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

[DEAD34345]

I admit I don't get this.

I mean, physical used games make sense. Knock a couple bucks off the price tag since the game's already been opened, and maybe the person who opened it was rather rough with the box, manual, or disc so that it's no longer in 'new' condition.

But with a completely digital copy... how would a used digital game be any different at all from a new digital game?

It isn't different at all. Um... why does it have to be? One license is sold by the publisher, and that one license can then be resold or passed around as much as need be, just like with other products.

OT: I'm glad this has turned out to be legally the case. Just because a product is digital doesn't mean it should suddenly bypass all the consumer rights we have with physical products, much as games publishers would like us to believe otherwise.

 

[KiKiweaky]

Or they could not, the law says you have the right to sell the game not that the company has to accomodate the sale of the game. I dont see a law stating that they will either have to accomodate the sale of the game or stop doing business in the EU.

It's sort of a given. It's also a smart business decision since by accomodating digital used game sales you could potentially take a cut out of every transaction. Alternatively they would have to stop banning people for selling their accounts.

It might make sense for them to do it one way, people will be pissed off if they dont but they dont have to provide the service by any means.

I've never actually sold a copy of a game back to a gamestore (I use a pc so you cant return them) so I'm not sure how much they will give you for it, but I doubt the return on sale of used licenses would be anything spectacular. Its only going to diminish as time goes on too

 

[J. Mazarin]

This is exactly how it should be.

I just hope Steam will implement this, and sooner than couple of court cases, complaints and 5 years from now.

Hopefully digital retailers realize they would realistically be able to take a cut of used digital game sales, rather than the straight-up nothing anyone except Game/Gamestop/Whoever get now.

There's a lot of ways they could implement this, but I think the most important thing to do is to make sure the new copy is superior to the used copy. (I.e. the used copy doesn't have certain content that the new copy has unless a fee is paid.)

 

[lord.jeff]

I'm not sure I like this it would work with Steam but a law like this will cause more DRM on games, will have register every game with Steam, Origin and the like just to make sure we hold to the selling of the licence and aren't just selling copies.

 

[KiKiweaky]

it.

Companies already have to provide some accomodation for product returns and exchanges[/quote]

They do but this isnt a return or an exchange, this is a reselling of a license to use the game. Basicly your finished with the game dont want it anymore and want to sell it on to somebody who doesnt want to buy a brand new copy.

 

[loa]

well okay so it's "legal" now but possible? Not so much.
Playing tennis in space while on fire is legal too.

I hope it does become possible sometime but if that isn't enforced, I don't see that happening soon.

 

[Brodre]

I meant from a moral standpoint, not a legal one

Awwww, how cute, someone brought morality into business. No, sorry. If the devs make a game that doesn't make people want to hold onto it, that's their problem. If I aren't happy with my lawnmower or TV, I can sell it on the flea market too. Why the hell should they be special snowflakes.

So I take it they dont?

I am not talking about what people do on their own, thats their own business.
I am talking about actively selling used games instead of new games, where they get a higher profit margin by not giving money to the developer, this doesn't have anything to do with people not being good enough, people just play it through and give it back. If the game is bad it wont sell enough anyways. =)

Not giving money to developers for selling their game because it is a slightly used copy isn't good business practice, they take money that would otherwise belong to the developer and they take them outright. This has only been possible because they had a monopol on the gaming sales market. Now that they do no longer have a monopol on the gaming market because of digital sales they are starting to not having as strong a position with their suppliers, and since they were doing bad business practice this is starting to kick their butt. =)

Directly taking money from those who made the game, is why I say that it is "amoral", not in the standard "aww thats so cute" -way, but in the "this is bad business" -way, and should therefore be discouraged. =)



PS. snowflakes? wtf xD
Always good to put a snowflake in there

 

[Hjalmar Fryklund]

The only logical reason why you might want to buy games, is to support (the developers).

Vad i helvete?!

No, it is not. Here another logical reason to buy a game: You are (in most cases) not commiting a crime while doing it. Or another one: You become entitled to the buying consumer´s rights (specific to the country/state you live in, of course).

It's a contribution to the development of more new games.

Ideally, yes.

But that is not a guarantee at all. It might simply end up as pocket lining for the publisher.

Maybe even the devs will get to keep their jobs and work on the next project if the publisher makes enough monet of the last game.

This is nothing more than a cheap appeal to emotion. But there is another problem with that statement: There is no guarantee that that specific developer will get to work on the next project. Another developer might get that next project job, for example.

Then again, you added "maybe" to the beginning of the sentence, so I will grant you the benefit of the doubt here that you have, perhaps, considered this.

 

[Rebel44]

You all need to understand something. This ruling in NO way requires retailers like Steam, Origin, PSN, and XBLA to provide you with a way to transfer licenses. This ruling simply makes it legal to do so if you find a way.

You need to understand the specifics of this case. UsedSoft was buying licenses with unused Oracle software downloads from corporations, then reselling them to other corporations. Oracle was challenging their right to do this, and they lost, but there's nothing that says Oracle has to make their licenses transferable. The ruling merely states that, no matter what you put in an EULA, if users have a way to transfer licenses they are legally able to do so.

This will not affect Steam, Origin, XBLA, PSN, Nintendo Network, etc. unless they decide they want it to. So, yeah, move along. Nothing to see here.

 

[Nurb]

They do but this isnt a return or an exchange, this is a reselling of a license to use the game. Basicly your finished with the game dont want it anymore and want to sell it on to somebody who doesnt want to buy a brand new copy.

It's a transfer of license/ownership, similar to how car titles are transfered. Consumers have rights, they gotta deal with it.

It's not like they've lost money at all, they complain the millions in profit they make aren't enough every damn quarter even though their income climbs

 

[Hjalmar Fryklund]

This is exactly how it should be.

I just hope Steam will implement this, and sooner than couple of court cases, complaints and 5 years from now.

Hopefully digital retailers realize they would realistically be able to take a cut of used digital game sales, rather than the straight-up nothing anyone except Game/Gamestop/Whoever get now.

There's a lot of ways they could implement this, but I think the most important thing to do is to make sure the new copy is superior to the used copy. (I.e. the used copy doesn't have certain content that the new copy has unless a fee is paid.)

You know, rather than the digital retailer handing you back the money you purchased the game for, how about they grant the person who sold the game back a 5-15% off for the next purchase (taking the price cut from their own share of the profits)? Not saying this is an ideal solution, or even a good alternative, but it could be some food for thought.

 

[TrevHead]

I'm from the UK and this isn't good news at all as while on the face of it looks good for me and other EU gamers it isn't.

Say hello to more F2P, DLC and Subbed games, (not helped with the fact the AAA industry is entering a gaming crash atm)

Say hello to gamestop taking a large cut of the the DD games industry, DD games don't degrade compared to discs, there is ZERO difference from a new copy from a publisher and a 3rd party.

Say goodbye to localised niche Japanese games

Steam and DD is the very thing thats keeping the PC alive, so say goodbye to AAA multiplat games on PC which are more open to competative means of distro, Infact there will be less games been made in total.

Say hello to every Hacker around the world trying to steal my software (is this law games only?). Are licence keys protected from ppl trying to steal them?

Say hello to dodgy software on ebay which are loaded with keyloggers, any 3rd party store none Steam, Origin etc could be just as bad as any torrent site as theres no way to tell if its legit or not unlike a physical copy.

Ok so i'm doing alot of kneejerking but this could spell trouble as a worst case scenario

 

[weirdee]

the main issue here is that because digital sales no longer have the inherent lock in contract, that means no more fire sales and hello full 60 dollar price all day erryday, same stupid as the physical copies...

doesn't anybody remember the bullshit reasons why publishers started to price higher? we are looking at can of worms part two, folks

 

[00slash00]

ugh! i was really hoping digital games would help bring an end to the stupid used game debate by just cutting used games out of the picture. i suppose that was wishful thinking

 

[veloper]

The only logical reason why you might want to buy games, is to support (the developers).

Vad i helvete?!

No, it is not. Here another logical reason to buy a game: You are (in most cases) not commiting a crime while doing it.

I've known cops to pirate software. They don't care. Realisticly nothing can happen to you. The legal argument is an empty threat. It has even less effect than a moral appeal.

Or another one: You become entitled to the buying consumer´s rights (specific to the country/state you live in, of course).

And what practical benefit does this offer in the case of videogames?

It's a contribution to the development of more new games.

Ideally, yes.

But that is not a guarantee at all. It might simply end up as pocket lining for the publisher.

Maybe even the devs will get to keep their jobs and work on the next project if the publisher makes enough monet of the last game.

This is nothing more than a cheap appeal to emotion. But there is another problem with that statement: There is no guarantee that that specific developer will get to work on the next project. Another developer might get that next project job, for example.

Then again, you added "maybe" to the beginning of the sentence, so I will grant you the benefit of the doubt here that you have, perhaps, considered this.

You get no guarantees in any case. All you can do is stop giving companies your money if they displease you. That's the whole game. Pirates are always the smart players. Contributers are useful. The people would buy my hypothetical "used" digital games are just dumb.

 

[Kargathia]

Meh. The fact that it's legal doesn't obligate companies to facilitate it or even make it possible. Expect companies to work on methods to make it impossible to resell digital games, along the lines of "if you can figure out how to resell it, go right ahead."

No, but it does put paid to any lingering semblance of legality those EULA clauses about you merely purchasing a license had.

 

[KiKiweaky]

It's a transfer of license/ownership, similar to how car titles are transfered. Consumers have rights, they gotta deal with it.

It's not like they've lost money at all, they complain the millions in profit they make aren't enough every damn quarter even though their income climbs

A computer game isnt a car, you give the physical car and the right to use it to somebody else. With a computer game you give them the license to use the game not the game itself, the compnay will have to provide them with the game.

Of course the company has lost money 60 euros/dollars for a new game vs whatever portion of the sale the company is going to take from what you sold it for.

 

[kasperbbs]

Well that would be awesome, i have a ton of games that i wouldn't mind selling because i wont touch them again anyway, but i doubt that they will include such option. Well Valve might do it, but EA.. Unless they would get 50% of the sale and then they would charge you for multiplayer or something like that.