS is because no other medium has such a clause. Video games shouldn't get any special treatment from the second hand market when compared to any other medium or product in general. Why should video games be protected when books, movies, cd's, board games etc... aren't. I'm sure publishing houses would love it if you could no longer buy a used book.
Except for the fact that pretty much all software has similar clauses. Ever since Microsoft started licensing their software instead of selling it, every other for-profit software manufacturer out there has taken the same route. Fact of the matter is, that business model just works better for a medium that is trivial to reproduce.
Would people be upset if Steam allowed resale of games, but only if you sold it to them for 10% of what you paid originally, and then they resold it again for about 80% of the original sale price. This is exactly what stores like GameStop do.
I wasn't trying to make an analogy, it was a partially unconnected question based on the comment that perhaps Steam could make a profit from allowing resales.
I think the thing about reselling fully digital content, is that it does not lose any value. You could say the same thing about a hardcopy, but some people do think it's nice to have a nice new box, and clean CD case. digital copies, however, don't lose anything when used, so there would be no reason to sell them at a discount.
I mean, if Steam allowed you to resell your games, there would be no advantage to buying the games new, not even a sentimental one.
Comments
On more than one occasion I have looked at games in a GameStop style store and the used copies have costed *more* than a new copy at Target or Best Buy.
I would not have an issue with some kind of transactional service fee. Say you and I wanted to trade a title, I'm done with title X, your done with title Y so we arrange a swap over Steam that Valve charges some kind of reasonable transaction fee for, I would think that would be awesome.
Now, I don't think it will happen because a big part of why Steam has gained steam (bad pun intended), is because Valve has done a good job building relationships with 3rd parties, who would likely oppose any attempt to offer any such service in order to protect their business interest.
Perhaps in the future of digital distribution we will see some different purchasing options? Perhaps a base price for a single owner, then perhaps a markup for some rights to exchange or share, Who knows? Long term I could think of a few ways to make the system better for gamers while protecting the interest of the developers.
Except for the fact that pretty much all software has similar clauses. Ever since Microsoft started licensing their software instead of selling it, every other for-profit software manufacturer out there has taken the same route. Fact of the matter is, that business model just works better for a medium that is trivial to reproduce.
I wasn't trying to make an analogy, it was a partially unconnected question based on the comment that perhaps Steam could make a profit from allowing resales.
I think the thing about reselling fully digital content, is that it does not lose any value. You could say the same thing about a hardcopy, but some people do think it's nice to have a nice new box, and clean CD case. digital copies, however, don't lose anything when used, so there would be no reason to sell them at a discount.
I mean, if Steam allowed you to resell your games, there would be no advantage to buying the games new, not even a sentimental one.