I got a place on the 512GB with Controller list, and got an email a few days after they started. I ordered it on Friday the 3rd and got it today on Thursday the 9th. The tracking codes were all over the place and gave different estimates depending which branch of each company I used. Steam claimed it was shipped when the courier said they hadn’t got it so I was worried for a few days. But this morning Royal Mail (UK customer) sent me an email saying it would arrive today, while GLS said it would arrive tomorrow.
Safe to say I’m happy to have it now and be playing games!
Well no. You don’t want manufacturers to have more control to define what you can do with things you bought .
I would be a super bad look at steam, and epic of course would jump on it and say they’re suing customers…I wouldn’t buy steam products either if they started suing people
Scalpers aren’t their actual customers so they can get fucked
Again, as much as I’d like scalping to be banned, things don’t work that way.
Yet.
Yeah… Ok… Let me know how that law will work exactly (provide some wording) that doesn’t also screw over people inadvertently.
Also, it would have to implemented worldwide instantaneously, or any region not included will exploit their advantage
This is a “no true Scotsman” argument. Name one law in the history of government that didn’t have potential for loopholes.
write an example
There is no clean and good way to write this law imho
When I say loopholes, I mean ones that further harm people affected by scalpers. It’s easy to say “oh, we’ll write a law”. The problem is writing one that doesn’t backfire completely.
Which is the problem with every law. If the caveat you’re pointing out is inherent to the system in which the solution is being proposed, it’s not a reason in itself not to try to improve things. You’re letting perfection get in the way of progress. I won’t write a fake law to satisfy some BS internet litmus test, precisely because I’m not a lawmaker. That doesn’t invalidate my opinion that this is a problem that should be solved. It also doesn’t keep Valve from putting some kind of anti-scalping clause in their terms and suing the shit out of people who violate it, which again, is civil law and has absolutely nothing to do with the hypothetical criminal law you’re asking for.
There is no good way to write any criminal law, as I said
As a condition of sale (civil) It would potentially completely fuck steams reputation. Gamers don’t like companies who sue their customers. If I gift a steam controller to a partner who becomes an ex and they sell it, suddenly I get sued. Great
Every steam critic would use it to attack steam.
You cannot add a condition of sale in many countries to control the resale of a physical product. There are literal ownership laws . Which is the point I’m possibly not making as clear as I need to be
They could just limit 1 per customer and require a deposit to stay in the queue. And offer something beneficial like a free game which directly is added to the account that orders. But that screws people who are getting them as gifts. Or prioritize people based on library size for the initial orders / randomize the queue a bit
The reason I said write the example, is because what is the penalty going to be? Cancel their account? Disable the hardware?
Again, it’s a bad idea. You’re trying to solve a problem that normally doesn’t exist, won’t in 6 months and will cause a much bigger one.
As much as I hate scalpers, this is delusional that can not only legally not be enforced in many countries, but would be criminal in many countries and have a huge probability to backfire
Feel free to provide an example law.
Because, such a law would have to be world-wide, and require a whole new framework to work, or people in countries without the law will abuse their position