Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2019/07/08/game-key-selling-platform-ass.html
…
4 Likes
Well, I haven’t looked into it myself, but just from what you wrote G2A doesn’t sound so great. I kinda wish there were some ethical way to resell games you got codes to though. I can resell my physical books and albums or buy used copies of them etc etc but not my purely digital games sometimes.
3 Likes
G2A is shady as hell though they’re not the only one in that space reselling keys. Overall i’d rather wait for a game sale on Steam, Humble Bundle or on other reputable sites if i can’t quite afford a title at launch and don’t mind waiting.
4 Likes
Perhaps a platform that:
- gives a cut of every sale to the publisher
- opt-in (or at least opt-out) per game, per publisher
- is part of a broader key-management service for publishers, providing them marketing value in depth
- isn’t obviously the sleaziest damned website on earth
etc
6 Likes
I have a problem with some of these complaints.
If this site is turning a blind eye to fraud or trafficking of stolen data, that’s one thing.
But a number of these complaints seem more along the line of “we just don’t like your business model.”
I don’t see why developers should get a cut of sales, or there should be an opt-in/out process, any more than with physical sales of used discs.
6 Likes
I tend to agree. At the risk of sounding like someone pining for the good old days, I sort of like the idea that if I buy something I actually own it.
10 Likes
Sounds like they have a problem with this instead of with this specific retailer:
5 Likes
Looks like Rob agrees with them on that since he proposes:
Rob, do you think digital media should be subject to doctrine of first sale at all? It sounds like your position is no, not ever, and not even with the key management you describe in number 3, since doctrine of first sale specifically means no royalties or veto power over secondary sales.
2 Likes
It sure seems like the next logical step would be for Steam and their competitors to launch StubHub like services.
Some of the problems developers have had with G2A and similar gray market sites is that its a very efficient low effort way for some people to launder money with stolen credit cards and game international pricing and exchange rates. Someone with a list of stolen cards can buy a ton of keys in a country where the game is priced much lower and then resell them cheaper than keys purchased elsewhere legitimately and still make a profit. Even if there are charge backs and keys get pulled the seller will usually be long gone with their money and the only person screwed is whomever is buying the new keys and the developer.
I believe there’s other shady things with some keys but the complaints specifically against G2A are nothing new.
7 Likes
Well, you didn’t really buy it did you, you liscensed it like renting a movie /sarcasm
Edit: I liked an idea I think Cory made a ways back that the button shouldn’t really say “buy” because you really are not buying it! They still own it you just, as I said, liscensed it. “Liscense now” doesn’t have quite the same ring to it does it but that’s kinda what your doing if that’s what you’re doing
2 Likes
That’s two separate issues. Even taking stolen cards out of the equation, it sounds like you have general problems with the existence of a resale market that ignores publisher pricing suggestions.
1 Like
If this site is turning a blind eye to fraud or trafficking of stolen data, that’s one thing.
Actually, that is all in the publisher’s hands. If they prefer to flood reviewers with keys but don’t want them to pop up on resellers’ sites, they can put some additional DRM for reviewers in place. No reason why that should be a resellers’ responsibility in the first place.
And keys bought through stolen CCs should be deactivated, so the resellers’ customers will not be able to use those keys.
I don’t see why developers should get a cut of sales, or there should be an opt-in/out process, any more than with physical sales of used discs.
This. If you’re not ok with people reselling what you sold them, don’t sell it to them. Once you have sold it, it’s no longer yours. Why that should not be the case for digital stuff is beyond me. It’s really that simple.
2 Likes
Not necessarily, circumstances around it matter but my overall point is that G2A is very well known for being too hands off with resellers. The situation is also impossible to untangle from possible fraud, i don’t think its fair to say that stolen cards should not be considered as part of the conversation because its so easy to do. Seriously, read the first article i posted, a well known hacker in Brazil takes no effort to hide his real identity because he knows nothing can be done against him as things currently stand.
On a separate question, should there even be a grey/secondary market for game keys? Yeah sure if it can be done in a way that reduces fraud that we already see.
3 Likes
Was just going to link another Patrick piece. https://kotaku.com/how-the-controversial-steam-key-marketplace-g2a-got-so-1784669708
1 Like
I think a lot of people take issue with the idea that anyone has a right to ask if there should be. I mean, you bought something, you decide you don’t want it anymore, someone else wants to buy it from you, so you sell it to them. It goes against some principles of liberty and property to impose anyone else’s shoulds on that.
I’m a counter-capitalist who doesn’t care about liberty, and to me we all have an interest in the existences of something like G2A, especially if it is a widely used vehicle for theft and fraud. But the idea that game sellers should have a say over people’s ability to resell seems to be built on those bullshit pseudo-legal agreements that you have to click through to play games. One thing I dislike more than capitalism is a version of capitalism where corporations own everything and people have to rely on a revocable-for-no-reason licences to use things.
4 Likes
Apart from G2A, who appear to be really shady, most of what publishers call fraud is actually not fraud at all.
The reseller has no business relationship with the publisher, and so they could not care less if the publisher does not like it when they are offered keys:
- from reviewers who got them free from the publisher
- from distributors in other regions where keys are cheaper, but the publisher failed to region-locked those keys
- from gamers who are flooded with sales and bundles where they pick up duplicate keys, or other games they will never play because they already have several lifetimes of “backlog”
- from people who want to make a quick buck and buy a couple of keys when they are on sale somewhere to make a buck
That’s a free market, isn’t that what capitalism is all about? In some jurisdictions, it is even a legal right being able to resell your digital goods.
The only thing a reseller wants to minimize is keys that are no longer valid because they were bought with stolen credit cards, or extracted from hacked accounts. And somehow I doubt that kind of fraud happens on a large scale with decent resellers, because that would put them out of business really fast. Might be different with G2A, because they appear to spend a shitload of money on influencers who promote them. That money might better be spent on actually reducing fraud.
But anyway, all of this is not the publisher’s business, even though they are affected. Unless they find a law the reseller is breaking, or enter a contract with them (e.g. they might providing an API for checking whether a key is invalid, or an NFR key, then they might get actually something in return).
3 Likes
Yeah a lot of the other points where (re)selling happens i don’t an issue with. That part reminds me a lot of the fight movie studios had with movie rental businesses saying that they were entitled to a cut of rentals. The situation with these game keys is a bit different but the overall argument of publishers/developers inserting themselves in a transaction to capture additional revenue is familiar.
You mistake G2A’s business model. G2A makes money on every single transaction, fradulent or not. G2A is that shady manager renting space in store to shady guys in trenchcoats - they don’t get to act surprised when it turns out those shady trenchcoat guys are Hawking stolen product.
G2A is a rent-seeking beast inserting itself into the market between buyers and sellers in attempt to commodify and take money on every transaction between private entities.
1 Like
So basically G2A is something like a standard pawn/consignment store. Sounds like a legit business model to me. They provide the storefront and take a cut for the service.
There are already legal mechanisms and liabilities in dealing with stolen goods under those business models, I would be surprised if those couldnt carry over into the digital realm (IANAL). - (That last bit is directed at the conversation as a whole not just your comment)
1 Like
