Support NeoGAF

[Dascu]

The entire ruling is here by the way:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62011CJ0128:EN:HTML

 

[patapuf]

Well. the disadvantage of buying used games is that it's second hand.
In digital, theres no such thing. You're gonna get a full download link for a fraction of the price.

why even bother buying new digital games, when you can just get the used version for way cheaper.
Since you're gonna be download the same code anyway?

This could potentially destroy digital distribution if it actually happens.
the only way devs could counter this is with online passes, which won't come with used versions obviously.

you could essentially buy in bulk during a steam sale and be able to resell them for cheap. I don't think it would be particularly good for DD

 

[flyinpiranha]

Valve should let you sell your activated games but take 15% of the cut or something.

Free money for them.

Except isn't this the whole reason used games are so hated by developers, people buying non-new items? I know it's digital so "condition" doesn't matter but how would the pricing even work with something like that? Seller sets the price? Sell at current market price?

EDIT: Yeah, along the lines of what Raonak said.

 

[Glass Rebel]

yeah used sales will destroy DD


just like they destroyed retail

 

[elfinke]

I have always felt (and discussed it numerous times with my IP law professor) that the ability to sell digital licenses and goods is inevitable. But man, what a lot of legal wrangling to get through first :/

This is the first step towards the ziggurat's precipice, no doubt.

 

[Acidote]

-->


You don't get such a license for your steam/origin/GOG games afaik + the fact that the verdict only forbids to forbid the reselling but not that you make it technically impossible.

That's not how law works.

 

[patapuf]

yeah used sales will destroy DD


just like they destroyed retail

say a platform like steam has to offer a "used" option. why would you ever buy new?

 

[Comrade Stalin]

say a platform like steam has to offer a "used" option. why would you ever buy new?

When there aren't any used available?

 

[elfinke]

say a platform like steam has to offer a "used" option. why would you ever buy new?

Won't happen like that.

 

[AHA-Lambda]

wait, ok so how does GMG do this? Could steam do something similar?

from what I see on their site you can trade in games, but when you go to buy one there is no distinction between "new" or "used" it's the proportion of which that GMG has that set the current price and trade-in value. At least that's kind of what i've gathered.

 

[Glass Rebel]

say a platform like steam has to offer a "used" option. why would you ever buy new?

same goes for every platform ever

for something to be "used" it has to be "new" before that

 

[The_Monk]

But who would buy Bad Rats?

 

[PetriP-TNT]

If you buy a game used you can't resell it again. Amount of used or "returned" games is limited.

Essentially you perma-rent games from Steam and other DD services anyway, so returning them to get some money back only makes sense in every way.


Problem solved.jpg

 

[Toma]

you could essentially buy in bulk during a steam sale and be able to resell them for cheap. I don't think it would be particularly good for DD

You arent thinking far enough ahead. A steam sale would probably "devalue" the games on sale, so that you cannot get more than half the money back on a title that its been on sale already.

Buying Skyrim now - 60$, selling it tomorrow - get 30$ back.
Buying Skyrim now - 60$ , selling it in 2 years - get 5$ back.

More or less. You wouldnt be able to "earn" money buy buying games for cheap, since each time a games is being offered for cheap, their resell value also sinks.

 

[epmode]

same goes for every platform ever

Nah. A used DD game is 100% identical to the new one. Physical stuff always has wear and tear to a certain extent. Missing components, etc.

 

[patapuf]

same goes for every platform ever

for something to be "used" it has to be "new" before that

sure, but i thought everyone agreed that front loaded sales were a bad thing long term.

a whatever. we'll see how this works in practice and if it's a positive or a negative thing

 

[Gravijah]

they should identify what # copy you have. like if i am the first person to ever buy and download half life 3 i wanna sell it for 1 million dollars.

 

[patapuf]

You arent thinking far enough ahead. A steam sale would probably "devalue" the games on sale, so that you cannot get more than half the money back on a title that its been on sale already.

Buying Skyrim now - 60$, selling it tomorrow - get 30$ back.
Buying Skyrim now - 60$ , selling it in 2 years - get 5$ back.

More or less. You wouldnt be able to "earn" money buy buying games for cheap, since each time a games is being offered for cheap, their resell value also sinks.

a steam sale is temporary. this would basically ensure that a steam sale sets the price forever because the resell value would be so much lower than the price after the sale. (assuming I can resell the game to whichever price i want and to whomever i want)

 

[VibratingDonkey]

Well. the disadvantage of buying used games is that it's second hand.
In digital, theres no such thing. You're gonna get a full download link for a fraction of the price.

why even bother buying new digital games, when you can just get the used version for way cheaper.
Since you're gonna be download the same code anyway?

This could potentially destroy digital distribution if it actually happens.
the only way devs could counter this is with online passes, which won't come with used versions obviously.

Doesn't expressly state that consumers have to be able to sell to each other right?

So a GreenManGaming type system would be a feasible solution?
You sell keys back to the distributor and get credit. Old keys are resold as usual. You can't buy used games.

 

[iamshadowlark]

Well, that's how it seems for now. There is a new verdict now in a case against Oracle that users are allowed to resell used software, even if it's digital.

I only have a german link, sorry.

http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netz...e-software-darf-verkauft-werden-a-842260.html

If this works, that would mean that in the future we could resell our digital games like on Steam etc. - this is really hard for software devs I guess. They were just trying to get rid of Gamestop and now that...

Well wouldn't Steam still have to allow you to do this? Its still their service.

 

[Randdalf]

If it happens on Steam, it will happen by removing the game from their library and adding it to their Steam inventory. You should probably then be able to transfer it into Steam wallet funds at x% of the lowest price the game has been up to the date you "sold" it. Or you can trade it.

Valve are an American company though... I don't know if that changes anything, this being a European thing.

 

[Dennis]

Gaben am cry

 

[Glass Rebel]

Nah. A used DD game is 100% identical to the new one. Physical stuff always has wear and tear to a certain extent. Missing components, etc.

Certainly but depending on how they solve it that could be a non-issue. Steam doesn't have to offer a used games market on their service and setting up a resale could be time consuming.

 

[AHA-Lambda]

Doesn't expressly state that consumers have to be able to sell to each other right?

So a GreenManGaming type system would be a feasible solution?
You sell keys back to the distributor and get credit. Old keys are resold as usual. You can't buy used games.

yeah, a GMG type system sounds like it could work. The only question then would be how would publishers take this news? Price being set by supply and demand won't sounds too good to them surely.

Will Steam be able to strong arm them like Apple? Or will more publishers walk off like EA?

 

[Dascu]

From the Steam subscriber agreement:

Valve hereby grants, and you accept, a limited, terminable, non-exclusive license and right to use the Software for your personal use in accordance with this Agreement and the Subscription Terms. The Software is licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Software.

From the Court ruling:

As regards the question whether, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the commercial transactions concerned involve a transfer of the right of ownership of the copy of the computer program, it must be stated that, according to the order for reference, a customer of Oracle who downloads the copy of the program and concludes with that company a user licence agreement relating to that copy receives, in return for payment of a fee, a right to use that copy for an unlimited period. The making available by Oracle of a copy of its computer program and the conclusion of a user licence agreement for that copy are thus intended to make the copy usable by the customer, permanently, in return for payment of a fee designed to enable the copyright holder to obtain a remuneration corresponding to the economic value of the copy of the work of which it is the proprietor.

Yes, it seems like ekim and others were correct. Steam at least considers itself as a form of rental. It's not a permanent user license (which the Court equates to a sale).

Barring any further developments, rulings or interpretations, this ruling would not affect Steam games. Maybe other downloadable services, but I have not looked into those.

 

[Toma]

a steam sale is temporary. this would basically ensure that a steam sale sets the price forever because the resell value would be so much lower than the price after the sale. (assuming I can resell the game to whichever price i want and to whomever i want)

I think a "resell" to other players options is not likely. More like selling them back to Valve, which means they dont lose too much profits on the game and no other customer possibly gets their games for cheap.

And apparently it doesnt matter anyway according to Dascu

 

[Toma]

From the Steam subscriber agreement:


From the Court ruling:



Yes, it seems like ekim and others were correct. Steam at least considers itself as a form of rental. It's not a permanent user license (which the Court equates to a sale).

Barring any further developments, rulings or interpretations, this ruling would not affect Steam games. Maybe other downloadable services, but I have not looked into those.

Wouldnt this just lead to EVERY DD company now making their games rentable instead of having buyers own them?

 

[patapuf]

I think a "resell" to other players options is not likely. More like selling them back to Valve, which means they dont lose too much profits on the game and no other customer possibly gets their games for cheap.

And apparently it doesnt matter anyway according to Dascu

yep, the only thing i could see changing now is GOG.

Wouldnt this just lead to EVERY DD company now making their games rentable instead of having buyers own them?

looks like it.

 

[AHA-Lambda]

From the Steam subscriber agreement:


From the Court ruling:



Yes, it seems like ekim and others were correct. Steam at least considers itself as a form of rental. It's not a permanent user license (which the Court equates to a sale).

Barring any further developments, rulings or interpretations, this ruling would not affect Steam games. Maybe other downloadable services, but I have not looked into those.

But surely the ruling goes against the EULA/TOS users agree to anyway? I'm not seeing how that clause gets them out of this.

Actually what about Xbox LIVE and PSN? Surely they fall under this too?!

 

[Dascu]

Wouldnt this just lead to EVERY DD company now making their games rentable instead of purchaseable?

Probably. From what I posted in the OT thread:

Either allow people to transfer digital games, or perhaps try to argue that any sale before this judgment shouldn't be taken into account.

For the future, they might try to refurbish their downloadable games further into a service-based subscription model, where you do not have unlimited access to play it. In other words, try to pass it off as "renting" a video game instead of buying one.

It's also possible that nothing substantial changes, since I bet the vast majority of consumers is unaware of these directives, laws and rulings and wouldn't ever take a major video game producer to court. Maybe/hopefully some consumer organisations would though.

I'm not sure how other services like XBLA, PSN or the eShop work. If those offer you unlimited access, then they still would be affected by this ruling.

But surely the ruling goes against the EULA/TOS users agree to anyway? I'm not seeing how that clause gets them out of this.

It's up to the judge to qualify whether the access or license on a video game constitutes a sale or a rental. If it's a limited license, then it's a rental. But, I don't think it's wholly unlikely for some judges (or the CoJ, maybe in a later ruling) to say that the access to software on Steam would qualify as a sale after all, regardless of what Steam itself writes in its Subscriber agreement. You are paying a sale price (not a rental price) of, say, 50 USD. And you do have pretty much unlimited access to it with the offline version of Steam and such.

 

[2San]

From the Steam subscriber agreement:


From the Court ruling:



Yes, it seems like ekim and others were correct. Steam at least considers itself as a form of rental. It's not a permanent user license (which the Court equates to a sale).

Barring any further developments, rulings or interpretations, this ruling would not affect Steam games. Maybe other downloadable services, but I have not looked into those.

Yeah and it looks like a pretty good ruling as well. We are increasingly going into a software service based future, but with bare minimum laws. So you have companies thinking up crazy ToS/EULA's.

 

[D4Danger]

From the Steam subscriber agreement:


From the Court ruling:



Yes, it seems like ekim and others were correct. Steam at least considers itself as a form of rental. It's not a permanent user license (which the Court equates to a sale).

Barring any further developments, rulings or interpretations, this ruling would not affect Steam games. Maybe other downloadable services, but I have not looked into those.

it would appear Oracle tried to make that distinction as well and the court didn't go for it

http://www.zdnet.com/oracle-cannot-block-the-resale-of-its-software-top-eu-court-rules-7000000189/

Oracle, which makes a vast proportion of its revenues from maintenance agreements as well, had tried to argue that it does not sell software as such, only licences. However, the court effectively backed up Bot's opinion that this was an "artificial distinction".

The court even went so far as to say that the resold copy of the software could benefit from the updates and bug fixes that come with any maintenance agreement made between Oracle and the first person or company to buy the software.

 

[patapuf]

But surely the ruling goes against the EULA/TOS users agree to anyway? I'm not seeing how that clause gets them out of this.

I don't think a judge can force steam to sell their games instead of renting them.

 

[Macca]

Another interesting thing is what happens to things like bonuses when you buy a game new.

Companies try to entice their customers to buy new by offering free DLC etc, but if you can sell your digital goods, could you not just sell that code with the game?

And if you weren't able to do that legally, then companies will just put a majority of the game behind things like this, effectively forcing you to buy new.

 

[AHA-Lambda]

it would appear Oracle tried to make that distinction as well and the court didn't go for it

http://www.zdnet.com/oracle-cannot-block-the-resale-of-its-software-top-eu-court-rules-7000000189/

awesome to hear that pedantic jargon won't sway them

Looking forward to seemingly trade in digital purchases now, wanted this option for ages.

I don't think a judge can force steam to sell their games instead of renting them.

It is though? If a judge won't accept the distinction between selling a license and a product, I wouldn't be surprised to see them fall on the same side with purchases and what steam dictates to be a rental (i.e. not available to the consumer for a limited time but under the authority of steam who can decide to pull the license if they see fit).

 

[Green Yoshi]

A Steam marketplace would be great, f.e. I would offer Portal 2 for 10€ and I would get 7€ and Valve 3€. And the money I get, I can only use on Steam.

 

[Gbraga]

It would be nice to be able to trade digital games. :3

 

[mclem]

You arent thinking far enough ahead. A steam sale would probably "devalue" the games on sale, so that you cannot get more than half the money back on a title that its been on sale already.

Buying Skyrim now - 60$, selling it tomorrow - get 30$ back.
Buying Skyrim now - 60$ , selling it in 2 years - get 5$ back.

More or less. You wouldnt be able to "earn" money buy buying games for cheap, since each time a games is being offered for cheap, their resell value also sinks.

Wouldn't a side-effect of that be that as soon as a game was on sale *once*, it'd effectively be permanently on-sale as the used copies would always be at a price that reflects the sale price?

Would we see the end of short-term sales replaced with long-term price depreciation over time?

 

[StoppedInTracks]

The case was not against Steam.

Misleading thread title FTL

 

[Thrakier]

Wouldn't a side-effect of that be that as soon as a game was on sale *once*, it'd effectively be permanently on-sale as the used copies would always be at a price that reflects the sale price?

Would we see the end of short-term sales replaced with long-term price depreciation over time?

The proglem with digital games really is that their is no distinction between "new" and "used". Therefore I think it's not legit that someone says "yeah it doesn't matter if it's digital or retail, it's all the same". We will probably see a lot more more court trials in the future.

The case was not against Steam.

Misleading thread title FTL

Yeah, you are right. Sorry for that. I only tried to see the relevance for a gamer in it.

 

[Dascu]

Services like GOG, PSN, XBLA, eShop etc.

As far as I'm aware, they can't terminate your account and any access to the downloaded and installed games, can they? If so, they should fall under this ruling. Steam (and I think Origin) can however terminate your account and therefore the distinction between limited/unlimited access isn't purely artificial.

Further Court interpretation and rulings would be useful here. We need some gaffers to start up lawsuits about this.

 

[2San]

Another interesting thing is what happens to things like bonuses when you buy a game new.

Companies try to entice their customers to buy new by offering free DLC etc, but if you can sell your digital goods, could you not just sell that code with the game?

And if you weren't able to do that legally, then companies will just put a majority of the game behind things like this, effectively forcing you to buy new.

While I don't think this court ruling has an effect on DD games. Based on your premise the courts would probably rule that you can sell DLC as well.

 

[jet1911]

say a platform like steam has to offer a "used" option. why would you ever buy new?

But why would they do that? You can "sell" your games on Green Man Gaming but they don't offer a used section. Used games exist in retail because you have a physical copy you need to resell. Digital "used" games won't exist.

 

[Glass Rebel]

I don't even really care about reselling stuff.

Let me put Rogue Warrior in my inventory so that I can get a poor soul on SteamGifts to experience this "gem".

 

[AHA-Lambda]

Wouldn't a side-effect of that be that as soon as a game was on sale *once*, it'd effectively be permanently on-sale as the used copies would always be at a price that reflects the sale price?

Would we see the end of short-term sales replaced with long-term price depreciation over time?

It would be the same as GMG, supply and demand. So during and shortly after a sale the trade-in price would be much lower but it would all balance out eventually. Lowering the price permanently after one sale makes no sense.

Strictly speaking this does mean people could buy cheap games to try and flog off later for a a profit but 2 things to note there:

1) this is the exact behaviour GMG promotes!

2) valve gets a cut when you buy the game and presumably takes another cut when you trade it in, so they're laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[sikkinixx]

Realistically how soon is it until we stop "buying" and starting "renting" everything in order to get around stuff like this? Seems better for publishers etc to just "rent" you your Steam game for an unlimited time*




*that is until they wanna pull it from Steam or whatever other reason to strip you of the game

 

[patapuf]

It would be the same as GMG, supply and demand. So during and shortly after a sale the trade-in price would be much lower but it would all balance out eventually. Lowering the price permanently after one sale makes no sense.

Strictly speaking this does mean people could buy cheap games to try and flog off later for a a profit but 2 things to note there:

1) this is the exact behaviour GMG promotes!

2) valve gets a cut when you buy the game and presumably takes another cut when you trade it in, so they're laughing all the way to the bank.

assuming this ruling includes games. doesn't that ruling mean you should be allowed to sell your game to anyone?

 

[mclem]

The proglem with digital games really is that their is no distinction between "new" and "used". Therefore I think it's not legit that someone says "yeah it doesn't matter if it's digital or retail, it's all the same". We will probably see a lot more more court trials in the future.

I'm not entirely convinced that the same doesn't apply to retail, actually. Unless you actually sell a disc that's unreadable - at which point it's a defective product - the product that's being sold is still the same between "new" and "used". The only difference is the quality of the *packaging* of the product - but the packaging is worth considerably less than the always-pristine data on the disc.

In other words: a significant majority of the *value* of a retail product is indistinguishable between a "new" and a "used" one.

I've said a few times that I feel that retail products should be regarded as "a digital product sold on a physical disc" rather than "a physical product" largely for that reason; the worth of it is tied up in the *data*.

 

[AHA-Lambda]

assuming this ruling includes games. doesn't that ruling mean you should be allowed to sell your game to anyone?

Ok, I admit I have no idea about that one =/

If that were the case though the whole basis of DD would collapse.

 

[Zaptruder]

GOG is in the most trouble because their system can be exploited best. what stops you from selling the game but keeping (a copy of) the installer?

Probably the same thing that stopped you from going online and grabbing a torrent of a gog game?