Online purchased videogames might soon have a second-hand market

24

September

2019

No ratings yet.

Over the past year, the gaming industry has managed to successfully protect itself from the rising threats typically associated with information goods such as indestructability and reproducibility. Registration keys and consequently mandatory server connection ruled out reproducibility, whereas indestructability was covered with CDs and later DVDs as distribution mediums.

This might change soon. On 17 September 2019, a judge in France on a case regarding the resale of videogames (Torbet, 2019). This does not only have consequences for the videogames market but might spill-over to other information good markets. The case in question is between Que Choisir, a French consumer organization, and Valve, an American manufacturer operating in France. The games sold through Valve’s online platform, Steam, are online for sale through the Steam market and cannot be resold; something Que Choisir does not agree with.

The French consumer organization argues that games sold on Valve’s online platform Steam should be threated in the same way as games sold through physical stores (Que Choirsir, 2019). Que Choirsir illustrates that the consumer purchases a licence to use the software. If you buy a physical videogame, you buy the license to use the software together with the disk; once you’re done playing the game, you can resell it. The same should be possible for online bought videogames.

Valve opposed this argument, claiming that the consumer buys a subscription to use the software not a license. The subscription allows the consumer to use the software forever, and therefore, established consumer protections that allow consumers to resell licenses do not apply. If consumer protections would count for online videogames, such as the right to resell, a direct competition would spark from the online second-hand game market. Second-hand online games are perfect substitutes of the new games sold on Steam.

On 17 September 2019, the French court ruled that Valve does not sell subscriptions through Steam, but licences, and thus the established consumer protections established in European law do apply to online purchased video games (Roedie, 2019). This has enormous consequences for the online games market, due to the indestructability of the good. Moreover, this might also have consequences for other online markets such as iTunes. Do you agree with the French judge? Do you think that digital information goods should have a second-hand market despite being indestructible?

 

References

Roedie. (2019). Franse rechtbank stelt dat je steam games gewoon opnieuw mag verkopen. Power Unlimited.
https://www.pu.nl/artikelen/nieuws/franse-rechtbank-stelt-dat-je-steam-games-gewoon-opnieuw-mag-verkopen/

Torbet, G. (2019). French court case against Valve may have serious implications for games sales. Digital Trends.
https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/valve-french-court-case/

Que Choisir (2019). L’UFC-Que Choisir fait reconnaître le droit de revente de jeux video. Que Choisir.
https://www.quechoisir.org/action-ufc-que-choisir-condamnation-de-steam-l-ufc-que-choisir-fait-reconnaitre-le-droit-de-revente-de-jeux-video-n70803/

Please rate this

Social Paradox

17

September

2019

No ratings yet.

The rise of a series of technologies in the past decades has provided us with the possibility to stay connected with anyone at any point in time. First, the internet connected computers all around the world. Then, computers started shrinking, the cable made place for wireless technology. Since about a decade it is possible to carry a computer in your pocket, connected to world. This revolution has sparked a paradox: where one would expect more social behaviour, it might cause the opposite. This blog outlines three reasons why social media may spark antisocial behaviour.

First, the most obvious occurrence is the difficulty of putting your phone down (Andrew-Gee, 2019). Social media such as WhatsApp, Instagram and Facebook are continuously pushing notifications in an attempt to draw your attention. Facebook for example has not been shy at using algorithms that calculate exactly what to feed you, thus increasing the chance of falling for calls of attention from the app. This dependence has moved to a subconscious level, as the average American opens their phone 47 times a day according to a study conducted by Time (Price, 2019). This does not only happen when on your own, but also at parties, dinners and social situations alike.  The smartphone swallows the attention that could otherwise be given to the ones surrounding you.

Second, the same algorithms that yell for your attention and feed the user exactly what they want to see is increasingly fragmenting or pillarizing the society (Bright, 2018). A new Facebook account will be unbiased towards the selection of timeline posts. Yet, as you start using the timeline, clicking on some posts, scrolling past others, the algorithm will monitor your interests and start pushing posts that match these interests. Since the posts that are being shown, clicked and read match the already established interests, therefore enforcing the effect the effect. This may seem innocent, yet it can have large consequences. As social media is maturing, politics is increasingly using social media as a medium of campaigning. Someone slightly attracted to one political view, can outgrow into a fanatic of such ideas as social media keeps on feeding more and more information fortifying this political view. As this happens to multiple political views on the political spectrum, collisions are on the rise due to the increased extremity of views.

Lastly, an increasing issue is the rise of loneliness among youth. A study by the Independent (2019) revealed that young people feel lonelier than any other age group. According to this study, 42% of people aged 16-24 mentioned feeling lonely often to very often. Something that could potentially be an underlying cause to this feeling is the fear of missing out while scrolling through near perfect images posted on social media (Economist, 2018).

Despite the increasing connectedness, social cohesion has seen a fall. As smartphones are demanding your attention more and more, the urge to dive into a smartphone is growing, meanwhile blocking out your surroundings. Hereafter, the algorithms on your smartphone make a selection of posts especially matching your interests. In the end, this leads to collisions across different views and more dramatically, loneliness. As technology progresses, further exploring the boundaries of what’s possible, a new discussion is necessary. Would it help to ban algorithms that generate exactly what you see? Will this decrease the urge to look on your phone? Will this counteract the increased fragmentation of society?

 

References

Andrew-Gee, E. (2019) Your smartphone is making you stupid, antisocial and unhealthy. So why can’t you put it down. The Globe and Mail.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/your-smartphone-is-making-you-stupid/article37511900/

Bright, J. (2018). Explaining the Emergence of Political Fragmentation on Social Media: The Role of Ideology and Extremism. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 23(1), 17-33.

Price, C. (2018). 9 Ways to Finally Stop Spending So Much Time on Your Phone. Time.
https://time.com/5139859/smartphone-addiction-solutions/

Hosie, R. (2018). Young people feel lonelier than any other age group, study reveals. The Independent.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/young-people-loneliness-intense-study-a8563056.html

Economist (2018). Loneliness is pervasive and rising, particularly among the young. Economist.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/08/31/loneliness-is-pervasive-and-rising-particularly-among-the-young

Please rate this