Re-sell games to other steam users?

[Magma]

I know that Steam would like to get 100% profit for games, but it would be nice that if you own a game then be able to resell it to another user, and Steam gets a portion of the sale.

Some friends can't/don't want to spend $30-$50 for a game, but if they could buy it for $10-$20 they would bite. With my boxed retail games, I can (usually) sell them (or even give them) my used games for a fraction of the new price after I'm done or tire of it.

Perhaps Steam can do the same thing. Maybe have a set dollar amount for the transaction (perhaps 25% of current selling price) + voluntary % to seller, not to exceed 25%. For example, a game is $40 through Steam. I can sell it to someone for $20: $10 to steam + $10 to me. Or just $10 to steam and $0 for me if I so choose. Or whatever makes sense. Either way Steam makes money.

Or if real money is a problem, Steam can offer the funds as credits for future purchases on Steam's site. This would support frequent Steam game buyers with credits for future games, and pull in new customers too.

I just don't like to have a handful of games now that I don't play and probably will never play again, but a few friends would love to get their hands on, but can't spend full retail, or have no way of letting them get my games.

Just a thought.

[Coneman]

steam would make more money/ would not have to ♥♥♥♥ with ID of the owner of the account if the other person bought the game for themself, also hacking ect so no it will never happen

[Seth.Sekhmet]

Steam is not ebay... if you want, you're free to "Gift" a game to any person you desire (full price for the gifter).

[LeftyOwnsYou]

I would LOVE this .

I would definitely sell TF2 and L4D to some sucker .

[nytiger73]

I suggested something very similar to this. It could be titled Steam Marketplace (similar to Amazon Marketplace). Steam gets a portion of the overall sale (thus profiting twice on the game).

Not sure how it would / could work with non-Valve / Steam games, but for old Steam games, I think it would work quite nicely.

[Magma]

Of course this isn't eBay, but Steam would have complete control. There's no reason for old games to go unused if someone else could manage to buy it.

I thought about it a bit more. Realistically, here's how I think it could work.

You can sell your "used" Steam game to anyone, and used price would be 50% of existing retail (not including "specials"). The seller could get 25% of the sale as credit.

So for example I buy a game at release for $50. I play it, finish it, tire of it, whatever. By then let's say the price drops to $30.

I sell it to another Steam user for $15 (50%) but Steam keeps all the money, I get $7.50 (25%) in credits.

They could even put a time limit, no used game sales for 30 or 60 days after release. Plus they could restrict purchases that you can't have more than 50% of the sale of a game use credits.

In my example, Steam gets $65 for the same game, I get $7.50 to put towards another game in the future. They've acquired a new customer (used game buyer).

To me it's a win-win-win for everyone. Like it or not, there are lots of people that just can't afford even $20-$30 for a game as much as they'd like to. But if they could get second hand games for cheap, they'd do it.

Also, if the used game buyer sold their copy again, Steam would get another $15.

I don't know why people would be against this.

[*VeLeRoN*]

You forgot to add the publisher into the equation, and the developer too, which makes everyone's profit (but for the buyers one) really neglegible.

[RobB]

I don't know why people would be against this.
Not Users: The Devs, the Publisher and Valve, because it cuts down on their Slice.
I'd love to give away some of my older Games I never play anymore.

[prkprkprk]

This is a bad idea. Look, ppl can just buy from Steam. Why would they want to buy from anyone else? Unless you mean your OWN games to sell to ppl. Yeah, that would be fun. And cool.

EDIT: What I mean by OWN games is games that ppl have made.

[Magma]

Then at least give an explanation of their thoughts and reasoning. I'd be curious to hear it from Steam themselves. It isn't an odd proposal.

What I suggested wouldn't put any real cash in anyone's pockets except for Steam and the devs. Just bake it into the Steam contract. Even if they limited the number of "resells" to one or two.

Steam is a great service, don't get me wrong. But like I said, there are many games that you won't ever touch again. Why not Steam and yourself get something out of it.

Just seems like a good way for Steam to bring in new customers, support longer term customers, and make good with the service they have.

[Magma]

Not Users: The Devs, the Publisher and Valve, because it cuts down on their Slice.
I'd love to give away some of my older Games I never play anymore.

How does it cut down on their slice? If someone won't pay full price then they'll get nothing instead of something for a game that was already bought once.

They can easily put stipulations on it, like can't resell until 60 days after intial release (although why not, it'd fetch more $$$), and only allow a game to be resold once or twice. Or nothing at all. I don't know - whatever they wish.

Like I said before, I know many people that can't or won't invest much money in games. If they can get something for $10 or $15 they'll give it a go. Otherwise forget it.

Like with many other technologies, early adopters pay the high price, and those who can stand to wait, pay less.

[Seth.Sekhmet]

Magma, go and look at how EA is treating it's own customers. Trust the community when we tell you that not Valve is the problem... (but the other publishers)

Here is a small argument: do you know there are some, like Ubisoft, who don't even release world-wide, but North-America only ? How about that situation, to whom would you be allowed to sell a game released NA only, at a lower price than retail ?

[Magma]

Magma, go and look at how EA is treating it's own customers. Trust the community when we tell you that not Valve is the problem... (but the other publishers)

Here is a small argument: do you know there are some, like Ubisoft, who don't even release world-wide, but North-America only ? How about that situation, to whom would you be allowed to sell a game released NA only, at a lower price than retail ?

Simple again. Steam has control over this. If the other Steam user is in the wrong market, it won't be available to them. They do it already with new releases, why not used?

All I'm asking is that you should be able to relinquish your game to someone else at a significant discount.

[ollobrains]

its not a psyhical copy u buy the game with license to use on x amount of PC or 1 depending on licensing thats it

[反町（仕事中）]

>>"All I'm asking is that you should be able to relinquish your game to someone else at a significant discount."

If you want to do that, buy retail and hope the publisher doesn't use DRM to restrict you.

But there is no place for such a service on Steam. Products here will never be out of stock for example. So where's the incentive for Valve et al, to want to do this?

And how many users will then be phished out of their accounts just to have all the games sold off? And you can bet everything you own that Valve will not then return those games, and will use a similar policy as they do for VAC bans when accounts are stolen.

Best for everyone, especially users, that this never gets implemented.

[bloodypalace]

You guys forget that you don't own the games on steam. You have only purchased a 'LICENSE' to use/play the game. You can't sell something that you don't own.

[Magma]

Nobody is getting my point. It's not that hard. READ MY ORIGINAL POST!

I AM NOT SELLING ***ANYTHING*** PERIOD!!! OR GETTING ANYTHING IN RETURN!!!

STEAM allows a chance for YOU to OFFER your existing LICENSE/GAME/SOFTWARE (I don't care what you call it), to SOMEONE ELSE. In doing so the other person could buy it FROM STEAM at a discount FROM YOUR ACCOUNT, and you no longer have rights to that software (unless you buy it again, of course).

You would do this so that games you no longer play, someone else could, who would normally not spend the full price on the game, but would at a discount from you.

Steam WINS EVERY TIME!!! DON'T YOU GET IT? Sheesh!

They gain a customer who wouldn't have normally purchased, and you get to make your friends happy, or "exchange" games.

I know games would never be out of stock, but not everyone will spend $50/$40/$30 or whatever for a game, but can/will spend $10 or $20.

[Magma]

Let me use a fake example, maybe this will be clear.

Jimmy is an avid Steam user, has a good job, and makes tons of money

Tony is broke, but has a decent PC, and still likes to play games.

Jimmy has a game, let's use Callof Duty 4 (CoD 4) for example, that he spent $50 on originally,

CHING - $50 to STEAM

but is now out there for $40 several months later.

Tony is living check to check but really want's to play Call of Duty 4, and has saved up $20. Jimmy says he's tired of CoD 4, and wants to offer it to Tony since Steam's "used" game rate for CoD 4 is $20.

Jimmy logs on to Steam and "offers" his game to Tony. Tony accepts, processes the credit card transaction, and bingo! Tony now owns Call of Duty 4, and it has vanished from Jimmy's Steam account.

CHING - $20 to STEAM

Is that hard to figure out now?

[反町（仕事中）]

Now let me use a fake example, maybe this will be clear as to why it's a bad idea.

Jimmy is an avid Steam user, has a good job, and makes tons of money

Tony is broke, but has a decent PC, and still likes to play games.

Jimmy has a game, let's use Callof Duty 4 (CoD 4) for example, that he spent $50 on originally,

CHING - $50 to STEAM

but is now out there for $40 several months later.

Tony is living check to check but really want's to play Call of Duty 4, and has saved up $20. Jimmy says he's tired of CoD 4, and wants to offer it to Tony since Steam's "used" game rate for CoD 4 is $20.

Even months later Jimmy loves playing COD4. He's never going to get bored with it!

Mike, is a phisher. He sees Jimmy online and sees all the nice games that Jimmy has. He sends Jimmy a Friend's request and Jimmy accepts. Mike's first message is to offer Jimmy an advanced super secret beta test of COD9000. Jimmy loves anything COD and decides he wants in on this beta.

To enter the beta, all Jimmy needs to do is verify his Steam account by giving Mike his Steam password, username and email address used. Jimmy does this without a second thought.

Mike logs onto Jimmy's account, changes the password and offers ALL of Jimmy's 150+ games, including all his COD games up for second hand sale. Jimmy's account is wiped clean of games.

Jimmy eventually gets his account back, but not before Tony and many others have bought all the games off of it.

Valve support are unable to verify whether Jimmy's account really was stolen or not and as such they cannot return the games. Jimmy now has no games.

Now, is that hard to figure out why this is such a bad idea?

[nytiger73]

I can see your point. But, I'm pretty sure some of the security safeguards that have been suggested here numerous times could be built into the client in order to reduce the chance that this may happen. Besides, there would still be a way to recover the lost games since Steam keeps track of games purchased. So long as the legit user can provide purchase proof.

[{Yotsuba}]

No, because then people can just scam others by offering games up for sale, then claiming their account has "stolen" to get the games back. It's the same reason that VAC bans will not be overturned if your account is stolen, as Valve cannot prove either way whether the account *really* was stolen or not. So the same rules that apply for VAC bans (no overturns no matter what) will apply for games being sold.

As for the extra security features, none of them will work as they all suffer from the same flaw. A flaw that lies between the keyboard and the chair.

[Magma]

If anyone gives someone else their username/password, that's their own stupid fault, regardless of reason. It's easy enough to have a "confirm sale" button in Steam, followed by a confirmation link in your email. If someone is stupid enough to let someone have both login info, then they get what they deserve.

It's a Steam transaction plain and simple. One is marked as a sale from Steam (for normal purchase), another is a used game sale from an existing user. It is completely transparent between buyer and seller.

It could be as simple as:

(1) Seller sends out automated offer to sell to specific user through Steam
(2) Buyer must accept through Steam
(3) Seller must accept through Steam
(4) Buyer enters CC info in Steam
(5) Seller gets notification sale is approved in email with email confirmation link.
(6) Seller confirms sale in email through confirmation link.
(7) Game is added to buyer's account in Steam.
(8) Game is removed from Seller's account in Steam.

Plus, if someone does get scammed (again, their own fault), Steam has the power to revoke all the games and acounts from the people that they were sold to. And Steam could limit each user to one or two transactions per day, so a liquidation would take some time.

Poke holes in that one 反町（仕事中）

[Katana No Kage]

Been discussed 100x, not happening, /thread.

[Melchiz]

Publishers love Steam because the Steam platform takes freedom away from gamers. Namely, the freedom to trade/sell/gift used games.

It means they get to sell more new games.

[Magma]

Ok, I give up.

So they'd lose out on the opportunity to get in on the used game market. That's fine. Just like other DRM's, pirates will win. Nevermind making it easy for the honest buyer/user.

[Melchiz]

Ok, I give up.

So they'd lose out on the opportunity to get in on the used game market. That's fine. Just like other DRM's, pirates will win. Nevermind making it easy for the honest buyer/user.

It's a paradigm shift intended to take freedom away from consumers. There was once a time when you "owned" what you purchased. Companies have now discovered a more profitable model: licensing. They retain ownership, and you simply receive a license to use their product. You cannot do anything with it once obtained; they dictate all use of the product.

Such policies embolden pirates and will continue to damage PC gaming. Developers will suffer because of publisher greed.

[Katana No Kage]

Steam makes it plenty "easy" for the average buyer. Just check every blog since 2006 that's compared Steam to brick stores.
I also honestly don't see how Steam could "cash in" on the used game market. At Gamestop they're making plenty of money off a single copy, but on Steam there really isn't such thing as a..."copy".

[Melchiz]

Steam makes it plenty "easy" for the average buyer. Just check every blog since 2006 that's compared Steam to brick stores.
I also honestly don't see how Steam could "cash in" on the used game market. At Gamestop they're making plenty of money off a single copy, but on Steam there really isn't such thing as a..."copy".

Change the model from physical media to a digital license and you can extrapolate existing used-game policies.

The abstraction isn't too complicated, people. A license provides the right to play a game. Why is this right not transferable? Beyond that, why should a license cost the same as a physical product that has after-market value? 5 GB of bandwidth is far less expensive than all of the contents of a physical product. Why does the "right to play" for PC gamers carry a similar cost as the "ownership" (right to trade, sell, rent) that console gamers get?

PC gaming is suffering from piracy in large part due to PC gamers feeling short-changed by publisher policies. When you buy a PC game, you're generally stuck with it. When you buy a console game, you can make a return on your investment. Why would you ever want to invest in something with zero future value? PC gaming is basically like an unlimited rental. Who wants that?

[Melchiz]

You make me laugh.

I'm glad I could contribute to your amusement.

But really, you made some good points, even if they drew from some questionable assumptions.

[{Yotsuba}]

(1) Seller sends out automated offer to sell to specific user through Steam
(2) Buyer must accept through Steam
(3) Seller must accept through Steam
(4) Buyer enters CC info in Steam
(5) Seller gets notification sale is approved in email with email confirmation link.
(6) Seller confirms sale in email through confirmation link.
(7) Game is added to buyer's account in Steam.
(8) Game is removed from Seller's account in Steam.

Poke holes in that one 反町（仕事中）

Easy. Phisher asks for Steam information and email information. People give all the required information away. Phisher can confirm all sales long before account is recovered. Again, your suggestion of Support being able to revoke a sale, would not be usable either, as it's still fully abusable.

Simply put this idea will never work with digital based systems.

[Magma]

(1) Seller sends out automated offer to sell to specific user through Steam
(2) Buyer must accept through Steam
(3) Seller must accept through Steam
(4) Buyer enters CC info in Steam
(5) Seller gets notification sale is approved in email with email confirmation link.
(6) Seller confirms sale in email through confirmation link.
(7) Game is added to buyer's account in Steam.
(8) Game is removed from Seller's account in Steam.

Poke holes in that one 反町（仕事中）

Easy. Phisher asks for Steam information and email information. People give all the required information away. Phisher can confirm all sales long before account is recovered. Again, your suggestion of Support being able to revoke a sale, would not be usable either, as it's still fully abusable.

Simply put this idea will never work with digital based systems.

Again, since when has any company cared about phishing? It's the end-user's fault if they are that naive. Phishing for the completely stupid and naive is a concern of Steam? I doubt it.

And you say Steam wouldn't be able to revoke this? Fine. So what if someone phishes your account info today, they change the password, so the original owner can't get it back? Then the phisher can use all the original owner's games then, and never have the account revoked. Same deal. So things wouldn't change.

[Melchiz]

(1) Seller sends out automated offer to sell to specific user through Steam
(2) Buyer must accept through Steam
(3) Seller must accept through Steam
(4) Buyer enters CC info in Steam
(5) Seller gets notification sale is approved in email with email confirmation link.
(6) Seller confirms sale in email through confirmation link.
(7) Game is added to buyer's account in Steam.
(8) Game is removed from Seller's account in Steam.

Poke holes in that one 反町（仕事中）

Easy. Phisher asks for Steam information and email information. People give all the required information away. Phisher can confirm all sales long before account is recovered. Again, your suggestion of Support being able to revoke a sale, would not be usable either, as it's still fully abusable.

Simply put this idea will never work with digital based systems.

According to your logic, online banking is impossible and could never be implemented because someone could steal all of your money through phishing. Phishing, really? Is that your best counter-argument?

Please.

[{Yotsuba}]

Again, since when has any company cared about phishing? It's the end-user's fault if they are that naive. Phishing for the completely stupid and naive is a concern of Steam? I doubt it.

That's exactly the point. Valve don't "care" about phishing which is why if you lose your games as a result of it, you'll never get them back. Just like VAC. Otherwise everyone would use phishing as an excuse to either get un-VAC banned, or in this case, get their games back after ensuring it was "sold" to someone else. So that they can get a kick out of the other person then losing that game again.

Allowing such a system is bad for business. The people who lose all their games as a result of phishing certainly aren't going to stick with using Steam. Nor are those who have games removed because some idiot thought it was funny to sell it then claim it back.

Phishing, really? Is that your best counter-argument?

Nope, but it's the only one I'm wasting on you. =)

[Magma]

Melchiz - Thanks, at least SOMEONE sees my point of view. I get tired of visiting forums with suggestions only to be blasted every time you come up with something remotely out of norm.

I don't expect it to happen, but would like soemething like this. I just hate to have all these games in my account, only to have them go unused.

[Eviltoaster]

I think this would be a good idea. I think some of you have a bit of the wrong idea. If the game was bought at full price and was only ever used by 1 user at a time, the game devs would be really making the same amount of money as there are not 2 people playing the exact same game at the same time. Now just to convince them that...
Also Yotsuba, what about a direct transfer, they both have to be online at the same time for the transaction-no account info given. Or even a pending delivery (rendering being online pointless)

[Shadrik]

It's a paradigm shift intended to take freedom away from consumers. There was once a time when you "owned" what you purchased. Companies have now discovered a more profitable model: licensing. They retain ownership, and you simply receive a license to use their product. You cannot do anything with it once obtained; they dictate all use of the product.

Such policies embolden pirates and will continue to damage PC gaming. Developers will suffer because of publisher greed.

I don't think you fully understand the concept. I don't think there ever was a time when you could buy software and really own it. If you'd actually own the game you "bought" you'd for example be able to make copies and redistribute them. I bet it's the same with books. You buy the media but not the content. You can't write down a books content and then sell it.

[JackNiko]

great idea, but it will never work

for the logical sense, it is finacial suicide

it costs a lot for steam to work, thou a lot cheaper than many would think because of various things, which i wont go into

but steam still has a maintance fee, and costs a x-sum amount per year

above that is an addtional fee, which is to upgrade and maintain, which "really needs boostering in finance"

but still runs a lot more effetivly that the alternative

now if valve "owner of steam" release no games for 2 years

they still have those fees to pay, only so many copies of "half life" can possibly be sold, and they get a minor fundage via people buying half life 1 or 2 etc years after the initial release

so by doing what you suggest you remove, a game whose inital profit they long since expect a return from, if ever sold any recently that money will get swallowed by the maintance and functionality of steam

now consider everytime a developer etc outside valve want there game on steam, valve has to cordinate a effore to ensure for example FarCry2, patchs etc are released and working via steam

and only take a minor percentage profit for games outside there company, the rest a fee to set it up

its designed so valve will have a constant supply of money on which to pay its employees, and to ensure they can do the work they wish to do without a "budget" concern

which is why, there games are as close to flawless

doing what you say, would cause the well to dry up quicker, and the not so profitable pc gaming market will becoming bleaker

[Anjohl]

I think trading games would be viable, but not selling. The problem is, it would encourage "extra curricular" sales, IE, someone "trades" a 0.99 cent game for left for dead and $20 via paypal. Steam and the publishers don't want that.

BUT, I think of Digital distribution wants to take a larger market share, it needs to get rid of the oen disadvantage it has over physical gaming: trade in value. Many games are once-throughs, and myself, and many others find having games you are never going to play again in your steam list irritating.

[\\ Alex]

I would LOVE this .

I would definitely sell TF2 and L4D to some sucker .For starters I think selling those two allows you to qualify to be insane ;), and second I don't think conning people was the main thrust of the idea.

The idea itself, I don't believe would truly work. It would cause a fair amount on confusion. Also if you're transferring un-boxed games (ones bought off Steam itself) what is the difference between that and a brand new game?

[death_hawk]

Are people just not reading the financial examples here before stating "It's a bad idea!"

Steam (and developer) can cash in TWICE (or more) on the SAME license.
I don't know about you, but if I (a developer) made $15 on a $50 license, then had a chance to make another $5 from the SAME $50 license, I'd say go hard!



As for the phishing idea, limit it to one sale per 24/48/72 hour period. Seriously, how many people would sell their ENTIRE account legitimately in a 3 day period. It's not like you wake up one day and decide to be a non-gaming monk or something.

[RobB]

Steam IDs are hardcoded to your Account, not your Game's License.

Steam (and developer) can cash in TWICE (or more) on the SAME license.
I don't know about you, but if I (a developer) made $15 on a $50 license, then had a chance to make another $5 from the SAME $50 license, I'd say go hard!
That's common Sense. The "big Players" don't work that Way.
They accept less Income over more sold Copies.

[zeherh]

Personally I'd just want a way to get rid of my Hl2/portal games. I don't even care that I don't get money from getting rid of/selling them I payed for them and I feel like the time spent playing them was worth the money and I'm just done playing them.

I just want to get rid of them (yes I know the consequences later if I suddenly go "I feel like some Portal...") because I'm somewhat OCD like that. If I could have steam only show my multiplayer games that'd be great since that's what I plan on using steam for now. Single-player games aren't that big with me.

[Magma]

Personally I'd just want a way to get rid of my Hl2/portal games. I don't even care that I don't get money from getting rid of/selling them I payed for them and I feel like the time spent playing them was worth the money and I'm just done playing them.

I just want to get rid of them (yes I know the consequences later if I suddenly go "I feel like some Portal...") because I'm somewhat OCD like that. If I could have steam only show my multiplayer games that'd be great since that's what I plan on using steam for now. Single-player games aren't that big with me.

My point EXACTLY!

[Die Finsternis]

I second this suggestion.
Maybe also allowing a option to simply delete the game of an account so that if you sell your retail version, the buyer can put the CD Key in his Steam account, should he have one.

[DarCowAlways]

Nobody would buy from Steam; they'd all get it for half off from a user who's bored with it, because it's not like it's physically used, it's just activated for them.

[Tthorlord]

its not going to happen.
1: they have no incentive to do this, people would not buy more games, thus no extra profit
2: people who own games could then sell them, meaning less profit for steam and the developer
3: the developer wants you to own and play the game when you buy it, they want you to play their game, when you play their game, they make money because the game is good/popular or has more players online.

to offer this would kill steam, if you want to resell games just buy retail copies.

OH and if there is that game that you would buy for $20 but is currently $40... that's why they have weekend deals. you have to wait for either a price cut or a weekend deal.

[jdquarg]

Steam Game Rentals

Why not have a monthly subscription like gamefly.com, where no one owns a game but has the option of playing all of them?

[Fromez]

You forgot to add the publisher into the equation, and the developer too, which makes everyone's profit (but for the buyers one) really neglegible.

So the developers, publishers and Steam are all turning their noses up at money that would otherwise go somewhere else?

[Echonian]

its not going to happen.
1: they have no incentive to do this, people would not buy more games, thus no extra profit
2: people who own games could then sell them, meaning less profit for steam and the developer
3: the developer wants you to own and play the game when you buy it, they want you to play their game, when you play their game, they make money because the game is good/popular or has more players online.

to offer this would kill steam, if you want to resell games just buy retail copies.

OH and if there is that game that you would buy for $20 but is currently $40... that's why they have weekend deals. you have to wait for either a price cut or a weekend deal.

1. People would be buying no more or less games than they would otherwise. The main thing preventing most people from buying a lot of games is money, and if it were cheaper to get games (such as through sales, or through this), then more profit would be made by VALVe.

2. What? The idea of this is that VALVe would get the money or at least a split of it. It doesn't even have to benefit the person giving the game away - i just think that game licenses should not be bound to you for life.

3. Again, there would be more people playing, not less. People who can not afford a game would often not buy it in any case. All this does is make it more affordable if a friend has a copy of it.

The idea behind this is very solid, and if done right, could be an extremely positive thing.

Now, if somebody were to steal your account and somehow your email as well, and sell off the games...well, the games would still cost money! (albeit less). And VALVe would still make more of a profit, despite the phishing. And honestly...if phishing was discovered games could be revoked and steam credit (or actual money) refunded or accounts closed that bought the game that actually knew it was taken from a hacked account. I can't see an issue with this at the moment.

Here's my example.

Jacob buys a game on steam for 50$.

VALVe gets 50$.

Jacob decides a few months later to get rid of his license, giving it to a friend who still has to pay a % (say 50%) of the current value of the game (say 30$ now, so 15$).

VALVe gets 15$ that they may not have gotten otherwise.

All I want is some flexibility in how my money is spent. I want to be able to legally sell a license that I legally buy, and if there has to be heavy restrictions to this so that VALVe profits, that is acceptable.

Edit: Here's my points summarized and counter-arguments.

Argument #1: Phishing will allow people to abuse accounts even farther.

Counter-argument #1: Any abuse that is done could be undone by removing games from steam accounts, disabling steam accounts, etc. In addition, steam would still profit off of the money that the phisher or the phisher's customers had to have spent in order to get the game (even at a reduced price). Without having any obligation to refund that money.

Argument #2: It will cause less people to purchase games, equaling less profit.

Counter-argument #2: Most people that buy games will not purchase games if they are not affordable to them. This would do nothing but make them more affordable, which would increase sales...albeit at lower individual profits. Since it is digital, however, there is nearly no reason not to allow for reselling as steam stands almost nothing to lose by getting some money money in.

[TheMirror]

I doubt they will ever do this, but it would be awesome if you could rent the games first. Like on consoles and what Onlive is talking about about renting and stuff like that.

[Hi2u! Tw1TcH]

Demos are the equivalent to renting.

Starcraft II is touted to have a feature where custom maps can be sold by users through the new Battle.net.

So maybe reselling a game on Steam isn't that too far fetched.

[TheMirror]

How are they the equivalent to renting? Demo is just a level at best. If you could rent the game for a few days you could play all of it. This is great for all those good but short SP games.

[Echonian]

Renting on steam would have to be for only short periods of time, to prevent playing entire single player games...unless they have such a rediculously low amount of content that you can play it all in less than 5 hours.

[Hi2u! Tw1TcH]

How are they the equivalent to renting? Demo is just a level at best. If you could rent the game for a few days you could play all of it. This is great for all those good but short SP games.

Amazon usually sells good but short SP games for like 5 bucks. =P

[Echonian]

I'm going to post a new thread for this, despite them being overused, to give my own take on how it should work in detail...hopefully avoiding and arguments over it by clarifying it completely.

[CanadianWolvie]

I wouldn't want to re-sell my games to another Steam user. Yeah, I know its weird hearing this from a gamer but really all I would want is a discount, in comparison to retail hard copy, on the game when I bought it to reflect that I can not re-sell the copy.

However, it is very easy to let this slide with all the special deals Steam does with regards to weekends especially, prices that drop quicker than retail most of the time, and when they allow me to delete the game I am not using then download it again later at no cost - which will only be a concern if by some disaster Valve/Steam goes out of service or reneges on this re-downloading deal.

Toss that in with the absolutely terrible shelf space, selection of older games, ridiculous prices, and rude sales people in retail for PC gaming, I honestly don't think there is any competition for what Steam offers other than Impulse and possibly D2D and GOG.

[jiMMyoNewAy]

wont hurt the consumer but will be harsh on the seller....so i guess wont happen

[pifrac]

Hello guys,

A group have been created, in order to give notice to Valve that some of its users would like to use their licences as they wish:
http://steamcommunity.com/groups/ex-change

[L.o.D.]

Huge issue with that is simple.
User gets account hijacked. Hijacker starts transferring the games over to other users.
Owner loses lots of money.
This is not going to happen regardless if there's a group or not.

[seseorang]

They don't even like stores buying used games as the profit goes to the retailer instead

[pifrac]

Sure. However, Valve could be the retailer here... So they could gain substancial money with such a platform.

And granted that a group won't change much. But still, if a sufficient number of customers show their support for something, no sane company can ignore it...