While I obviously like the philosophy behind it, wouldn't such a system create a shadow market where people trade outside of the system?

I can imagine Valve being ok with people handing down games to their friends with an added transaction charge (maybe a charge that is a % of the price of the game currently on steam, making new releases more expensive to hand down - makes sense). So far so good.

But, obviously, there is no way for Valve to check how much of a friend 'friends' really are. We've know each other at least virtually for many years, but we all have one or two random dudes on our steam friends list we played one single game with or so.

So, say, if the transaction fee set on steam is 7 bucks and you don't have any friends who have the game or are willing to hand it down (yet), wouldn't you be able to find a guy online who sells his second-hand copy for, say, 10 bucks to you rather than some other guy, cashing 3 extra on the money Valve charges? Wouldn't that create a whole parallel market?

One counter would be to create some friends "standards". Having to be friends for at least a year, or playing together for X amount of time every month. But that's not realistic, I don't think.

Erh...enough of my high school economics.

Trans-user trading would kill sales in a big way. As a user it would be great if I could trade / gift games I no longer want, but for the dude who owns Steam there is no benefit, only huge losses. Even if Steam take a slice of the action, that's still 1 user not paying full price for a game. They've got a pretty good operation going. They offer us a good range of games at very competitive prices. They have an installation application that works well and is very convenient.

Not being able to trade games isn't necessarily a bad thing. Me being a tool, iv'e bought Rome Total War 4 times over that I can remember.

My problem is that you guys are assuming this is a right that consumers don't have and shouldn't get. My point is that it's a right that consumers do have and have always had, and the game publishers are trying to take it away. There's nothing wrong with me buying a microwave or a DVD or a computer and a couple years down the road selling it to someone else. The original manufacturer doesn't see a dime of this secondary transaction. The point being that when you buy something, you own it, and you can do anything you want with it, including reselling it on ebay if you want.

Except with digital games. People've been reselling games since games first came out... how much did that hurt Atari in the 80s, or Microprose and Sierra, or EA. In my opinion, it's all greed. The publishers think they're somehow entitled to say what you're allowed to do with your game after you bought it, and technology is giving them that power.

I had a stack of games sitting next to my PC I never planned on playing again...non-Steam games obviously. Y'know what I did with them? I used old, spare computer parts to put together a computer and gave the computer and all the games to a neighbor's kids. Tell me how that hurts anyone?

This is getting philosophical.

Regarding your gifted PC; If everyone does that, then low end PC manufacturers will take a big hit. It's the same discussion as Steam games. You're stopping a customer from buying a full price low end machine. Steam got away with it because consumer protection regulations don't exist. It would take a lawsuit from some massive corporation to change this but I can't think of anyone who's interested in challenging this concept.

Downloadable digital goods are somewhat different to most other physical goods. They never consume. With this in mind you could argue there is no benefit from owning a fresh copy of a game versus a second hand copy. This adds to the "hit" Steam will take if they establish a trading system.

I'm ok without this right if the overall package pleases me.

Hey I never said I thought it was a bad idea or that people shouldn't be able to resell their games, ya ho! I just said that I see why Valve doesn't allow it when they can afford to (apparently).

Besides, there's one problem with games these days: you're paying for a service, or for the use of the game, not for the game itself. So legally, they are completely right to prevent you from passing on your game.

That said, don't hate me dude! I am even opposed to the general principle of Intellectual Property or Copyrights, let alone this shit.

hah... I guess we have different conceptions of property and ownership. C'est la vie, I don't plan on debating this ad nauseum. Suffice it to say that I don't like where this is going, and if a Steam competitor came out that allowed game trading, I'd switch in a heartbeat and never look back.
Or if someone put forth a consumer protection law that addressed this concern, I'd back it. But neither of those is likely, because the planet is run by corporations.

Weekend deal is pretty sweet this week, but most of us already have these games so...yeah.

http://store.steampowered.com/sub/715/

All Half-Life 2 games 66% (!) off.

Looks like I may be gifting some friends Episode 1 and/or 2.

I wish steam would do a Saints row 2 deal. I'd like to give that game a spin.

I ended up buying a friend of mine HL2: Episode 2. Was tempted to buy the original half-life and opposing force, but seeing as I do already own them (they're pre-steam era ) I decided against that. Same for HL: Source, which is more of a lousy technical upgrade than anything else, and there is that huge, free mod (Black Mesa) which will likely do it much better anyway.