Support NeoGAF

[pa22word]

Same as your assumption.

My assumption is backed by existing software out now. Yours is backed by nothing but the assumption that the EU *might* rule said DRM as anti-consumer (which judging by Diablo 3 and UbiSoft's shit DRM, that's a big fat 0 chance).

but if they adhere to the ruling, they can't interfere with how I resell the working copy of a game.

This doesn't interfere with the selling of your game, it simply makes sure you can't play it once you have sold it.

 

[Durante]

Normally I'd say something like "yay consumer rights". However, I believe the only thing such a rule will accomplish is accelerating the (exclusive) uptake of F2P and streaming services, which I consider a worst case scenario for gamers.

If you take your argument to the logical extreme. Folks would never be allowed to sell anything. You buy a car. You have to keep it forever. Or junk it and buy another one.

You buy a house. Yep. That's right. You'll never be able to sell it. If you want to move you'll end up with two mortgages and two houses.

Goods with natural depreciation in value (almost all physical goods) are not the same as goods without such (digital goods).

 

[Alligatorjandro]

I would like to see a trade in program of some sorts on steam and places like that.

Like sell your game back and get a discount off another game.

 

[Ranger X]

is there such a thing as a "used" downloaded program? there is no degrading of the code after being utilized by the consumer. it is the same exact quality that has been provided before.

There's no limits in the digital world. I already seen so many unreal things that wouldn't logically apply (like waiting lines for downloading a ticket!) but in the internet it seems you can reproduce any physical rule or shortcoming from real life that you want...

 

[fabricated backlash]

So publishers don't have the right to ensure authenticity of a product before allowing it to connect to their servers?

If they sold it to you (which they did as the ruling also states that so far the definition of digital licenses was used as a disguise to deny customers their rights) they are now not allowed to restrict you from selling it. So your purchased license has to be transferable without them interfering.

They can however start to release games as services, rentals etc... at which point they'll get a huge fuck you from me.

 

[cw_sasuke]

Would be a great way to lower the lock-in effect of most services.

 

[patapuf]

Normally I'd say something like "yay consumer rights". However, I believe the only thing such a rule will accomplish is accelerating the (exclusive) uptake of F2P and streaming services, which I consider a worst case scenario for gamers.

Goods with natural depreciation in value (almost all physical goods) are not the same as goods without such (digital goods).

If F2P and games as services are the games that make the most money that's where most of the money of the publishers will go. And if all it takes is to make a game a product for rent instead of a product for sale i'm sure that's exactly what we will see.

i see no reason to cheer before we know the consequences of the ruling.

 

[Ranger X]

If they sold it to you (which they did as the ruling also states that so far the definition of digital licenses was used as a disguise to deny customers their rights) they are now not allowed to restrict you from selling it. So your purchased license has to be transferable without them interfering.

They can however start to release games as services, rentals etc... at which point they'll get a huge fuck you from me.[/

Stop buying games on Steam, PSN or XBL right now then. Even if it's not CALLED a rental or "game service", its in fact the same thing. You pay for the key to download and use the thing and such game can be removed from you to use at anytime. If those games were yours, Gabe wouldn't had to promise you they will "let go" of the games if Steam ever closes...

 

[Of All Trades]

If they sold it to you (which they did as the ruling also states that so far the definition of digital licenses was used as a disguise to deny customers their rights) they are now not allowed to restrict you from selling it. So your purchased license has to be transferable without them interfering.

That doesn't preclude intrusive, always-on DRM from ensuring authenticity at all because license transfer is a separate concept.

 

[fabricated backlash]

My assumption is backed by existing software out now. Yours is backed by nothing but the assumption that the EU *might* rule said DRM as anti-consumer (which judging by Diablo 3 and UbiSoft's shit DRM, that's a big fat 0 chance).



This doesn't interfere with the selling of your game, it simply makes sure you can't play it once you have sold it.

Which is ok to me. If I sell a physical object, I can't use it afterwards. But right now licenses are tied to a single account with no way of transfering it. They will however have to make these licenses transferable, sellable to be in accordance with this ruling.

I agree with you in that this ruling will only push companies that allready employed anti consumer tactics like allways on DRM, online passes and other scams to just push even further into this direction.

And I will say this: If they do... well I allready stopped buying EA games, and I don't really care enough for gaming companies to do well. The market is big enough for me to chose companies that don't intend to fuck me over.

It might be a bad thing for enthusiasts, but I got to say, if you are so dependant on anything that you're willing to just take up with every new scam that is put into place, then you don't deserve any sympathy.

That doesn't preclude intrusive, always-on DRM from ensuring authenticity at all because license transfer is a separate concept.

Agreed, I worded it poorly, but it would still require license transfer without the interference of the holder of the authentication servers. At worst you would have to go through a license transfer on their end.

 

[mclem]

From the IANAL dept, the way I suspect this will pan out:

If they sold it to you they are now not allowed to restrict you from selling it.

Yep!

So your purchased license has to be transferable without them interfering.

Nope!

Do note that those are two very different things; one does not follow from the other. The license cannot be transferred without them interfering because the license is stored at their end.

What I think *may* happen: They provide a tool to convert a license into a redeemable code. Doing so removes your copy of the license on your account on their servers.

 

[cyberheater]

Normally I'd say something like "yay consumer rights". However, I believe the only thing such a rule will accomplish is accelerating the (exclusive) uptake of F2P and streaming services, which I consider a worst case scenario for gamers.

Goods with natural depreciation in value (almost all physical goods) are not the same as goods without such (digital goods).

Goods are worth only what a consumer is willing to pay for it. I've seen instances where folks have bought stuff brand new and resold it for profit.
The house I bought years ago is worth more then I paid for it. etc.......

 

[fabricated backlash]

Stop buying games on Steam, PSN or XBL right now then. Even if it's not CALLED a rental or "game service", its in fact the same thing. You pay for the key to download and use the thing and such game can be removed from you to use at anytime. If those games were yours, Gabe wouldn't had to promise you they will "let go" of the games if Steam ever closes...

No, this ruling explicitly states, that the wording of these contracts are illegal and that the nature of the transaction is in fact a purchase, not a license rental. Contrary to what the license agreements texts state, the transaction is the "PURCHASE" of this license, and it is as such not revocable from the seller. This is the huge part, as until now, these "PURCHASES" were treated like rentals. At least in the EU they will have to change this or at least take it into consideration.

These wordings were put in place because no legal framework existed for Digital Distribution. Valves concession was actually a huge exception and a way to show good will to consumers.
That's why I said that I expect Valve to really be the first to implement a way of reselling/transfering games privately or via Steam.

Do note that those are two very different things; one does not follow from the other. The license cannot be transferred without them interfering because the license is stored at their end.

What I think *may* happen: They provide a tool to convert a license into a redeemable code. Doing so removes your copy of the license on your account on their servers.

Sorry, that's what I meant. It's really hard to discuss this with my limited knowledge of the english language.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

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.

Exactly!

The data on a DVD is also digital and the game console doesn't care if the disc is new or used.

The packaging on the physical product is irrelevant to this discussion since DD games have no packaging. If you buy a used copy of a PS2 game without the packaging you still have the same product as if you downloaded it.

The only difference between a physical copy of a game and download is the amount of control publishers hold over it. The only limitations to reselling DD games are limitations that publishers put on there themselves.

 

[2MF]

One interesting aspect of this is that digital retailers can cry that people are driving up their bandwidth costs each time a game is resold.

Three alternatives that may happen:

1- A fee is charged on each resale (but does the law allow this fee to be mandatory?)

2- A fee is charged each time someone downloads a game (I expect this would have to be reasonably in line with what it costs to transfer the game content).

3- Digital retailers eat this cost which may or may not be negligible.

 

[Ranger X]

No, this ruling explicitly states, that the wording of these contracts are illegal and that the nature of the transaction is in fact a purchase, not a license rental. Contrary to what the license agreements texts state, the transaction is the "PURCHASE" of this license, and it is as such not revocable from the seller. This is the huge part, as until now, these "PURCHASES" were treated like rentals. At least in the EU they will have to change this or at least take it into consideration.

These wordings were put in place because no legal framework existed for Digital Distribution. Valves concession was actually a huge exception and a way to show good will to consumers.
That's why I said that I expect Valve to really be the first to implement a way of reselling/transfering games privately or via Steam.
.

Ok, we are on the same page then. The bolded is what I was basically saying.
What I fear though is that they will change their semantics in writing the contracts so they become legal but that it will not change much things for us customers.
Unless some systems like Steam would have the balls to make so your liscence can be transformed into a redeem code that could be sold only through Steam. And at that point, Steam and the content holder would take a cut again, just like when the first sale occured. That would honestly be a perfect system. I truly hope this could see the light of the day. I don't know if content holders are ready or willing...

 

[Magnus]

Good. Reselling and trading is far and away the primary reason I continue buying physical media.

 

[cyberheater]

One interesting aspect of this is that digital retailers can cry that people are driving up their bandwidth costs each time a game is resold.

Three alternatives that may happen:

1- A fee is charged on each resale (but does the law allow this fee to be mandatory?)

2- A fee is charged each time someone downloads a game (I expect this would have to be reasonably in line with what it costs to transfer the game content).

3- Digital retailers eat this cost which may or may not be negligible.

A consumer could copy the game and send to the buyer at no cost to the distributer.

 

[mavs]

That is a rather unnecessary hurdle, because in that case I could only sell all my games at the same time, and not one by one as the law allegedly says. It seems to break the spirit of this alleged law...

This isn't a law, it's a ruling, and it does not say that at all. If anything they said the opposite:

The Court points out, however, that if the licence acquired by the first acquirer relates to a greater
number of users than he needs, that acquirer is not authorised by the effect of the exhaustion of
the distribution right to divide the licence and resell only part of it.

Steam of course considers your account a subscription, and games you purchase are added to your subscription. It's arguable whether this ruling applies to Steam at all, but if it does there is a further chance that your entire account is the product and not the individual games you add to it.

However even discounting that, nothing in this ruling indicates that sellers must give users the ability to resell licenses any way they please, only that they cannot stop users from selling digital purchases if they find a way using their own wits.

Edit: Am I crazy or is it already possible to trade or gift Steam games you haven't played yet? Is that just GMG?

 

[The Technomancer]

This seems like a huge can of worms. On the one hand, the idea of being able to transfer ownership of a digital product just like a physical one is, on the surface, very appealing. On the other hand, that means that we have to be able to ensure that the original owner is now no longer able to use their copy of the software, and that pushes us further towards the realm of software being "licensed" to control it, which I know some people hate.

 

[2MF]

A consumer could copy the game and send to the buyer at no cost to the distributer.

True. But if the license says that a license owner can download the game anytime, transferring this license would also transfer this right?

Maybe digital retailers have to eat the cost...

edit - the ruling says:

"Therefore the new acquirer of the user licence, such as a customer of UsedSoft, may, as a lawful acquirer of the corrected and updated copy of the computer program concerned, download that copy from the copyright holder’s website."

http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-07/cp120094en.pdf

Wired UK did a write-up on this:

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-07/03/digital-software-reselling

 

[patapuf]

This isn't a law, it's a ruling, and it does not say that at all. If anything they said the opposite:



Steam of course considers your account a subscription, and games you purchase are added to your subscription. It's arguable whether this ruling applies to Steam at all, but if it does there is a further chance that your entire account is the product and not the individual games you add to it.

However even discounting that, nothing in this ruling indicates that sellers must give users the ability to resell licenses any way they please, only that they cannot stop users from selling digital purchases if they find a way using their own wits.

Edit: Am I crazy or is it already possible to trade or gift Steam games you haven't played yet? Is that just GMG?

the ruling also says you can't sell parts of a licence, if steam considers your account one big licence it means you could at best sell your account but not individual games.

you can gift steam games but i think you have to buy them as gifts

 

[MarshMellow96]

I can't wait for someone to hack my PSN and sell all my games.

 

[Darkcloud1987]

That you are allowed to sell your digital purchased software doesn't mean that they have to give you a way to do so.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

the ruling also says you can't sell parts of a licence, if steam considers your account one big licence it means you could at best sell your account but not individual games.

you can gift steam games but i think you have to buy them as gifts

We're not really going to pretend that Steam can't detach a game from an account and attach it to another account, are we?

Digital distributors certainly can transfer a product key to another account. They don't want to but want and can't are separate things.

 

[mr_toa]

This could be huge. Goddamn.

This will be huge. This has massive impact on the future for digital distribution in the European Union. Next step will be to get publishers to remove the (now) unlawful limitations, which stops European citizens from using their court ruled rights.

OK, OK so I've gone into hyper ventilating over the ruling :-D

 

[fabricated backlash]

That you are allowed to sell your digital purchased software doesn't mean that they have to give you a way to do so.

True, but it would be in their best interest to do so. Especially when they can offer a compelling tool that would actually benefit buyer behaviour and future investments made on their service.

That is if DD providers actually want customer satisfaction as part of their CI.

the ruling also says you can't sell parts of a licence, if steam considers your account one big licence it means you could at best sell your account but not individual games.

you can gift steam games but i think you have to buy them as gifts

You could probably argue that the purchase of each download key is a new license in itself. Since Steam is required to run this license, you will probably be able to resell it within this service.

 

[HoosTrax]

Am I wrong for thinking this could cause prices to get jacked up (publishers raising prices to offset resale of "used" DD games) for those of us who are "collectors" and are uninterested in selling our games, whether they're physical or digital.

 

[patapuf]

We're not really going to pretend that Steam can't detach a game from an account and attach it to another account, are we?

Digital distributors certainly can transfer a product key to another account. They don't want to but want and can't are separate things.

If they don't have to, they (most likely) won't do it. Wheter they could is not the important part.

I'm not against the ruling, i'm just not sure if I want the changes it will bring. Gaming companies have proven very creative in finding ways to monetize games. I like the way it's right now on pc with steam, i'm not sure more DRM and other hurdles will be a good thing. After all these will be the things that allow for games (and other software as well as musik f.e.) to be sold in this way and the ruling explicitly points out that these are legit practices.

the article 2MF linked is a good write up about what we know for now.

 

[Cheesemeister]

The predictable industry response: "Sure you can sell your downloaded games, but you'll have to sell your whole account to someone in order to do so, money for credentials."

No new features that cost money to implement and test.
Make the resale process too much of a pain for anyone to bother with.

 

[Bleepey]

http://steamunpowered.eu/steam-soon-to-introduce-used-game-selling-and-new-refund-policy

YES! Finally Valve Software has decided that soon all Steam users will be able to sell or give away their own “used” games off their Steam accounts. Here is what Gabe Newell said:

“We are happy to announce that soon (May 1st) all Steam users who bought at least one game using Steam will be able to give away or resell their own Steam games to their friends. All of the funds gathered from their sales will either directly show on their credit card balance or Steam Wallet, so right now you don’t have to worry about buying a shitty game as you can simply sell it to someone else.” – Gabe Newell said.

Additionally Newell mentioned the new, improved refund policy:

“We really like how Google Play (former Android Market) handles refunds so we’re about to introduce a similar refund policy. You’ll have 12 hours to return any game whether you played it, liked it or hated it. Simple as that.”

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

Am I wrong for thinking this could cause prices to get jacked up (publishers raising prices to offset resale of "used" DD games) for those of us who are "collectors" and are uninterested in selling our games, whether they're physical or digital.

Why would it? Retail prices haven't risen because of used sales.

 

[Visualante2]

To all the people saying used product don't degrade. When you buy a physical product, the user has to typically fill out a form and register themselves with a warranty. In Europe this is 1-2 years, or for a "reasonable amount of time". The customer service does degrade on used licenses.

Once this is sold on the warranty is non transferrable. It is entirely feasible for a publisher to say: okay you can sell your game, but you're not going to have support or access to online services, unless you buy the pass.

 

[HoosTrax]

Why would it? Retail prices haven't risen because of used sales.

Used sales of console games you mean? Console games that cost more used than a PC game?

The margins for PC games are thinner due to the constant discounts. (Max Payne $50-$60 on PS360, $30 on PC). Add resale into the mix and those margins get even thinner.

 

[2MF]

That you are allowed to sell your digital purchased software doesn't mean that they have to give you a way to do so.

Maybe someone can help me parse this part of the ruling:

Where the copyright holder makes available to his customer a copy – tangible or intangible – and at the same time concludes, in return form payment of a fee, a licence agreement granting the customer the right to use that copy for an unlimited period, that rightholder sells the copy to the customer and thus exhausts his exclusive distribution right. Such a transaction involves a transfer of the right of ownership of the copy.

According to this wording, it seems to me that Steam sales are covered. And the last sentence says that I have "right of ownership" which means I must be allowed to resell my license (which implies that there must be a way to transfer it to someone else).

I'm not a lawyer but I think I have a reasonable interpretation here...

 

[mavs]

True, but it would be in their best interest to do so. Especially when they can offer a compelling tool that would actually benefit buyer behaviour and future investments made on their service.

That is if DD providers actually want customer satisfaction as part of their CI.

But of course that has nothing to do with this ruling. Valve has had many years to decide if this is in their best interest, and even if they think it is they also have to convince the people who actually make the games they sell on their service.

According to this wording, it seems to me that Steam sales are covered. And the last sentence says that I have "right of ownership" which means I must be allowed to resell my license (which implies that there must be a way to transfer it to someone else).

I'm not a lawyer but I think I have a reasonable interpretation here...

Yes, so if this ruling applies to Steam accounts then Valve can't go after you for selling your Steam account. The ruling does not say that Valve must provide a way to sell only the game you want to sell.

That's not to say the court won't come down on that side if a case involving Steam ever came before them. This ruling was unexpected itself. But that's just speculation, not something that can be found in this judgment.

 

[snap0212]

When you buy a physical product, the user has to typically fill out a form and register themselves with a warranty.

I never had to do this and I would never do that, and I know for a fact that the warranty exists without me signing anything ever.

 

[mr_toa]

I'm not a lawyer but I think I have a reasonable interpretation here...

At least to my mind, I think you're on the right page, which might even be further validated by the following paragraph:

Therefore the new acquirer of the user licence, such as a customer of UsedSoft, may, as a lawful acquirer of the corrected and updated copy of the computer program concerned, download that copy from the copyright holder's website

 

[BlazingDarkness]

I'd actually make a small fortune by selling impulse buys I grabbed on Steam but never played.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

Used sales of console games you mean? Console games that cost more used than a PC game?

The margins for PC games are thinner due to the constant discounts. (Max Payne $50-$60 on PS360, $30). Add resale into the mix and those margins get even thinner.

1) It was said that the extra $10 was for licensing.

2) PC games are now $60 too.

 

[HoosTrax]

2) PC games are now $60 too.

The prices drop more rapidly and the games are on sale a lot more frequently.

 

[patapuf]

The prices drop more rapidly and the games are on sale a lot more frequently.

it is also only true for AAA games from some of the publishers. overall there is a much bigger variety in price range for new titles on pc

 

[cyberheater]

I'd actually make a small fortune by selling impulse buys I grabbed on Steam but never played.

And thus a new industry is formed.

 

[HoosTrax]

it is also only true for AAA games from some of the publishers. overall there is a much bigger variety in price range for new titles on pc

Even for triple AAA titles. Like I said, Max Payne 3 PC is already $30, and Spec Ops: The Line PC is $25. Both new AAA releases.

 

[mavs]

At least to my mind, I think you're on the right page, which might even be further validated by the following paragraph:

That paragraph says that Oracle can't ban owners of resold licenses from downloading (updated) software from Oracle's website.

 

[Sylver]

But how can you do that ?

Selling your account.

 

[mr_toa]

That paragraph says that Oracle can't ban owners of resold licenses from downloading (updated) software from Oracle's website.

The ruling is based on general EU principles, and explains why/how these applies the present case of UsedSoft vs. Oracle (which originated in Germany).

 

[NullPointer]

Good. Digital property is still property and consumers need to have their rights protected.

I'll never understand the entitlement software publishers have for controlling and further profiting from their content after it has been sold.

 

[snap0212]

Has the RockPaperShotgun article been posted yet?

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/07/03/crikey-eu-rules-you-can-resell-downloaded-games/

Pretty good breakdown of what the judge actually says/means.

 

[Palette Swap]

I don't see how people see this as good news, unless you really hate the gaming industry and want to see them all put out of business

This is great news and won't put the industry out of business. Pay what you want, deep discounts, no DRM haven't put it out of business so far and won't.

Stupid business models, shitty project management, zero creativity and shitting on customers are what will put it out of business.