Pachter Says Steam Is “Supposedly” Going To Offer Game License Trades Then Says, “Nevermind”
This is just weird. Let’s cut straight to the chase, because I’m frankly just baffled by this. Here is what NowGamer says uberanalyst Michael Pachter told them:
Steam gives gamers enough other stuff so that they don’t resent the fact they can’t trade in their games. And you know, name all the Steam games that you’ve purchased that you’ve traded back in to somebody else for credit. Steam’s about to let you do that supposedly, you know like trade and exchange, but they’re going to take a fee from it.
That’s pretty much nonsense, and it doesn’t make any sense. Steam has no physical inventory, and so it is not in their best financial interest to do anything like this. And that whole paragraph is just a mess. Gamespot also thought this was pretty weird, so they asked Pachter about it, and he made this equally confusing statement:
I saw the headlines today, and honestly don’t remember saying that Steam would sponsor trade-ins. I can only surmise that the reporter asked the question that way (‘Steam is rumored to be considering taking digital trade-ins’) and asked me what I thought. I have NOT heard this from anybody, and think it had to be the way the question was phrased.
When I said ‘supposedly,’ it’s because the question was posed that way, and is an acknowledgement that I’ve never heard it before. For the record, I don’t know anything about Steam’s plans to sponsor credits for games purchased in the past.
What the hell, man? That makes absolutely no sense at all. First you “surmise” that the reporter asked the question a certain way, and then you say he for sure asked the question a certain way.
On the other hand, looking at that NowGamer quote I can see how it could have been taken out of context to say what they want it to say.
On the third hand, maybe Pachter was raging drunk when he did the interview.