-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
German court favours Valve in not allowing digital reselling
- Thread starter AHA-Lambda
- Start date
LoveCake
Member
The thing is though, that by buying a digital version of a game is that you don't own the game all you have is a license to play the game & that license can be revoked at anytime.
With the proliferation of day one DLC & micro transactions in games anyway, buying a full game at release is already a thing of the past.
IncandescentPrecept
Banned
I'm just comparing to the closest thing it resembles.
Well, you do not even own the licence since you cannot transfer it.
Life-time lease?
Sir Blaming
Member
allowed used digital steam game =/= crazy steam sales.that's what I think
Aren't BluRays scratch-proof?
So you would want that 100% scratch-proof discs can not be resold anymore?
What about DS games? Those can get damaged somewhat, but a scratch won't do a thing to the data.
Anyway, nice. This makes me not want to go digital ... ever.
Microsoft's PlaysForSure disagrees. Yes, that was music, which means way less data. In retrospect, yes people literally rented music on that service.
Visualante2
Member
Won't somebody please think of the corporations?
Title is littlebit missleading apparently for some people. This is not EU ruling, its ruling of lower German court in europe. They will probaly just complain it to EU-court now, depending on what the actual ruling will be
Earlier case was about right to sell software you had bought and installed updates on. It does not affect valve or other gamecompanies mostly because it does not say they have to make it possible for you to sell the game, the ruling says you can sell software with its updates, if you remove it from your self. It probaly makes it legal to sell youre steam account, as theres no other way given to sell the software, that removes it from you.
Youre national courts in europe can take sides in cases that are "against the law", you can complain to Eu-court and get a ruling, like in the previous case. Some countries courts rule against Laws on purpose, for example Finland has been in EU Courts for wrongful taxation of used car importing from within EU for 13 years. Now the cases finally seem to be at end and Finland has to pay the damages.
Only real way to quarantee right for software ownership in EU is not to rely on EU-courts is to get EU-comission to set new Directive that makes the case in law clearer so its harder to go agains the earlier rulings, or to get these rights included in some EU-Agreement.
Earlier case was about right to sell software you had bought and installed updates on. It does not affect valve or other gamecompanies mostly because it does not say they have to make it possible for you to sell the game, the ruling says you can sell software with its updates, if you remove it from your self. It probaly makes it legal to sell youre steam account, as theres no other way given to sell the software, that removes it from you.
Youre national courts in europe can take sides in cases that are "against the law", you can complain to Eu-court and get a ruling, like in the previous case. Some countries courts rule against Laws on purpose, for example Finland has been in EU Courts for wrongful taxation of used car importing from within EU for 13 years. Now the cases finally seem to be at end and Finland has to pay the damages.
Only real way to quarantee right for software ownership in EU is not to rely on EU-courts is to get EU-comission to set new Directive that makes the case in law clearer so its harder to go agains the earlier rulings, or to get these rights included in some EU-Agreement.
I sent an e-mail to Bethesda almost a month ago regarding the possibility of Quake Wars and Wolf09 returning to Steam or, alternatively, owners of retail copies being able to request Steam keys. Unsurprisingly, I never heard back.
It's not really the degradation of goods that causes the distinction between physical and digital. Even second-hand books are pretty good quality. And it's not a legal requirement, I could buy a book, then go stand next to the entrance and sell it at a cheaper price to without having even opened it. If deemed necessary, games could incorporate something similar to degradation: No achievements or pre-order DLC content for a resale. Some form of value degradation already happens, as with any entertainment and its effect is a dozen times stronger with games: The game becomes outdated, graphics are less good than what's currently around, multiplayer scene becomes more empty, discussion and hype dies down, etc. You can already see this value degradation in Steam sales. It doesn't matter if the actual physical or digital good has been "scratched" or not.
But as I said, this value degradation is not the core issue. The big problem is distribution. Contrary to physical goods, it's super-duper easy to trade digital files online, internationally even, at zero to none transaction costs (finding a second hand copy, contacting other person, shipping costs, etc.). These costs are what slow down and prevent a physical second-hand goods market to crash a first-hand market. This is what is worrying game publishers.
IMO: I don't think allowing digital exhaustion would crash the market though. I think there's plenty of reasons to still buy a game new. Hype, online, supporting developers, sense of ownership, etc. Movie rentals didn't destroy the home video/DVD market, neither did libraries destroy the book market, neither did radio destroy CD sales, neither did piracy destroy game sales. Developers will find a way to stay alive, whether this means more crowdfunding for smaller devs, subscription models for big devs and social incentives overall.
But as I said, this value degradation is not the core issue. The big problem is distribution. Contrary to physical goods, it's super-duper easy to trade digital files online, internationally even, at zero to none transaction costs (finding a second hand copy, contacting other person, shipping costs, etc.). These costs are what slow down and prevent a physical second-hand goods market to crash a first-hand market. This is what is worrying game publishers.
IMO: I don't think allowing digital exhaustion would crash the market though. I think there's plenty of reasons to still buy a game new. Hype, online, supporting developers, sense of ownership, etc. Movie rentals didn't destroy the home video/DVD market, neither did libraries destroy the book market, neither did radio destroy CD sales, neither did piracy destroy game sales. Developers will find a way to stay alive, whether this means more crowdfunding for smaller devs, subscription models for big devs and social incentives overall.
I'm on it.
D
Deleted member 125677
Unconfirmed Member
That sucks. I would like to be able to at least give games I don't want away. And how will my sons be able to inherit my video game library WHEN I'M GONE?
^Yep.
Sucks. Waiting for the explanation and what kind of vote it was.
I can buy a game and never get it out of the package before I resell it. No scratches either.
Sucks. Waiting for the explanation and what kind of vote it was.
I can buy a game and never get it out of the package before I resell it. No scratches either.
Bright-Light
Member
Would that really be the case?
I might be missing something so forgive me if I'm being stupid, but don't consoles currently allow what you describe?
So wouldn't it just mean that rather than changing the business model, it would just mean that steam games would be priced similar to console games.
Reselling played games is one thing and I can understand the reasoning behind treating digital goods in a different manner to physical. I would preferably see laws for restricted (in some ways that would have to be well thought out) reselling to be drawn up rather than staying in this current area of buy-once-return-never, at the very least with an industry wide return within thirty days if the game wasn't played.
For me though, reselling itself is not the most important things for courts to hammer out for digital retail: The rights of actual ownership is. Where is legislation enforcing that bought products stay usable even in the case of a user account being terminated, as seen with EA and Origin? Rights safeguarding your ability to move, backup, view and install this content in any manner that you please (i.e. getting rid of DRM), protecting you against service providers closing down? Strict enforcement of products being available for download by the initial provider for some amount of time (in my opinion meaning more than a decade) from date of purchase?
I don't think this talk of purchasing a license that can be terminated at will by the seller is in any way defensible since it currently mirrors a traditional purchase in almost every way. Not that any store ever even attempts to make that clear, I've only ever seen "Buy" and not "Purchase license" on a store front, but even it that was made more clear I don't think it is fair to the consumers.
To get back to the issue of reselling, hammering out the legality of that in court is one part of a bigger process, but in the end I hope this leads to a satisfying legal framework for digital content. In that sense it's a bit, but not too, disappointing to see a lower court pick the side against consumers.
For me though, reselling itself is not the most important things for courts to hammer out for digital retail: The rights of actual ownership is. Where is legislation enforcing that bought products stay usable even in the case of a user account being terminated, as seen with EA and Origin? Rights safeguarding your ability to move, backup, view and install this content in any manner that you please (i.e. getting rid of DRM), protecting you against service providers closing down? Strict enforcement of products being available for download by the initial provider for some amount of time (in my opinion meaning more than a decade) from date of purchase?
I don't think this talk of purchasing a license that can be terminated at will by the seller is in any way defensible since it currently mirrors a traditional purchase in almost every way. Not that any store ever even attempts to make that clear, I've only ever seen "Buy" and not "Purchase license" on a store front, but even it that was made more clear I don't think it is fair to the consumers.
To get back to the issue of reselling, hammering out the legality of that in court is one part of a bigger process, but in the end I hope this leads to a satisfying legal framework for digital content. In that sense it's a bit, but not too, disappointing to see a lower court pick the side against consumers.
Captain Smoker
Member
I don't see the point in reselling "used" digital data (actually, I think it's quite stupid), so I'm ok with this.
I think I missed something. Wasn't valve preparing to launch game resale via steam?
Either way that's too bad. Valve and editors could certainly have made profit out of this. ( by taking margins on resales )
Also the physical part of a game on DVD is irrelevant, nobody care about the actual disc. So actually, digital is just like retail in this field, imo.
Either way that's too bad. Valve and editors could certainly have made profit out of this. ( by taking margins on resales )
Also the physical part of a game on DVD is irrelevant, nobody care about the actual disc. So actually, digital is just like retail in this field, imo.
Same goes for discs.
SneakyStephan
Banned
Did not expect that at all , how depressing
How did this even happen, how did they get away with waving consumer rights on digital goods in the EU
I always assumed this would be fixed eventually...
How did this even happen, how did they get away with waving consumer rights on digital goods in the EU
I always assumed this would be fixed eventually...
Steam's low prices rely on 1 sale being 1 copy assigned to 1 person.
Enabling the resale of Steam games is not a good thing for any of the parties involved in the long run.
Their Family Sharing plan is basically laying out the groundwork for it, yeah.
Your "rights" in this instance would fundamentally undermine the business model that has made Steam so lucrative for everyone involved, including the gamer. When you buy a game on Steam, you are buying a steam key. That steam key is essentially a license and not an actual, physical thing. It says that you own the game indefinitely so long as Steam is around. In the event Steam goes away, Valve has said they will unshackle the games.
You accept this in exchange for the lowest and most flexible pricing of any platform. Devs accept this because it provides a reliable revenue stream that can be easily tweaked and fiddled with. If I push 1 million copies into traditional retail channels, I have no idea how much revenue I can get in the future or how much I may even end up making a month from now. If I push 1 million steam keys, I've made 1 million times whatever that game has been selling for.
Reselling Steam games should never, ever be a thing. Refunds within a reasonable period should be, and Valve is sort of getting there.
I don't get why so many people are so keen to kill the PC golden goose. Just look at the shit console gamers have to put up with and the prices they pay. Do you really want to head back towards that?
If you buy Borderlands 2 on Steam, you don't own a physical copy of Borderlands 2. You own a license to play Borderlands 2 on Steam. It's pretty simple. Traditional ownership rights do not apply, and should not apply. The 'end of life' for these systems is a trickier question.
PairOfFilthySocks
Member
The digital distribution future gets shittier by the day.
Isn't this only related to the resale of user accounts, and not of games themselves, though?
Isn't this only related to the resale of user accounts, and not of games themselves, though?
It really makes no odds if it undermines their business mate. At the end of the day, Valve is a huge company, loaded with cash and resources. We should be going for anything that gives us more rights on the goods we purchase from that company.
Valve can easily afford to take that financial hit. The consumer can not.
This also sets a future precedent. Next time EA or Microsoft try something daft when it comes to pre-owned or digital purchases, they can cite this case and shrug their shoulders.
Valve can easily afford to take that financial hit. The consumer can not.
This also sets a future precedent. Next time EA or Microsoft try something daft when it comes to pre-owned or digital purchases, they can cite this case and shrug their shoulders.
Problem is same applies if I buy a boxed version of a Steamworks game. The problem is that you don't own the game or license on steam you're allowed to use it and they can cut you off at any time, which is problematic (this was in wording already in place for all licenses but for non Online only games not really enforceable without a DRM client. Also you didn't buy a CD on boxed games it's just the delivery method you bought the License as you do now......
It's probably also ok that they cut access to the library if you disagree with a TOS upgrade.... Honestly Steam has some ugly shit in their TOS for which every other company would get screamed at (i.e. EA with Origin).
Valve isn't going to take the hit. Gamers will. Prices and sales will be adjusted to accommodate the fact that the market is now flooded with 'used' copies that can be bought instantaneously for less than whatever the going rate is in the Steam store. The idealistic "well, because we deserve rights" sounds nice, but it has no relevance to a discussion about how digital economies actually work.
You don't magically pull a giant lever and reintroduce used games without serious repercussions. Someday in the future you might be able to buy a platform agnostic key that you can redeem on any number of clients and possibly resell, but for now you're just stuck with cheap Steam prices.
Steam is a bargain with the consumer rights devil. You give up some things to get others in exchange. One of those things is low prices and aggressive sales. Those go away in a market that has 'used' games constantly undercutting the developer.
AstuteClass
Banned
How would digital resale even work? I just can't wrap my head around it.
Wouldn't the digital marketplace be swamped with people listing the game for much cheaper price than the actual company is selling it, meaning the company wouldn't sell any more?
Would there be a delay before you'd be allowed to sell it?
Or would you only be allowed so many re-sell slots per year?
Just how would it work?
Wouldn't the digital marketplace be swamped with people listing the game for much cheaper price than the actual company is selling it, meaning the company wouldn't sell any more?
Would there be a delay before you'd be allowed to sell it?
Or would you only be allowed so many re-sell slots per year?
Just how would it work?
ExFalsoQuodlibet
Member
Completely agree. One could consider the fact that reselling a digital license is not much different from reselling a physical object: in both cases you don't have access to what you sold anymore.
But having the rights to resell something that doesn't expire and degrade, and something that is distributed instantaneously to anyone, will probably destroy the business model pursued by digital platforms, because after a initial purchase the same license could be sold indefinitely for a low price, virtually the lowest price possible.
I could trade the right to resell a digital license with the existence of that digital license in the first place at any time. Refunds, though, are a different matter, and Valve is allegedly getting there.
Not the issue at hand.
ZombiePlatypus
Member
Welp, this has always been the end game for the digital-push. Getting rid of the idea of consumers actually owning anything. This is why I'll never buy a Microsoft gaming console after their Xbone fiasco, why I don't care for Steam at all, and why I'll always, always opt for physical games.
Your entire argument is essentially: individual good, corporation bad. It's a wonderful millennial theory that doesn't work in the real world.
Anyways, I'm in agreement with the posters above that the reselling of 'used' digital games would undermine the entire market and should not be implemented.
I'm fine with this. I imagine developers would really think twice about making games for the PC if people could buy used digital keys. It would be way too easy. People already buy games for dirt cheap on the PC and used prices would plummet even more and developers would see nothing of it anymore. And unlike physical, there's no downside to buying a used digital product. No worry about wear and tear or packaging or 'mint condition' or anything of the sort. It would just be *the* way to buy a game.
I think it would ruin the PC gaming industry. Console gaming, well, lets just say the push to digital on those is being hindered by their lack of pricing competition more than anything.
I think it would ruin the PC gaming industry. Console gaming, well, lets just say the push to digital on those is being hindered by their lack of pricing competition more than anything.
So somewhat like Gamespot, ebay, etc. for physical games?
Using that argument you could even push for 100% streaming-only Maybe including facial recognition, so that noone else but the buyer is able to play "their" games. Think about people playing games at a friend's house w/o paying for it. They don't even allow you to sell your own account, even if it's 10 years old and you got 1000 games on it. What happens when you die at some point? Can't sell it, so I guess they would simply delete "your property".
This sentence makes no sense. You either own it indefinitely. Or you "own" it as long as Steam is around. In reality it's the latter (except for Valve's games I guess - assuming that they would do what they promised, legally they wouldn't have to do anything at all).
You actually own games bought from GoG, because there is no DRM. You can do whatever you like, even make a few copies and give them to friends (latter is illegal of course, but it's possible). And strangely they still sell games and haven't gone out of business. Weird, isn't it?
They said that they would unshackle their own games. They simply can't "unshackle" all games.
Yea, it completely ignores how we, as consumers, actually do need businesses to do well if we want to have any product/service to buy in the first place. There has to be compromises.
It ain't just about the prices man. I do take issue with ompanies (Valve are amongst the worst.) giving the image of how pro-customer they are, and desecrating your rights to the things you own in the background. This court case suggests that their opinion on pro-customerism is fine until it might hurt their financial year.
New games on consoles are expensive yeah, but you can find copies of Assassins Creed or whatever for literally half price a month after release if you buy them second hand.
Anyway dude, we're more than allowed to disagree with each other - it won't set the planet on fire.
My argument is not that at all. My argument is more "Corporation is loaded and can take a hit" and "Individual doesn't have much in comparison".
AstuteClass
Banned
Well of course is it. If there's no viable way for a vendor to implement it to stop people from just undercutting them at every turn, and in a more directly comparative fashion because the prices would be listed right then and there for all to see, then how can a court go along with it when a vendor could simply fold through lack of sales?
These are issues that would need to be worked out, yes. I'm confident that it's very possible to do so. Having a delay such as you mention of say 3-6 months would probably cool the second hand market quite a bit but there are surely many other options, or combinations thereof, available.
I am glad that some people understand what is going on.
Yea, Valve could survive in some form.
But think less about the vendors and think about the developers and publishers. Are they really going to want to make a game for the PC when they know how nobody is going to want to buy a 'new' game anymore? There is no downside to buying a used digital product.
SanguineShark
Member
Well said. I firmly believe many people are not looking at the big picture and simply spouting off consumer rights at every turn. Steam is the way it is partly because of the fact reselling is non existent, the current ecosystem supports it. Steam as we know it would be but a shell of it's current self if this went through..
Once again, DVD are the same. You own nothing, they license you a product.
The medium of distribution ( steam or a disc ) is irrelevant in this debate.
I'm actually really surprised so few people know this. It is written in capital letters in every movie or game you buy. You can go check right now if you want.
You already own nothing. And it is already a copyright infringement to resale your DVD/games. It's even illegal to show your DVD to your friends...
The only difference with digital? The latter is easily controlled, and there is no infrastructure for resale.
You could also argue "Are they really going to want to make a game for the PC when they know most people are going to pirate it anyway?". (Which is a sad truth in itself). I'm sure a system can be worked out which does give the devs a cut from all pre owned sales.
SneakyStephan
Banned
'ownign a license' is just creative wording to get around ownership laws to begin with...
it's also never advertised that you only rent the game
if developers are forced to say 'rent our game now for 60 euros and then rent the dlc for 4x 15 euros' they wouldn't sell shit
people buy games assuming ownership
and defending this saying 'it's what makes steam so much money'
how is that even an argument? what should the consumer/average member of society care how much money valve make?
Because they enjoy PC gaming and don't want it to die?
Many people quite like Steam and don't want it to go anywhere.
And what about PC game developers? Do you care if they make money?