So the EU just ruled that it's legal to re-sell digital versions of games.

[Tony Schonewald]

Not really that happy about this news tbh. Surely this will put even less money back in the hands of the devs who actualy made the game. I mean even when online services do sales on games and sell them for a stupidly low cost some of that money should alteast find its way back to the dev (if its a current game). I tend to buy nearly all of my games through online services such as GOG and steam. Mostly because I wait till there is a special offer on a sale of some kind.

If it ment that people could sell games they have purchased to others once they have finished with it, and at any price they wanted why would these online services put on sales? Folk could just buy up a copy then wait till the price went back up and then sell it on once the price went back up.

And what would happen to preorder discounts. If I preorder a game and say I save £10, I could just hold on to the preorder and then as soon as the price goes back up just sell it on at £5 the discounted cost.

Game devs get screwed over to much in the current state of the business. But I can only see this turning into a bad thing. As much as Im not a fan of certain business practices by the game publishers. I think this has gone to far.

Also theres another point on a video by TB, where he stated where the new download would come from? Say someone sold a game from steam, does it get re downloaded of Steams servers, in which case thats a bit of a dick move using their servers without paying.

My argument was alot better in my head, but atleast you see my point....I hope.

 

[Veldt Falsetto]

How do you trade in and re-sell used games? You trade in your digital copy for a price and they...re-sell that exact copy? Ehhhh, it just sounds weird to me

 

[Spitfire]

If it ment that people could sell games they have purchased to others once they have finished with it, and at any price they wanted why would these online services put on sales? Folk could just buy up a copy then wait till the price went back up and then sell it on once the price went back up.

Say someone sold a game from steam, does it get re downloaded of Steams servers, in which case thats a bit of a dick move using their servers without paying.

Do you really think that Steam, or any digital distributor, would simply allow you to trade the games that you own, without making a profit off of it? No way.
I fully expect that any digital distributor who will feature that sort of trading service, will tax you for using it, and the price will probably vary depending on the game that you're looking to trade.

 

[TrevHead]

While i'm all for customer rights, opening DD to used sales if unchecked could open a feeding frenzy with the developer losing out. A large reason we have all those great indie games on PC is down to steam, steam sales and no used sales

We arn't in in the 1980s anymore where ppl gave bootlegs to friends with little impact in the bigger picture. We live in a time of rampant globalisation where whoever can undercut the competition usually wins bigtime. More so with the internet where everything is just 1s and 0s there's no way the the original dev can compete on a level playing field and in the end it's the customer who loses out because the games they want just don't get made.

Take a look at anime (and manga) which unlike music are expensive to make. It's gone from been a highly creative medium in the early 00s to just aload of pervy fan service crap with tired old tropes to please the otaku demographic who buy merchandise.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Meh. This can be bypassed when games turn into services, and no license is sold.
Just a contract to use their systems like a subscription.

Not trying to be a spoilsport here, but if I were a Publisher with a control-freak agenda (like most are), this is the sort of ruling that would make me spit my coffee all over my monitor, make me grab my phone, and dial R&D telling them to double-time the development of a Cloud-Game service.

More immediately: This is a nightmare scenario for the Publishers, but perhaps it's one that will ultimately end for the better. If there are next-gen consoles in the works (besides Wii U, which is much closer to current console gen in terms of tech) then they just received a warning.
(there have been numerous rumors that the PS4 at least would be digital-only for the sake of market control)
Better to get this sort of ruling out of the way now before the next gen hits the markets.

 

[veloper]

Your WTF moment prolly came from the comparisons I draw from a DRM-free transfer to the transfer of a license with DRM strings attached.

Nah, it was more about you saying that the only reason to buy new was to support the developers. And while I can see that it is the strongest argument (morally speaking) it isn't the only one, in my view.

But we are already through that discussion and I see no point in dredging it up again.

So I already decided for myself that buying the game from the first bloke, without any strings attached, was a bad idea.
Would I then purchase the same game from a Steam owner instead? Let's assume for now the same price is asked.
I get a digital transfer of the data in both cases, but now I get DRM (not the worst DRM, but still DRM) that I didn't ask for and the previous owner cannot play the game anymore, unless he or she simply downloads an illegal copy afterwards.
About the last detail I can be short: I do not care whether stranger X is still playing the game on his computer either way; not my business and something I'll never know.

Are you arguing this in response to my suggestion of how I would set up a used-game-resell in a client-driven DD?

I do know, that aside from a little inconvenience of making the transfers, the seller still loses nothing of value.

Are you referring to the license here?

I'm arguning in response to both. I don't think that a license, with or without heavy DRM, makes the software more valuable to the consumer.

The only real difference between the first sale and the second sale remaining: more DRM on my side, to limit what I can do with the software.
Conclusion: if I do not accept the first offer then I should not accept the second offer either.

I think whatever the case is, digital game reselling needs to be managed by a third-party. But that is true of most online shopping.

How much managing do you want this company to do?
The bigger the cut they'll take the less interesting the whole proposition becomes.
What are you envisioning exactly?

 

[Hjalmar Fryklund]

I'm arguning in response to both. I don't think that a license, with or without heavy DRM, makes the software more valuable to the consumer.

Functionally, the license has value, but that value depends also on the beholder. You mentioned earlier you have experince in fixing other people´s computer problems; to me that indicates that you a tech-savvy person. For you the license might not matter much if you have the game files, you could possibly crack 'em open with not much effort (and if cracking isn't your thing, all it would take is following a tutorial of some kind)

I am not saying you are doing these things, of course.

A hypothetical person who has little to no experience in computer tech wouldn't be capable of doing much even with a tutorial (including step-by-step ones), and would find the license more valuable because of this.

Obviously this comparison only works if both are going by priorities 1) Crack game 2) Buy if 1 is impossible/too hard, but I am using this to illustrate how functional value is perceived differently by different people.

Again, I am not accusing you of cracking or the like.

How much managing do you want this company to do?
The bigger the cut they'll take the less interesting the whole proposition becomes.
What are you envisioning exactly?

In rough overview:

- Any user who wishes to be rid of a game they have will advertise their offer on a subsection of the online store.

- When a user finds another user to sell a game license to, the company would require both to sign a digital document that specifies payment, type of game license, buyer and seller, and game in question. This document would be legally binding.

- Payment would take place before transfer. The bank card information will be sent to the company in order for it to handle and oversee the transfer. When the buyer sends the payment through the company, the company will hold on to it until the seller transfers the license. If the seller fails to send the game in three days or more after pay, the payment will be sent back to the buyer.

- They would handle any transfers of game licenses between users in order to prevent users trying to withhold a license after purchase.

- Rather than directly transfer a license from user to user, the company would first transfer the license to themselves and then to the new user. This is to ensure that the license ends up with the intended person.

 

[veloper]

I'm arguning in response to both. I don't think that a license, with or without heavy DRM, makes the software more valuable to the consumer.

Functionally, the license has value, but that value depends also on the beholder. You mentioned earlier you have experince in fixing other people´s computer problems; to me that indicates that you a tech-savvy person. For you the license might not matter much if you have the game files, you could possibly crack 'em open with not much effort (and if cracking isn't your thing, all it would take is following a tutorial of some kind)

I am not saying you are doing these things, of course.

A hypothetical person who has little to no experience in computer tech wouldn't be capable of doing much even with a tutorial (including step-by-step ones), and would find the license more valuable because of this.

Obviously this comparison only works if both are going by priorities 1) Crack game 2) Buy if 1 is impossible/too hard, but I am using this to illustrate how functional value is perceived differently by different people.

Again, I am not accusing you of cracking or the like.

It's okay. Yes, I'm looking at it from the perspective of what I can do.

How much managing do you want this company to do?
The bigger the cut they'll take the less interesting the whole proposition becomes.
What are you envisioning exactly?

In rough overview:

- Any user who wishes to be rid of a game they have will advertise their offer on a subsection of the online store.

- When a user finds another user to sell a game license to, the company would require both to sign a digital document that specifies payment, type of game license, buyer and seller, and game in question. This document would be legally binding.

- Payment would take place before transfer. The bank card information will be sent to the company in order for it to handle and oversee the transfer. When the buyer sends the payment through the company, the company will hold on to it until the seller transfers the license. If the seller fails to send the game in three days or more after pay, the payment will be sent back to the buyer.

- They would handle any transfers of game licenses between users in order to prevent users trying to withhold a license after purchase.

- Rather than directly transfer a license from user to user, the company would first transfer the license to themselves and then to the new user. This is to ensure that the license ends up with the intended person.

So with a closed sevice like Steam or Origin, basicly users will be selling back through the shop. The company will know what's going on. I reckon EA and even Valve, will assume customers won't keep their games and would rather take it one logical step further: games sold as rentals for a limited time.

 

[Hjalmar Fryklund]

So with a closed sevice like Steam or Origin, basicly users will be selling back through the shop. The company will know what's going on. I reckon EA and even Valve, will assume customers won't keep their games and would rather take it one logical step further: games sold as rentals for a limited time.

Actually, I stated this a few pages back:

My money is on they will put a timer on your sale with unlimited free renewal effectively making it a lease and circumventing the entire thing by removing the question of "is it a product or a service". In the end we are slightly worse off because what we didn't need before because we didn't make use of has to be enforced by DRM to legally cover their asses.

That sounds like a reasonable bet to me. It would circumvent the exhaustion doctrine by making it a service, making you unable to resell.

...

Those leases you mention could very well mean another price hike too.

Thing is, if the idea that Draech that suggested (that you will be effectively renting a game for certain time that can be extended ad infinitum) becomes a reality, then it means that any DD that uses such a business model will be firmly planted in the camp of service provider. On the good and the bad.

Which isn't to say a DD like Valve wouldn't try to muddy the waters in spite of that, of course.

Note: If you follow these quotes their original sources, you will find other statements that I am not sure I would stand by if brought up now.

To be honest with you though, I am starting to lose track of what of I am arguing for. So maybe it is time to end our discussion here?

CAPTCHA: fairy tale

Yes, captcha, a digital used game market will probably remain that.

Frankly, this ruling might in the long run be a boon for physical games and stores (which in a way, would be great news for me). But then again it´s hard to predict markets and the like.

 

[veloper]

So with a closed sevice like Steam or Origin, basicly users will be selling back through the shop. The company will know what's going on. I reckon EA and even Valve, will assume customers won't keep their games and would rather take it one logical step further: games sold as rentals for a limited time.

Actually, I stated this a few pages back:

My money is on they will put a timer on your sale with unlimited free renewal effectively making it a lease and circumventing the entire thing by removing the question of "is it a product or a service". In the end we are slightly worse off because what we didn't need before because we didn't make use of has to be enforced by DRM to legally cover their asses.

That sounds like a reasonable bet to me. It would circumvent the exhaustion doctrine by making it a service, making you unable to resell.

...

Those leases you mention could very well mean another price hike too.

Thing is, if the idea that Draech that suggested (that you will be effectively renting a game for certain time that can be extended ad infinitum) becomes a reality, then it means that any DD that uses such a business model will be firmly planted in the camp of service provider. On the good and the bad.

Which isn't to say a DD like Valve wouldn't try to muddy the waters in spite of that, of course.

Note: If you follow these quotes their original sources, you will find other statements that I am not sure I would stand by if brought up now.

To be honest with you though, I am starting to lose track of what of I am arguing for. So maybe it is time to end our discussion here?

CAPTCHA: fairy tale

Yes, captcha, a digital used game market will probably remain that.

Frankly, this ruling might in the long run be a boon for physical games and stores (which in a way, would be great news for me). But then again it´s hard to predict markets and the like.

Yes, we've been going on a tangent. I think we have discussed most aspects by now, so this is a good point to stop. It was fun.

 

[Hjalmar Fryklund]

Yes, we've been going on a tangent. I think we have discussed most aspects by now, so this is a good point to stop. It was fun.

Yeah, despite my rather unpleasant opening argument, it turned out quite interesting. See you around, kompis!