consumer rights Steam Users Have the Right to Resell Their Digital Games Rules French Court

[yolosnail]

38 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

like it said it depends on the dev. AAA devs are not going to be that affected by this but it would put some indie devs out of business

I understand that, but at the end of the day, that's not my problem, they should have had a better business model. If I buy a thing, I should be able to do what I want with that thing.

If I want to buy all of the things, then give them away, I should be able to.

Likewise if I want to buy all of the things, and sell it for double what that thing costs, then I should also be able to. 

It shouldn't be up to the seller to determine the rules of me buying and then selling that thing. 

After they have my money, that thing should be mine, to do with as I please.

It doesn't matter if it's a phone, a car, a movie, or a game. I understand that there may need to be licencing stipulations on digital media like only using it for none-commercial use, or not duplicating it, but if I am buying it, then it should be mine. 

 

I also have an issue with 'buying' movies on the likes of iTunes, Google Play, Amazon etc. You don't buy it, you indefinitely lease it, and it should be worded that way. 

[spartaman64]

4 minutes ago, yolosnail said:

I understand that, but at the end of the day, that's not my problem, they should have had a better business model. If I buy a thing, I should be able to do what I want with that thing.

If I want to buy all of the things, then give them away, I should be able to.

Likewise if I want to buy all of the things, and sell it for double what that thing costs, then I should also be able to. 

It shouldn't be up to the seller to determine the rules of me buying and then selling that thing. 

After they have my money, that thing should be mine, to do with as I please.

It doesn't matter if it's a phone, a car, a movie, or a game. I understand that there may need to be licencing stipulations on digital media like only using it for none-commercial use, or not duplicating it, but if I am buying it, then it should be mine. 

 

I also have an issue with 'buying' movies on the likes of iTunes, Google Play, Amazon etc. You don't buy it, you indefinitely lease it, and it should be worded that way. 

i guess games as a service really is the future

[yolosnail]

4 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

i guess games as a service really is the future

I guess so. 

 

I honestly wouldn't have an issue with it if they didn't say I was 'buying' the game. To say that I am buying it is very misleading. Buying it implies that I will own it, when I won't. I just have a licence to use it 

[dalekphalm]

11 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I'm surprised so many people are seeing this as a bad thing.  It's more freedom for consumers, and while it must be noted that it's not a new freedom but simply regaining one we used to have in the physical days, it is what it is.  We can expect that this will come to all regions sooner or later.  Remember when Australia ruled that games must be refundable and suddenly they added it for the whole world?

I don't see it as inherently bad, but I do see it as extremely complex, and there may be a considerable number of downsides that people aren't considering or are dismissing.

11 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

It never even occurred to me that this would imply that, I would assume that the sales would be within the Steam marketplace

I really don't see the issue with pricing or reselling.  There are loads of digital products resold and traded all the time, this isn't anything new.  People can pick whatever price they want, and people will pay for what they can find.

Just for clarification, the OP specifically implied a possibility of "cross pollination" as he called it - the ability to transfer a game from one platform to another.

 

I can't imagine this being forced via a law - and certainly I don't see any of the platforms wanting this feature either.

2 hours ago, MageTank said:

Interesting to see the logistics behind setting this up. I imagine Valve or the digital storefront would take a cut of the resell. I also wonder if they would cap the sell at the original MSRP of the game to prevent people from overselling or using the digital store as a way to exchange large funds to one another. It also begs the question as to whether or not the party buying the "used" game is eligible for a refund if they don't like it, akin to how it's done now with the actual storefront.

I would be utterly shocked if refunds were forced (Certainly Steam could Voluntarily refund a used game - but they wouldn't). You bought a used product. If it came with a refund, then there is literally no point in buying new anymore. If Steam would give you a refund if you don't like the game, why would anyone buy new anymore?

 

And that's why you can't compare buying used physical goods with used digital goods. They are simply different. You can compare some aspects of them, but they are not equal. A physical disk gets wear and tear. It lacks a return policy. It can be damaged or lost. A digital game has none of those downsides.

 

IF this does get forced and becomes a thing, I would of course suggest that copying a game should remain illegal, and that if you sell a digital game you own, you lose access to it completely. The platform should take a cut, though otherwise have no say in the price you decide to charge. There should be no returns or exchanges. Buyer Beware.

 

I don't think the devs should be forced by law to get a cut - though the platform can decide to share their portion of the cut if they feel like.

[Trik'Stari]

18 hours ago, Captain Chaos said:

This is going to create interesting situations, with people buying a game in a cheap region and selling it with a profit to someone in a more expensive region.

 

My immediate thought after that exact thought, was "well, no more Triple A games on Steam".

 

Can't be having used games now can we.

[dalekphalm]

2 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

My immediate thought after that exact thought, was "well, no more Triple A games on Steam".

 

Can't be having used games now can we.

This will 100% cause more aggressive geolocking of game keys and digital games. You won't be able to buy it cheaper in one region and sell it to someone in a different (more expensive) region.

[Unixsystem]

In theory this is a great, pro-consumer move. In practice, I'll be very interested to see how this could possibly be implemented. 

 

I feel like the only way to follow the spirit of the law is to make it possible to trade games completely outsides the confines of the launcher - if you need to go through launcher's marketplace, then all of a sudden you are requring every launcher to implement a massive user-to-user trading system, and possibly the ability to take actual currency out of the system, which adds a whole new bag of worms. Are we really expecting a launcher as small as GOG (or as incompetent as EGS) to add this entire system into their software? CD Project already makes next to nothing on GOG, if this becomes required then I see them shutting it down basically overnight. 

 

Long term this could be a sea change in how digital goods are viewed and treated legally and that's potentially great, but getting there sounds really sketchy. 

[Trik'Stari]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

This will 100% cause more aggressive geolocking of game keys and digital games. You won't be able to buy it cheaper in one region and sell it to someone in a different (more expensive) region.

Oh look, piracy just went up a bit.

 

Yarrrr.

[maartendc]

18 hours ago, BigDamn said:

I guess I'm failing to understand why anyone would do this. The only "benefit" I see would be buying games on sale and selling them at full price once the sale ends, but this could create chaos. If I paid $60 for a digital game I'm going to sell it for $60. Digital games don't lose their value.

Its really simple.

 

On PS4, when Im done with a game, I sell it, because I rarely replay games. So that 60 USD game, I resell for 40 USD on Ebay, so I really only payed 20 bucks to play it.

 

On Steam, I am (currently) forced to buy that game for 60 bucks, and keep it in my library forever, even if I have no intention of ever playing it again.

 

I for one, would LOVE this, and honestly, I don't understand how the current way it works is even legal?!

[yolosnail]

7 minutes ago, maartendc said:

honestly, I don't understand how the current way it works is even legal?!

Because it says so in the small print!

[Donut417]

12 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Oh look, piracy just went up a bit.

 

Yarrrr.

That’s whats happening to media companies again. Now every one and their mom wants to start their own streaming service. So piracy will come back with a vengeance. 

[vanished]

2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

I don't see it as inherently bad, but I do see it as extremely complex, and there may be a considerable number of downsides that people aren't considering or are dismissing.

Just for clarification, the OP specifically implied a possibility of "cross pollination" as he called it - the ability to transfer a game from one platform to another.

Ah ok, must have missed that bit.  Although unless that's explicitly stated as a core element of what's going to be needed to satisfy this requirement, I'm not sure we can assume that it will be.  I do agree that if that had to be added, it would complicate things considerably.  However, at this point, without having given it more thought, I'm not prepared to assume that just because it's complicated, it would be bad or undoable either.

9 hours ago, Origami Cactus said:

How can you not see this as anything other than a bad thing?

 

So now instead of paying 60$ for one time purchase for a game, game developers will go over to subscription models, so now you have to pay every month, or make the base game cheaper, but all the content is inside DLC's. More microtransactions etc. How is that good for you as a consumer?

You've made an enormous leap here with nothing to back it up.  It's quite unreasonable to think that it's a guarantee and a foregone conclusion that due to this change, all games will switch to a subscription model.  I might even say this is a good example of a slippery slope logical fallacy, but usually that describes additional steps between point A and Z.  It's also important to remember that this is nothing new, it's just bringing back what was once normal and commonplace.  Selling used games has been around for as long as games have existed and it didn't completely destroy the market before, so without some solid arguments as to why that precedent is no longer valid, I don't think there's a good reason to assume that it will destroy the market now.

 

It's good for consumers because it offers the freedom to get rid of a game you no longer play and get a bit of cash back for it, and it's good for people who can find a game they want sold by someone for cheaper than they could get it new.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

 if you sell a digital game you own, you lose access to it completely.

 

The thing that saddens me is that this even needs to be said. 

[suicidalfranco]

13 hours ago, Humbug said:

When I spend money on a game I would rather that money goes to the dev, than to the last player... I'm worried about devs losing revenue because of a 2nd hand market.

does not compute

[Sakkura]

35 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

It's good for consumers because it offers the freedom to get rid of a game you no longer play and get a bit of cash back for it, and it's good for people who can find a game they want sold by someone for cheaper than they could get it new.

That's fine in isolation. But this will have other effects. The publishers aren't going to just accept the reduced profits that would ensue if they kept doing business as usual in the face of digital resales being implemented.

[vanished]

3 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

That's fine in isolation. But this will have other effects. The publishers aren't going to just accept the reduced profits that would ensue if they kept doing business as usual in the face of digital resales being implemented.

Well how much are they going to be reduced?  I think this would take some looking into, and I won't claim to have the answer myself, but I feel like (barring any "modern problems" like selling between regions with different new pricing) it shouldn't be much.  I don't think the volume of used sales would be great, and you wouldn't get all the benefits of a new game with a used purchase either (like refund ability), so there is still incentive to buy new as well.

[The Torrent]

all games devs will do is increase original purchase price drastically - it should say and im sure it does in t and c's of games that you are technically 'renting' the game and i think thats how it should stay.

[Lowbuget]

21 hours ago, rawrdaysgoby said:

This is stupid... 

How?

 

[Tech Enthusiast]

Another EU ruling that just ignores the current state of the world and how stuff works.

 

If people can just sell used digital copies (they don't have a drawback, so they would go easily), developers would see a SIGNIFICANT drop in income.

Why would I care you ask?

Well, because life does not work that way. Developer can't just make less money. Some simply can't break even, others have investors that won't accept that. 

 

So basically we would lose some indie games and see increased prices for AAA games.

They would have to find a way to offset the possibly huge hit to sales.

 

Just think about it: Most games don't have hundreds of hours of gameplay or replayability. And they honestly don't need to, since games are dirt cheap. 

Games are priced to match the current state of how stuff works. If I could just pay 50% of the price for a "used" digital game, why would I not do that? At the loss of the developer of course. And people would likely sell for even less than 50%, since even 1 buck is more than nothing.

 

 

This just can not work at all. No way. Not without major suffering (150 bucks a game anyone?) for gamers upfront.

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Ah ok, must have missed that bit.  Although unless that's explicitly stated as a core element of what's going to be needed to satisfy this requirement, I'm not sure we can assume that it will be.

Oh I don't think the French courts implied this was related in even the slightest way. I think the OP just added that in as "wishful thinking". I would even be against such a move.

1 hour ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I do agree that if that had to be added, it would complicate things considerably.  However, at this point, without having given it more thought, I'm not prepared to assume that just because it's complicated, it would be bad or undoable either.

No, of course not - but we must carefully consider the implications before just assuming it would be a net benefit to the consumer.

 

Think about the kind of infrastructure every platform would have to introduce to even allow this. And think about games not sold on a platform - or from a platform like GoG.com. How would they even enforce such a thing, when all they sell you is a "CD Key" (one not verified by online servers) - or going further, a GoG.com EXE with zero DRM?

 

It would be so rife with abuse - Basically every single GoG.com game purchased could be "sold", but since all GoG.com games are DRM free EXE's, the seller could literally make a copy, sell the original, and keep playing the game as if nothing happened. AND there would be no way for GoG.com to know or stop this.

 

From a practical perspective, the only way to make this work, would be for all platforms to use DRM to at least a limited degree, such as how Steam does things (tracking what's in your library and tying game purchases to your library where if you lose access to the game, you can no longer even launch it).

 

These things might be able to be overcome - but it will put a significant financial burden on Platforms, and on devs/publishers that sell direct.

 

Because of that, we must consider all angles. If we can solve all of these problems, perhaps it could be amazing for gamers - but that's not automatically true.

 

1 hour ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

It's good for consumers because it offers the freedom to get rid of a game you no longer play and get a bit of cash back for it, and it's good for people who can find a game they want sold by someone for cheaper than they could get it new.

All well and good, but realistically, games on PC are already dirt cheap if you're willing to look around or wait - with the advent of Steam Sales, Humble Bundles, etc. Games are only expensive if you want it now, upon release, and are willing to fork out the full $60 price tag.

42 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The thing that saddens me is that this even needs to be said. 

Agreed - but one or two users in this thread already talked about whether or not copying would be allowed, so yeah. It needs to be said.

[vanished]

Quote

All well and good, but realistically, games on PC are already dirt cheap if you're willing to look around or wait - with the advent of Steam Sales, Humble Bundles, etc. Games are only expensive if you want it now, upon release, and are willing to fork out the full $60 price tag.

Yeah I think this is important to realize and I think it's being missed.  It's not like this is going to destroy the entire game economy.  The big money comes from selling near launch at full price.  That's why companies are so hell-bent on continuing to include DRM even if it gets cracked after like 2 days, whatever extra sales they got in that small time is worth the effort to them.  The ability to buy used games is not going to undermine this because you can't buy a brand new thing used for less because no one else has it yet and they're not gonna sell it at a loss.  The value I see here if I'm being honest isn't even necessarily selling for any amount of income, it's the ability to just transfer a game to a friend.  Tbh if that's all they added and didn't bother with a public marketplace, that would still be just as good to me.

[Andreas Lilja]

How does this even work? There's unlimited supply and no physical depreciation?

 

[Unixsystem]

55 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Well how much are they going to be reduced?  I think this would take some looking into, and I won't claim to have the answer myself, but I feel like (barring any "modern problems" like selling between regions with different new pricing) it shouldn't be much.  I don't think the volume of used sales would be great, and you wouldn't get all the benefits of a new game with a used purchase either (like refund ability), so there is still incentive to buy new as well.

The problem is that it doesn't matter.

 

Any time anyone tries to do any sort of objective study on the effects of piracy on sales, the results are either inconclusive, negligible, or in rare cases piracy can actually increase overall sales. Despite this, piracy has been used as the excuse to shove DRM into everything and is a factor in pushing games as a service style design. 

 

The exact same thing will happen if used sales come back into the spotlight. Even if used sales could be proven to result in a <1% drop in income, big publishers will still be happy to use it as a scapegoat for games underperforming and new "features" to curtail used sales, e.g. online passes like we saw all over the place 8-10 years ago. 

[vanished]

8 minutes ago, Waffles13 said:

The problem is that it doesn't matter.

 

Any time anyone tries to do any sort of objective study on the effects of piracy on sales, the results are either inconclusive, negligible, or in rare cases piracy can actually increase overall sales. Despite this, piracy has been used as the excuse to shove DRM into everything and is a factor in pushing games as a service style design. 

 

The exact same thing will happen if used sales come back into the spotlight. Even if used sales could be proven to result in a <1% drop in income, big publishers will still be happy to use it as a scapegoat for games underperforming and new "features" to curtail used sales, e.g. online passes like we saw all over the place 8-10 years ago. 

Interesting take, and you could be right about that, although I'm not sure if that was a problem historically or not.  Someone who remembers will have to fill that in.  I guess the question then is does that mean we should accept their nonsense and willingly give up the feature in fear to appease them, or say you can complain all you like but this isn't going away because there's a strong demand?

[vanished]

19 minutes ago, Andreas Lilja said:

How does this even work? There's unlimited supply and no physical depreciation?

 

Well no it's finite and depreciates normally.  New games are unlimited, but resold ones are quite finite, since it's bound at the max by how many sales there's ever been, and in reality to much smaller than that because most of those people will not be reselling, at least until the value is so low that due to steep sales it's pretty cheap anyway (hence the depreciation part too)