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

[suicidalfranco]

12 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Given how much control the PC gives the user, ensuring the original purchaser can't use a copy that was kept is a significant challenge without some form of online (de)activation/DRM. 

not like borderlands 3 has a retarded DRM system that requires a constant 2mb/s stream calling home whilst key logging whilst making sure you don't alt-tab out

[dalekphalm]

3 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

But you're not buying a disc. You're buying the code that is on the disc. You have every right to sell that disc and key. That one instance of your purchase is yours to do with what you want. What is the inherent difference between discs and keys today? There is no difference. The games largely install to your system today on console and get patched much the same regardless of physical or digital purchase.

 

The world is moving to digital and the world's laws need to keep up. 

I'm not talking about what technical license the game is sold under (whether it's a software access license, etc). I'm talking about in practice - it's a physical item.

 

What's the inherent difference? Discs can get scratched. They can wear over time. They can be rendered unusable. That is Not the same as with digital games.

 

I'm not saying that the games industry shouldn't evolve and "keep up", but we need to carefully consider all aspects of this.

 

Even the practicalities of it, how would this be implemented? Sure, Steam could afford to implement such a system. What about every other platform? Introducing a system in which you can sell any digital game you buy is a massive investment in infrastructure. It's going to cost a shit load of money - and ultimately the user will end up paying for it. Some platforms may actually die because they can't afford that investment.

 

Either that, or some international standardized system needs to be agreed upon - but who makes that decision? The French Courts? I don't think so.

 

Something like, you can request an "access key" from your digital platform for any game you own. You can then sell that access key digitally on any third party marketplace, and when the access key is activated, it automatically removes the game from your library (or this process happens at the time you receive the access key upon request).

 

Either way - I'm not saying that this couldn't end up being good for the consumer - but it seems like most people are totally ignoring all of the complications that will go with this.

[FezBoy]

Hey guys, remember back when there weren't digital games and you could buy and sell your games as you pleased and the video game market was undergoing insane growth?

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, FezBoy said:

Hey guys, remember back when there weren't digital games and you could buy and sell your games as you pleased and the video game market was undergoing insane growth?

You can still do that. However, physical games are not the same as digital games. The physical game can get wear, can stop working -

disc gets scratched, etc. 

 

It could still work, but people need to stop comparing it to physical games without considering the differences. 

[Delicieuxz]

A way digital retail platforms could offset reduced revenues from used game reselling is by charging a brokerage fee on resales. eBay, Amazon, Paypal, etc, all charge for use of their listing and payment services, while carrier like DHL, UPS, etc, charge additional (often insane) brokerage fees on items crossing borders.

 

Since every transaction involving the transfer of a game license that is already on a digital platform must necessarily utilize the services of that platform to process either the transfer, the payment, any support, or all of those things, there would be guaranteed fees involved that would go to the platform provider. And platform hosts could have as policy that the fees from handling such a transaction are shared with the game's publisher.

 

Activating a game on a digital platform is a service that incurs a cost, no matter how little, to the platform provider. And then providing the download for an activation game is another service that incurs a cost to platform providers. Normally, the platform provider covers those costs from game sales - but they don't cover the same costs on 2nd-hand sales. So, in addition to charging a transaction / transfer / payment / support / brokerage fee to sellers for game resales, platforms could also charge an activation service fee to accounts which purchase used games. Activation fees could also be shared with game publishers.

 

Adding fees like this would mitigate revenue decreases for platform hosts and games publishers. It would also reduce the volume of game resales as, rather than seeing played games as instant guaranteed money back, game-owners would have to weigh whether holding on to the game has more value to them than their take from their game-sale after selling and transaction fees are applied. And purchasers of used games would have to weigh the same consideration regarding the cost of a used game after 2nd-hand license activation fees.

 

Because it is unavoidable that a game reseller has to go through the service of the platform which the game is currently already on, and because a buyer wanting to download a game through a platform has no choice but to activate it on a platform and use their account and data-delivery service, fees guarantee that platforms would make money, and because there is no alternative service to use to process transfers and activations, platforms can set their fees for those things somewhat high - ensuring that the loss to profits from game resales isn't extreme.

 

 

Such a scenario would likely be much better for consumers than if they could simply resell their games without any cost or barriers, because being able to do that means a huge number of people will sell their games after they play them, and that will mean greatly reduced profits for developers, publishers, and platform-hosts, which will probably lead to changes in their business and the industry that are not desirable for gamers and consumers. It also would likely make many small and independent developers unable to operate, as people are less willing to spend more money on niche games.

 

An unimpeded ability for gamers to resell their games where devs, pubs, and platforms don't benefit from it but only lose significantly from it would likely also push more platforms and publishers to focus on monthly subscription-based services - which would reduce the number of games that people are buying and owning.

 

 

8 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

You can still do that. However, physical games are not the same as digital games. The physical game can get wear, can stop working -

disc gets scratched, etc. 

 

It could still work, but people need to stop comparing it to physical games without considering the differences. 

People's ownership over their possessions hasn't been conditioned on or validated by the expectation that those possessions will deteriorate, as if the positives of having something have to be balanced against some negatives. So, there's no need to compensate the advantages of new technology by finding or creating some catch or downside to it, or otherwise depriving people of their entitlements.

 

As technology improves, the benefits to all people, regardless of whether they're a consumer, and publisher, or something else, increase. And they should. And, so far, publishers have been the biggest benefactors of the benefits of digital goods technology.

 

In the 90s, publishers couldn't sell games perpetually, but would have a short window in which a game of theirs could be marketed in stores. And then after that brief time, the game would be gone from sale, forever - until the advent of digital delivery.

 

Also in the 90s, when games were sold exclusively in physical form, with physical production costs, transportation costs, store shelf-space costs, that business model cost devs and publishers a ton more than digital delivery does today. Game publishers are today often receiving over 4x more per sale than they did before the advent of digitally-delivered-and-stored games.

 

And the same thing, that the possession doesn't deteriorate, can be said for IP holders' rights to control their intellectual properties: They don't deteriorate. Does that mean we should find some way to club them in the knees just to make sure they don't have things too good?

 

Also, non-degrading property is not a new concept: Individuals and corporations have enjoyed that concept since the first patent in 1421, and in the US since its first patent in 1790 [2]. The concept isn't new or something to be leery about. Corporations certainly don't think they need to have the benefits from their non-degrading properties kept on a leash. Record companies have been enjoying benefiting from non-degrading access to their music masters since recorded music was a thing, and book publishers have been making as many copies of their books as they want since the invention of the printing-press. Rather than doubt their benefits from non-deteriorating technology, they have rather argued they should be receiving even more benefits from it, continuously arguing for longer copyright term durations.

 

So, it's an odd idea to me that consumers' property needs to be reconsidered and have new justifications for it found on the basis that newer technology brings an advantage of perpetuity to consumers' property, when that same technology has been giving even more advantage to publishers, developers, and platform hosts for a long time, and nobody has expressed concern about it before. Is it only consumers who need to be kept in their place with artificially-imposed negatives?

 

And if the benefits of digital storage is something that brings new considerations to the topic of ownership, then the re-evaluation should begin with publishers and developers, and looking at whether they deserve to have the benefits of digital technology - and if they don't, then how should we restrict their digital benefits which they have been long-enjoying already at this point.

 

Maybe we can agree that consumers' entitlements over their non-degrading properties should end after the same period as when IP holders' do: After the 70 or however many years it is before a copyrighted work becomes a part of the public domain. After that point, all digital goods belong to everyone.

[Bramimond]

12 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

physical games are not the same as digital games. The physical game can get wear, can stop working -

disc gets scratched, etc. 

 

It could still work, but people need to stop comparing it to physical games without considering the differences. 

The difference is that downloadable games don't come with a box you can sell. Everything else is pretty much the same. You can still get used games for the Atari and it will still just work like it used to on day one. Sure, the box might be scratched and the cover might be illegible. But with downloadable games there isn't even a box or a cover.

 

Why are you pretending that getting less from a game somehow gives you a superior product? Most of the games I ever owned were used games. There's zero difference with a new game in gaming experience and whenever I brought up in discussions that publishers must hate the used gaming market just as much as piracy, since it means the same for their bottom line people would always show up in defense for used games and assure me that it was completely different and they would never come for the used gaming market. But then with digital distribution the used gaming market was killed for that type of platform just like that. Now it's supposed to come back and people lose their shit.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Bramimond said:

The difference is that downloadable games don't come with a box you can sell. Everything else is pretty much the same. You can still get used games for the Atari and it will still just work like it used to on day one. Sure, the box might be scratched and the cover might be illegible. But with downloadable games there isn't even a box or a cover.

I've purchase plenty of used games and had to repair scratches on the discs to get past things like video cut scenes (FF7 disc 2 & FF8 disc 1), I got them cheaper because they were damaged but I knew how to fix them. I've also lost a purchased new game to disc rot, digital used doesn't/wouldn't have these issues. At least for the purchaser used digital is more likely to receive a functioning product, if done through a proper used market place.

[steelo]

On 9/19/2019 at 7:54 PM, MadDuke said:

I like where this is going.

I think that since going completely digital and because of the uptake of subscription based model on the net we really need to find good legislature that will help with our consumer rights.

Honestly. I'm a maniac like that and would like to see subscriptions (In EU where I live) to be tied to a standard of the place you live in.  

Not to mention a need to crackdown on different content scope of services like Netflix in US and EU in different countries where we consumers have to pay for a much smaller content library and for a couple of time worse standard the same price as US customers for example.

One cool think that is coming in EU is a legislation that any service provider in EU will have to provide it's services to ALL country members. So basically remove geo-blocking inside EU also for the web based services. 

(I know this is boring for most of you, but I live in a small country called Croatia and would like not to have the need to fire up my VPN to get the same content and/or services as someone else). 

 

Quote from the original article:

 

Original article:

https://wccftech.com/steam-resell-games-french-court/

And expanded on the possible influence on other stuff like re-selling apps on iOS, Android stores, e-books on Kindle.  Probably having an option for cross-polinating because if I own a game on one store I should be able to transfer it like domains.  As mentioned earlier. These things take time. May, or may not happen but I'm hopeful.  I think it's time to take some of our rights back. (like right to repair for the US folks also etc.)

https://wccftech.com/digital-content-sellers-like-amazon-apple-at-risk-of-french-court-ruling/

Forgive my ignorance, but how do you even sell a steam game that you have digitally stored on your computer?

[ARikozuM]

Just now, steelo said:

Forgive my ignorance, but how do you even sell a steam game that you have digitally stored on your computer?

How do you sell a game currently? You lose the rights to its use. Steam DRM can easily revoke the ability to play the game once you sell the key.

[steelo]

4 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

How do you sell a game currently? You lose the rights to its use. Steam DRM can easily revoke the ability to play the game once you sell the key.

I'll have to look into the process. I'm pretty new to steam. I have a few VR titles that I was pretty disappointed with and wouldn't at all mind getting rid of. At least I'll be able to get something towards another game. I assume this all done within steams 'gift' system and payment processed through paypal.

[ARikozuM]

3 minutes ago, steelo said:

I'll have to look into the process. I'm pretty new to steam. I have a few VR titles that I was pretty disappointed with and wouldn't at all mind getting rid of. At least I'll be able to get something towards another game. I assume this all done within steams 'gift' system and payment processed through paypal.

You currently can't sell keys that you've redeemed. That's what this fight is about. 

 

If you have unused keys, like those from Humble Bundle or Indiegala, you can sell them to another person on a site like Ebay, G2A, etc. 

[spartaman64]

31 minutes ago, steelo said:

Forgive my ignorance, but how do you even sell a steam game that you have digitally stored on your computer?

you contact steam that you want to sell a game they give you a key for the game and remove that game from your account probably

this is probably the best way to do it so steam doesnt have to deal with the troubles of being a second hand store also. you submit a ticket for this they give you a key and you sell it on ebay or something

[TechyBen]

20 hours ago, suicidalfranco said:

finally some common sense

Really? If that was the case, why do you need a driver's license for a car? Or to even exchange cash?

 

It's a two way street. We live in a society, and more than one person exists.

 

[Bramimond]

4 hours ago, leadeater said:

I've purchase plenty of used games and had to repair scratches on the discs to get past things like video cut scenes (FF7 disc 2 & FF8 disc 1), I got them cheaper because they were damaged but I knew how to fix them. I've also lost a purchased new game to disc rot, digital used doesn't/wouldn't have these issues. At least for the purchaser used digital is more likely to receive a functioning product, if done through a proper used market place.

Cartridge based games don't have that problem. Yes, discs are fragile, but usually that's not a big issue. And even if buying used, if you get a non functioning game, you can just get a refund. Might be an issue on the part of the seller, but as someone buying used games, it's no big deal. Even less of an issue if you buy it used within the year of the release.

[Jito463]

23 hours ago, suicidalfranco said:

finally some common sense

Because someone disagrees with you, and is pointing out potential downfalls of this decision, they're not using any "common sense"?

20 hours ago, FezBoy said:

Hey guys, remember back when there weren't digital games and you could buy and sell your games as you pleased and the video game market was undergoing insane growth?

Hey guys, remember when disc-based DRM was obnoxious and could potentially even kill your CD/DVD drive?  When you couldn't remove the disc while playing, unless you were willing to fight with using a disc duplication software (e.g. Alcohol, Daemon Tools), and use emulation while attempting to force it to recognize the mounted ISO as the original disc?  Yeah, good times.

 

Take off your rose colored glasses, friend.  I remember those days too, and while I agree with the sentiment, I also remember how annoying the DRM could be.  How quickly people forget why most gamers flocked to Steam, despite the DRM, because it was worlds better than what we were dealing with at the time.

[suicidalfranco]

1 hour ago, Jito463 said:

Because someone disagrees with you, and is pointing out potential downfalls of this decision, they're not using any "common sense"

considering how the argument lays on digital =/= physical therefore ownership should be redefined to tip the scale toward the vendor/manufacturer. Yeah i'll say it lacks common sense.

Once you buy it it's yours to do as you see fit, be it a physical disc or a code to digital license.

If you want to keep it, go ahead

If you want to break it, go ahead

If you want to sell it, go ahead

 

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, Bramimond said:

And even if buying used, if you get a non functioning game, you can just get a refund. Might be an issue on the part of the seller, but as someone buying used games, it's no big deal. Even less of an issue if you buy it used within the year of the release.

It's still a pain to receive a non functional item and dealing with a refund isn't always painless either. Plus age of the game doesn't guarantee you much, original owner could scratch the disc the first day they owned it, heck I've been the second person to hire a blu-ray and it's been scratched by the first.

 

That's the difference between a physical good, it has a changeable condition that may effect it's value.

 

Given a choice between a physical game or digital game used, where the physical item has no additional collectible value, I would take the digital game.

[Bramimond]

@leadeater

I would always take the physical product. Digital games are inherently worthless to me. Would never pay money for them under current circumstances. I also feel that you're overselling the fragility of discs. It's not actually that much of an issue. Never had problems with discs and I went through my fair share of used games. Getting a refund is as painless as it can be when you buy through amazon.

 

Overall the used gaming market has always been very nice. The experience of playing the game is the same, but you can save some serious money. It is also the only way to get your hands on some older games.

 

It certainly won't hurt to give consumers back their rights. It's not like everyone will just sell a new bought game two days after purchase for a fraction of the price. Except if the game is shit, of course.

[Deathus]

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120703/11345519566/eu-court-says-yes-you-can-resell-your-software-even-if-software-company-says-you-cant.shtml

 

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=8F09B5EB640EA801A633C4DBF802C65A?text=&docid=124564&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=956190

 

https://www.osborneclarke.com/insights/the-end-of-the-usedsoft-case-and-its-implications-for-used-software-licences/

[leadeater]

17 minutes ago, Bramimond said:

Getting a refund is as painless as it can be when you buy through amazon.

It's really not if you have to return the item and it's international shipping, even if you don't have to pay it's still a pain to get it packaged + labelled and dropped off at my inconvenience.

 

18 minutes ago, Bramimond said:

It certainly won't hurt to give consumers back their rights. It's not like everyone will just sell a new bought game two days after purchase for a fraction of the price. Except if the game is shit, of course.

Well then game developers and publishers would end up not doing any more "No Man's Sky", if it brings back complete and actually not bugged game released then that's good.

[tylerkyran5]

if people had the right to resell game it would ruin the steam market and game developers would stop putting games on steam and look for other ulternitives such as origin epic games ect.

[spartaman64]

33 minutes ago, Bramimond said:

@leadeater

I would always take the physical product. Digital games are inherently worthless to me. Would never pay money for them under current circumstances. I also feel that you're overselling the fragility of discs. It's not actually that much of an issue. Never had problems with discs and I went through my fair share of used games. Getting a refund is as painless as it can be when you buy through amazon.

 

Overall the used gaming market has always been very nice. The experience of playing the game is the same, but you can save some serious money. It is also the only way to get your hands on some older games.

 

It certainly won't hurt to give consumers back their rights. It's not like everyone will just sell a new bought game two days after purchase for a fraction of the price. Except if the game is shit, of course.

until you factor in steam sales etc. when theres a sales on a game you can bet a bunch of people will buy it and then sell it after the sale is over

[Bramimond]

Just like scalpers already do with physical limited releases. I fail to see the problem. It's not everyone who's doing it.

[Thaldor]

22 hours ago, suicidalfranco said:

considering how the argument lays on digital =/= physical therefore ownership should be redefined to tip the scale toward the vendor/manufacturer. Yeah i'll say it lacks common sense.

Once you buy it it's yours to do as you see fit, be it a physical disc or a code to digital license.

If you want to keep it, go ahead

If you want to break it, go ahead

If you want to sell it, go ahead

 

There is so much problems with the word "ownership" when talking especially about Steam games. Do you own the game when you bought the game from credit card fraud seller from G2A? Do you own the game when you bought the game from some other shady dealer from G2A? Should you be able to sell basicly that old-school "pirated" game (bootlegged or however you remember the time when piracy was buying/selling physical clones)? Should you be able to sell the CSGO from the account which you used to cheat and got VAC banned? Or the tenth VAC banned burner account for CSGO?

 

Then there is just that slippery slope that has been seen way too many times where consumers win over the big publishers and they manage to go around the whole stuff and create something even worse. CD-keys weren't enough -> We got StarForce, Steam DRM wasn't enough -> yay! Denuvo, people weren't happy about $70 games (there was couple) -> welcome DLCs. Also in this topic it should be remembered that the game publishers and even some platforms have been fighting against reselling for ages, like anybody remember the first release of Xbox One? Or SecuROM and Windows LIVE! (or whatever that Microsoft software BS was that was in Batman Arkham games at the beginning)? From those only Xbox One was saved because public outcry; SecuROM died with physical PC-games, just like many other worse than cancer DRMs, and some Windows LIVE! games were saved because some companies threw money at the problem (like Valve did with Arkham Asylum and Arkham City) or no one was interested enough about them to care whatever happened to them.

I just can't wait what EA, Ubisoft and the usual gang come up with if this actually becomes a big thing outside of France.

[Humbug]

On 9/21/2019 at 12:12 PM, suicidalfranco said:

then you don't have a valid argument

I didn't make an argument, I made a statement- see below.

On 9/20/2019 at 1:08 PM, 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.

That's all. 

 

An argument would be me claiming that second hand sales should not exist, which I did not do.