Support NeoGAF

[AHA-Lambda]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...valve-in-not-allowing-digital-content-resells

lock if old.

"The reasons for the decision have not yet been published, and VZBV may still have the right to appeal the judgment. Even so, the ruling touches on hot issues of European copyright law and may have ramifications for the games industry and the used games market across all EU jurisdictions."

I don't know how but this is somehow separate from this ruling?

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...nnot-stop-you-reselling-your-downloaded-games

 

[SwiftDeath]

Ugh not cool EU courts, not cool

 

[Tagyhag]

Totally sucks but completely unexpected, Valve made an ironclad Terms of Service.

Only way we would get anything changed will be if either they decide to allow reselling, or half the market decides to boycott until it's done. (Obviously not going to happen.)

 

[UnluckyKate]

This would have been GAME CHANGER but somehow this is unexpected. I wonder how Valved defended themselves

 

[bodyboarder]

I always thought the eu was very pro consumer.

 

[Thatoneguy64]

Good. The idea that a digital good could somehow ever be "used" is, and always has been, ridiculous.

 

[IncandescentPrecept]

I'm curious to know what's the reason for that.

Good. The idea that a digital good could somehow ever be "used" is, and always has been, ridiculous.

Aren't you contradicting yourself there?

 

[m00h]

This would have been GAME CHANGER but somehow this is unexpected. I wonder how Valved defended themselves

Half-Life 3 early access for all court members.

 

[benny_a]

It's over. The gig is up. We have lost.

I wonder how Valved defended themselves

Maybe they gave the judge an international press steam account.

 

[Thatoneguy64]

I'm curious to know what's the reason for that.

Aren't you contradicting yourself there?

In what way? I support Valve's winning this because the idea of "used" digital goods is ridiculous. Digital isn't physical.

 

[Skyblue]

As expected.

 

[Des0lar]

Half-Life 3 early access for all court members.

I would have done the same thing as the court

 

[terrisus]

Totally sucks but completely unexpected, Valve made an ironclad Terms of Service.

Yeah, there are plenty of fun things to be concerned about in their Terms of Service.
A whole host of reasons to not participate in their DRM platform.

But yet, here we are, and people continue to do so.

 

[Replicant]

It's kind of hard to regulate, I suppose. But still, this sucks. All the more reason why we should ensure that disc-based games do not go towards BS path like this.

 

[Grayman]

Yeah, there are plenty of fun things to be concerned about in their Terms of Service.
A whole host of reasons to not participate in their DRM platform.

But yet, here we are, and people continue to do so.

i have never seen a terms of service that was actually inviting to a transaction aside from the joke ones that are one sentence.

 

[terrisus]

i have never seen a terms of service that was actually inviting to a transaction aside from the joke ones that are one sentence.

Well, it's true that many terms of service are similar - it's just that, with the games requiring their DRM, they're completely in control of everything.

It's one thing for a game cartridge to say it's just a license, and that one can't trade, rent, or resell it, and that you don't actually own it.
It's something completely different for something to just be a couple of bits on their server, which they control completely and can take away at any time.

This is a good thing.

A ruling that "used" digital games could be resold would completely destroy the market. you'd get people just selling 1 copy around for pennies. It would have meant that publishers would completely abandon selling you full games and moved to subscription/microtransaction models only.

If you like being able to buy a complete game and own it, this is the ruling you wanted to see.

People can give away unlimited copies of GoG games completely for free if they wanted - there's nothing stopping them.

People still buy games on GoG.

 

[Falk]

Digital goods really should stop being perceived the same way as physical. You aren't buying the product. You're buying a license to use it.

Spoiler

That being said prices should reflect that.

 

[SkeptiMism]

This is a good thing.

A ruling that "used" digital games could be resold would completely destroy the market. you'd get people just selling 1 copy around for pennies. It would have meant that publishers would completely abandon selling you full games and moved to subscription/microtransaction models only.

If you like being able to buy a complete game and own it, this is the ruling you wanted to see.

Someone would still have to buy the game and your license to the game would be gone after selling it, so you could sell it only once. Thus the price wouldn't go down to so low.

 

[ShadyJ]

I don't really expect to be able to resell something i paid $5 for.

$10-15 is the highest ill spend on steam

 

[mrklaw]

Someone would still have to buy the game and your lice to the game would be gone after selling it, so you could sell it only once. Thus the price wouldn't go down to so low.

Exactly. The only differences between this and physical goods would be that you don't need to post/carry to a store to trade-in, and there is no degradation of quality - so no scratched discs etc. otherwise you are doing he same - giving up your ability to play that game and handing that ability to someone else.

 

[Vaporak]

In what way? I support Valve's winning this because the idea of "used" digital goods is ridiculous. Digital isn't physical.

Well for one there is no such thing as a physical video game, they have always been and for the foreseeable future will all be digital. So the distinction you are drawing where reselling is okay on one but not in the other exists only based on properties in your mind not on properties of reality.

 

[hamchan]

Reading the article, it seems this ruling was based on the selling and transferring of user accounts, which I am completely in favour of. Still, you can sell your account now and Valve would be none the wiser or unable to do anything about it.

 

[truestatic]

Someone would still have to buy the game and your lice to the game would be gone after selling it, so you could sell it only once. Thus the price wouldn't go down to so low.

I think he's suggesting sharing between friends. I finish with a game, I sell it to my buddy. He finishes it, he sells it back to me. Consumer set pricing resulting in negligible fees for an infinitely sharable library that can be passed between groups of friends immediately and without geographical restriction.

Interestingly enough, Steam and Xbox have and had plans, respectively, to do this sort of thing already.

Exactly. The only differences between this and physical goods would be that you don't need to post/carry to a store to trade-in, and there is no degradation of quality - so no scratched discs etc. otherwise you are doing he same - giving up your ability to play that game and handing that ability to someone else.

That's not a small difference.

 

[subversus]

good

 

[Zornack]

In what way? I support Valve's winning this because the idea of "used" digital goods is ridiculous. Digital isn't physical.

What does the concept of "used" have to do with this? The games will still be old which is a much more important factor when considering game prices than the durability and condition of whatever medium the game is stored on.

I think I should be able to sell the digital products I buy. It doesn't matter what condition they are in or if they're in the same condition as when I bought them, after I'm done with it I believe I should be able to sell it.

 

[Alienous]

What does the concept of "used" have to do with this? The games will still be old which is a much more important factor when considering game prices than the durability and condition of whatever medium the game is stored on.

I think I should be able to sell the digital products I buy. It doesn't matter what condition they are in or if they're in the same condition as when I bought them, after I'm done with it I believe I should be able to sell it.

There would be no reason for me to not buy a 'pre-ownded' title over 'new' one. I'd still be using the original sellers services for support (updates, patches etc.) at extra cost to them as they would have supported the previous owner also.

It just doesn't seem workable.

 

[Falk]

I'm sure glad I'm still able to sell apples after I've eaten them. No one will ever be able to take that away from me.

Or oranges. Let's include oranges too. It's been a while since we've had a good apples vs oranges debate.

 

[Jintor]

Wow, this should be interesting. EU was the holdouts against the American-style system. Can't wait to see the reasoning.

 

[DocSeuss]

Good. The idea that a digital good could somehow ever be "used" is, and always has been, ridiculous.

Being able to resell keys would allow JaseC and I to complete our Steam collections.

Spoiler

I NEED WOLFENSTEIN 2009 AND I CAN'T AFFORD THE $150 OR SO IT COSTS, MANG, NOT IF I WANT A ROOF OVER MY HEAD

 

[IncandescentPrecept]

In what way? I support Valve's winning this because the idea of "used" digital goods is ridiculous. Digital isn't physical.

This has nothing to do with "used". It has to do with us not owning the games. You're just renting the game with a one-off fee basically.

 

[Atomski]

I just feel like this would hurt the PC gaming industry to much. Specially indie titles.. people would just trade them around and we would see less games from those developers as result.

I think the way things are is totally reasonable. We have great deals and such as it is..

This has nothing to do with "used". It has to do with us not owning the games. You're just renting the game with a one-off fee basically.

This is redonk.. what steam games have been taken away from people as if they were rentals?

The whole licensed to use thing also goes for physical games. You do not own whats on that disk. If you try and take anything off that disk you are breaking that license.

 

[SkeptiMism]

I'm sure glad I'm still able to sell apples after I've eaten them. No one will ever be able to take that away from me.

Or oranges. Let's include oranges too. It's been a while since we've had a good apples vs oranges debate.

That's just a stupid and completely false analogy. You can't compare physical and digital things that you don't consume to things that you consume. That would be like comparing clothes to apples.

I just feel like this would hurt the PC gaming industry to much. Specially indie titles.. people would just trade them around and we would see less games from those developers as result.

I think the way things are is totally reasonable. We have great deals and such as it is..

There could be boundaries set so you could for example resell and/or rebuy only once.

In a best case scenario it could potentially even get people to buy more because you're able to resell.

 

[Dascu]

Let's see if they try to appeal to the EU Court of Justice. Those might be more willing to allow digital resale than Berlin. It's gonna depend on how much the UsedSoft case applies to goods other than software (FYI, latest EU CoJ ruling considers games audiovisual instead of purely software).


Edit: Reading the background on Osborne Clarke's site: Yeah, that's the problem. UsedSoft so far is interpreted as only for software. Video games, since the Nintendo ruling last week, are not (purely) software. But there is, AFAIK, no EU ruling yet that says UsedSoft's concept is only for software. There may be room for digital exhaustion in audiovisual goods and there's no immediate reason, IMO, that the EU CoJ would think otherwise.

 

[_hekk05]

I'm sure glad I'm still able to sell apples after I've eaten them. No one will ever be able to take that away from me.

Or oranges. Let's include oranges too. It's been a while since we've had a good apples vs oranges debate.

If your apple or orange had infinite flesh then sure.

The point is, if we could essentially resell digital goods, the market itself would simply collapse. Most people buy digital (on steam anyway) due to the cheap pricing, the convenience of having all your games in one place, because they're lazy to go to the store etc. I would wager the cheap prices is what won many over.

Now imagine if you have people selling games they have completed below russian trader prices.

It would cause the market to proceed to a subscription-based model, kind of like how microsoft office is now (fuck that).

This has nothing to do with "used". It has to do with us not owning the games. You're just renting the game with a one-off fee basically.

Rent would imply we pay regular fees to keep playing the game (ala PS+). We paid a one-off fee for the game's executable files, period. Valve promised that if they ever shut down, they would find ways to get all their games drm free so everyone can retain them. Whether you believe them on that is up to you.

 

[cw_sasuke]

Well why would they go against Valve when they dont punish every other store that sells digital content (books,music,videos, games etc.) ?

 

[Falk]

That's just a stupid and completely false analogy. You can't compare physical and digital things that you don't consume to things that you consume. That would be like comparing clothes to apples.

I think you missed the joke

 

[jblank83]

Good.

I'm always for consumer rights but you're asking companies to gut themselves, because this can and would be abused to hell and back again. You can want cheap games all day, but developers have to feed their families and pay their bills. Responsibility goes both ways, not just on the company's part but also on the users.

 

[SkeptiMism]

I think you missed the joke

I'm honestly not so sure about that.

 

[_hekk05]

I think you missed the joke

In our defense it was a terrible joke.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Good. The idea that a digital good could somehow ever be "used" is, and always has been, ridiculous.

No, it is not. You should be able to own what you buy and resell it too if you so wish.

 

[hamchan]

If this individual game reselling actually occurs some day, it would definitely cause the death of the current business model and force developers and publishers to make F2P or subscription based games.

 

[IncandescentPrecept]

This is redonk.. what steam games have been taken away from people as if they were rentals?

The whole licensed to use thing also goes for physical games. You do not own whats on that disk. If you try and take anything off that disk you are breaking that license.

I can still re-sell my disk. I cannot do that with a digital game.

Rent would imply we pay regular fees to keep playing the game (ala PS+). We paid a one-off fee for the game's executable files, period. Valve promised that if they ever shut down, they would find ways to get all their games drm free so everyone can retain them. Whether you believe them on that is up to you.

Which is why I said a one-off fee rent. I can't resell the game? Then I don't own it.

 

[Forceatowulf]

Digital future my fat cock. Physical all de time, baby.

 

[kudoboi]

this is a good thing. it would really cause the PC market to crash. PC games are cheap enough as it is ( most indies dropping below $3 and most AAA titles dropping below $10 within 6 months). with the implementation of used digital games, either the market will crash into F2P/ microtrans games or there will be very few sales.

 

[_hekk05]

I can still re-sell my disk. I cannot do that with a digital game.

Which is why I said a one-off fee rent. I can't resell the game? Then I don't own it.

I think its more like a lease. You pay the amount and the game goes to you, until valve goes bankrupt. You can't sell the game though. Anybody got a nicer term for it?

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

Rent would imply we pay regular fees to keep playing the game (ala PS+). We paid a one-off fee for the game's executable files, period. Valve promised that if they ever shut down, they would find ways to get all their games drm free so everyone can retain them. Whether you believe them on that is up to you.

I don't trust them. If Valve go under, there's absolutely no way that they would be in any sort of situation to do that. Not to mention, for all their terms and conditions, they don't include that in it, that's just a nice little PR thing, but is ultimately meaningless.

 

[Dascu]

For those of you who say that digital resale would cause the market, especially for smaller, DRM-free singleplayer indies, to completely collapse: Why hasn't it collapsed yet due to piracy?

I think its more like a lease. You pay the amount and the game goes to you, until valve goes bankrupt. You can't sell the game though. Anybody got a nicer term for it?

Lump sum license.

 

[Alienous]

No, it is not. You should be able to own what you buy and resell it too if you so wish.

If the onus is then on you to secure the download files in the event the person you sold the game to wants to re-download the game, as well as storing patches and hosting them on a server so your customer can download them, I'm ok with your idea.

But the idea of consumers piggybacking off of expensive digital services at no cost is ridiculous.

 

[Gxgear]

Hopefully we can lay this to rest for the last time. Even if somehow reselling digital rights was allowed, Valve was never going to develop the framework within Steam to allow such a thing to happen anyways. If even multi-billion dollar corporations couldn't even protect their digital rights by printing them on disks then what chances do we have.

 

[FeiRR]

Spoiler

I NEED WOLFENSTEIN 2009 AND I CAN'T AFFORD THE $150 OR SO IT COSTS, MANG, NOT IF I WANT A ROOF OVER MY HEAD

What? A new retail copy of that game is aroud $3 here.