More G2A Follow-up

The recent post on the G2A Website has an update from the keyseller following user feedback to their original post and a petition asking G2A to Stop selling indie titles that was started by Mike Rose. This all began with comments from some developers saying they'd prefer to have their games pirated over being purchased from G2A, alleging that shady practices keep them from seeing any revenue from such sales. Now G2A attempts to clarify one of the points many have seized upon, and says they will come back "in a couple of days" with a solution:
We received lots of feedback – both positive and negative. Developers themselves have offered some ideas and suggestions regarding the ways we can solve the issues they have with our platform. We need some time to put it all together. We’ll get back to you in the next couple of days with a solution.

Of all the negative comments, the following sentence was the most common:
“G2A admits they’re the problem because if not them, someone else would do it anyways”

Some developers cannot accept the fact that people have full rights to re-sell the things they own. It’s a problem for those developers, but not for us or anyone else. And certainly not for gamers who have access to cheaper products, games included, thanks to marketplaces such as G2A.

What we are saying is: “It’s a good thing that people can re-sell keys and, with or without G2A, they will continue to do so.”
View : : :
18.
 
Re: More G2A Follow-up
Jul 9, 2019, 05:11
18.
Re: More G2A Follow-up Jul 9, 2019, 05:11
Jul 9, 2019, 05:11
 
DarkCntry wrote on Jul 9, 2019, 02:44:
I figured the take-away here was that they offered the service in the first place...but hey, I guess because they don't do it now means that it shouldn't be a checkmark on the box of shady things they do.

I don't care what they claim they meant by that statement, the inference was in regard that if they weren't around to be a key reseller (legitimate or not), someone else would take their place. Which they are implying that it doesn't matter if they resell fraudulent keys because someone else would be doing it if they weren't.

I never said that improving relations with devs was bad, I said that this being their, at minimum, 5th time saying it should be pretty clear that they don't intend on actually doing anything.

We hear about G2A all the time simply because they are the largest and they literally throw money at advertising campaigns, but Kinguin and CDKeys.com come up as well. The reason we don't hear about Kinguin is because almost everyone avoids it because of just how shady they can be. The reason CDKeys is not mentioned nearly as much is because, the last I saw, they are their own marketplace in the same vein as GMG and don't allow a user marketplace and has a whole can of worms of their own to deal with in that regard.

I'm also at a loss at how you can say Kotaku and journalism with a straight face...as for my 'ignorance', it again doesn't matter, they offered it in the first place because they saw the 'issue' they have with revoked keys...they then monetized it and pushed it to 'protect' the buyer. A service that, at worst, should've been free to begin with and at best shouldn't even be needed if they vet their sellers in any meaningful way.

It's a bit of a stretch to equate "key reselling would exist without us" with "it doesn't matter if we sell stolen keys." As I mentioned earlier, G2A has taken measures to address fraud. New sellers are required to verify both the source and proof of purchase of their keys. I know this because when I first started selling keys on G2A, I had to do that all the time. This has been their policy for years but you wouldn't know that unless you've actually used G2A to sell keys. The problem is that verifying the legitimacy of keys is extremely difficult. You can't test them without activating them and if the seller sells the keys before the credit cards are reported stolen, they'll have sufficient proof of source and purchase. The only way to counter this is to put a month long hold on all key sales to ensure enough time for chargeback and stolen card reports. Needless to say, this hold would be a significant setback for legitimate resellers (i.e. the majority of resellers).

Secondly, the fact that they removed the "protection" subscription service is pretty obvious proof that they are listening and responding to feedback. They also added the ability for devs to sell their games directly through G2A.

The issue Mike Ross and other devs have with sites like G2A isn't limited to potentially fraudulent key sales. They take issue with unauthorized reselling as a whole. Key reselling is perfectly legal but they don't like it because it reduces their control over pricing. When they deal with authorized resellers, they have much more control (which is why Borderlands 3 isn't discounted on any authorized resellers). With unauthorized resellers, they have none.

As for Kotaku, if you actually read the site, you'll notice that they do a fair amount of investigative journalism. They've broken numerous stories on things like layoffs, development troubles, cancellations, unannounced games, poor working conditions, etc. They've even been blacklisted by several publishers as a result. The same can't be said for pretty much any other gaming site that either serves as a marketing tool for publishers or a headline regurgitation machine.
Avatar 20715
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Jul 8, 2019Jul 8 2019
2.
Jul 8, 2019Jul 8 2019
3.
Jul 8, 2019Jul 8 2019
19.
Jul 9, 2019Jul 9 2019
4.
Jul 8, 2019Jul 8 2019
5.
Jul 8, 2019Jul 8 2019
6.
Jul 8, 2019Jul 8 2019
7.
Jul 9, 2019Jul 9 2019
8.
Jul 9, 2019Jul 9 2019
9.
Jul 9, 2019Jul 9 2019
10.
Jul 9, 2019Jul 9 2019
11.
Jul 9, 2019Jul 9 2019
13.
Jul 9, 2019Jul 9 2019
14.
Jul 9, 2019Jul 9 2019
16.
Jul 9, 2019Jul 9 2019
        Re: More G2A Follow-up
12.
Jul 9, 2019Jul 9 2019
15.
Jul 9, 2019Jul 9 2019
17.
Jul 9, 2019Jul 9 2019
 18.
Jul 9, 2019Jul 9 2019
      Re: More G2A Follow-up