Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
3 
Report this post
you dont own any games, you own a NON TRANSFERABLE license, nothing more.
use the SEARCH feature next time
As is typical for the Steam suggestion forum, the suggestion itself is ignored in favour of "Terms and conditions say no".
I know licences can't be transferred. That's why I said in my post that . The suggestion won't work unless the framework exists to allow it to work, just like with any other suggestion. But if there's no will or desire to make that framework exist, you're not likely to end up with a better service.
Usually, when a game is retired from sale, it's because the developers are either unwilling or unable to continue selling it. Continuing to sell the game behind their back and also not giving them money for their product which you are selling sounds like a crime to me.
many that are kept alive by fans where the dev has done nothing for over 20 years
if you want to be able to resell/trade your game licenses, you need to get your lawmakers involved. until they force it, its not likely to ever happen. and if they do get involved, it will most likely not be what you wanted, but it will be what you asked for.
Which game is this thread about? I'm not sure why it's suddenly important to do something about a game that was retired from sale in 2005.
Everything you've said could be summarised as "the law would need to be changed first". You don't need to act as if what you're saying is some revolutionary statement. Once again, I know that what I'm suggesting can't be done without major changes. I have explained this in the body of my post and in my first reply to you.
I don't see any changes to laws coming any time soon that legalize theft and breach of contract.
It isn't for any game in particular, it's more of a general idea that I had after I looked into a list of games that had been removed from Steam. Here's a few examples that apply to me though if you're interested:
- Battlefield Bad Company 1/2. They were removed from Steam due to the online portions of the game being shut down. However, the single player campaigns are still perfectly playable. I was interested in trying them out, only to find that they'd been delisted.
- Crazy Taxi. I was fortunate enough to buy it before it got delisted. Apparently it was removed due to a planned remaster, but that now means users aren't able to see the game in its original form (once again, it is still perfectly playable)
- Spec Ops: The Line. A highly rated third person shooter that was removed due to the licencing for certain in game sound tracks expiring. Apparently it was removed with very little warning.
- Poker Night At The Inventory 1/2. Removed due to licences for third party characters expiring. The game itself is decent fun but keys cost hundreds of dollars. This is likely due to the game having achievements which award TF2 items.
In the case of expired licences, removing the game makes sense, even if it's not the best solution from the perspective of the customer (again, it would require changes to the way licences work). In other cases though, such as with Bad Company or Crazy Taxi, there's very little reason to remove the original game.
1) Physical copies get removed from sale yet they can still be resold
2) Game keys get resold for extortionate prices, and the developers don't make a cent from it
3) Plenty of people pay to have games family shared. In the case of Poker Night At The Inventory, there are users charging several times what the game was originally sold for just for a temporary family share to unlock the achievements
No action has been taken against any of these methods. I don't see how a delisted game (which the devloper wasn't intending to make money off of anyway) being traded to another account could be any worse.
Preservation of media? Games take a lot of time and effort to make, and have a lot to offer in terms of entertainment, stories, characters, etc. Feels like a bit of a waste to have a game removed. There might be someone signing up for Steam today who will never have the opportunity to experience the same games we've enjoyed due to them being delisted.
They are the same terms you agreed to, so it would of course be typical to refer to them as you are somehow believing those terms should be different and while you have the right to feel that way the likelihood of it happening is nearly zero. If someone doesn't buy a game before it is delisted then it is simply the way the cookie crumbles, some of us have the power to accept that and move on, seems that same applies everywhere.
The game licenses aren't defined by Valve. The games are the property of the IP holders, and so are the license terms. Sure they can't violate Steam's terms of use for the developers, or the law, but within those boundaries it's not for Steam to decide. And IP owners don't lose their rights if a game is delisted.
And it's not very likely Valve would try to meddle with the licenses of delisted games.
This isn't really about creating a better framework, it's about users not understanding that not every idea they have is realistic and relies on too many assumptions about who makes the decisions.
"Valve could change the dev ToS to do it."
Regardless of what one might imagine Valve could do, it only matters if they will do, and they won't do this. Why? Because Valve has been very successful by being pro developer, and they're not so short-sighted as to change course on that because users are always looking for ways to sell old games. Yeah I know you said "trade". But the reality is if you have some game I want, and I don't have any delisted games, or any games you want, well... it only takes about two seconds to see what will happen. Whether it's a lack of imagination, or a silly hope that omitting an obvious scenario will fly under Valve's radar, it's an idea that's DOA.
And finally the issue you present about delisted games and finite supply isn't a problem Valve needs to solve. So yeah, you have a solution looking for a problem. Your concern over finite supply doesn't negate IP holder rights or create any scenario where license terms ought to change.
And it doesn't matter if you scoff at the obvious responses. Trying to side step the cold hard reality of the status quo and IP holder rights isn't some big brain move. Wanting to do something for your own benefit doesn't actual create a debate that has to be haggled out. You should expect the answer to your suggestion to always and forever be no.