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

[veloper]

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.

I was thinking more along the lines of committing actual larceny rather than software piracy. I also happen to think that piracy is mostly a non-issue. But I will concede that larceny is irrelevant if we talk about digital distribution.

However, if we are talking about piracy, then I would make the argument that by pirating you are committing an "economic crime" by making a copy of the product (or the service, if that is how you are seeing it) and devaluing it without compensating for it by paying, thus upsetting the product´s/service´s Natural Monopoly.

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

Thanks to this new court ruling, the exhaustion doctrine (the one that is part of the first sale doctrine, not the patent one) now applies to digitally distributed video games. This means that if a digital product has been sold to you for an unlimited amount of time, the software maker is unable to refuse you reselling the product/service.

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.

We don't disagree here.

Pirates are always the smart players.

Nope, they are not always that. They might for example end up streaming some malware or a trojan into their system, damaging their computer, which in bad cases will cost them money as they will need to exchange parts for their computers (unless they steal the replacement parts, of course).

Which could be turned into another argument for buying as well: The DDs can offer you some security during product transfer, and more importantly, can potentially be held accountable if they fail to provide that security. Some anonymous uploader, not so much.

Contributers are useful.

I will admit ignorance here. What do you mean by "contributors?"

The people would buy my hypothetical "used" digital games are just dumb.

And why is this? I am sure you have gone over this before, but I would like you to take it from the top again in full swing this time.

I wouldn't worry about pirates damaging their physical computer components through malware. That's FUD with very little basis.

So anyway, contributors: all those people who buy the game from the publisher, or through a distributor (like Steam or Gamer's gate) or even buy unused games in brick&mortal shops or through mailorder. Game companies only churn out new games for us, because of some of that first sale money goes to the company.

As for my hypothetical used sales scam, why would you want to reward me for just transfering my DRM-free digital game to you, and just maybe (you'll never know) delete it on my own PC afterwards?It takes no effort on my side and I lose nothing.

 

[Irridium]

Which is why I'm not a fan of digital version second-hand sales in the first place.

It's good for the customer, it's absolutely tragic for the games industry. Don't you roll your eyes at me, games cost a massive amount of money to make, and anything that results in less money going back into the publishers and devs is bad in my eyes. We can hardly get them to do interesting risks as it is!

You're right. That's why you can't sell movies and books. God forbid, movie executives and writers might just stop taking risks!

Books and movies are SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper to make. You never hear of a writer talking about "return on investment", maybe there's a goddamned reason for it.

And notice how publishers specifically label risk as a bad thing "because there isn't a good return on investment". The only solutions to this is expanding the amount of people playing games, making games more expensive, reducing costs to make games, or gamers swallowing their pride and buying some games that look interesting but got less than an 80%.

What will do ABSOLUTELY NO GOOD is digital re-sale.

Books, maybe. But movies? Movies are way more expensive to make than games. The most expensive game, where we know the exact numbers at least, is GTAIV at $100 million. That's about the average for a movie. It's actually on the low end of the scale.

 

[lacktheknack]

Which is why I'm not a fan of digital version second-hand sales in the first place.

It's good for the customer, it's absolutely tragic for the games industry. Don't you roll your eyes at me, games cost a massive amount of money to make, and anything that results in less money going back into the publishers and devs is bad in my eyes. We can hardly get them to do interesting risks as it is!

You're right. That's why you can't sell movies and books. God forbid, movie executives and writers might just stop taking risks!

Books and movies are SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper to make. You never hear of a writer talking about "return on investment", maybe there's a goddamned reason for it.

And notice how publishers specifically label risk as a bad thing "because there isn't a good return on investment". The only solutions to this is expanding the amount of people playing games, making games more expensive, reducing costs to make games, or gamers swallowing their pride and buying some games that look interesting but got less than an 80%.

What will do ABSOLUTELY NO GOOD is digital re-sale.

Books, maybe. But movies? Movies are way more expensive to make than games. The most expensive game, where we know the exact numbers at least, is GTAIV at $100 million. That's about the average for a movie. It's actually on the low end of the scale.

Seriously? Ick.

On the other hand, how many people go see the average blockbuster? (Significantly more than those who buy an average AAA game.)

Also, note that movie tickets are non-resellable.

 

[Terramax]

This law seems like it'd be way too hard to enforce, what's to stop people from just selling their games and then 'forgetting' to delete/lock their copies?

Steam, Origin, and others could just revoke your access to the games when you re-sell them. Though this relies on them embracing this and setting up systems that allow it.

And when that happens, presumably these gamers will just illegally download it and Steam/ Origin/ etc won't get any money at all.

 

[Terramax]

Books, maybe. But movies? Movies are way more expensive to make than games. The most expensive game, where we know the exact numbers at least, is GTAIV at $100 million. That's about the average for a movie. It's actually on the low end of the scale.

Few films cost that much money to make. I once read the average film is around $30 million. Still a lot of money though.

 

[Irridium]

Seriously? Ick.

On the other hand, how many people go see the average blockbuster? (Significantly more than those who buy an average AAA game.)

Also, note that movie tickets are non-resellable.

True, but movies rarely make their budgets back through theater showings anyway. Most rely on DVD sales for the money.

This law seems like it'd be way too hard to enforce, what's to stop people from just selling their games and then 'forgetting' to delete/lock their copies?

Steam, Origin, and others could just revoke your access to the games when you re-sell them. Though this relies on them embracing this and setting up systems that allow it.

And when that happens, presumably these gamers will just illegally download it and Steam/ Origin/ etc won't get any money at all.

Why would someone buy a game at full price, re-sell it for a smaller price, and then pirate it?

 

[Irridium]

Books, maybe. But movies? Movies are way more expensive to make than games. The most expensive game, where we know the exact numbers at least, is GTAIV at $100 million. That's about the average for a movie. It's actually on the low end of the scale.

Few films cost that much money to make. I once read the average film is around $30 million. Still a lot of money though.

I doubt it. District 9 was considered a low-budget movie, and it cost about $60 million to make.

 

[lacktheknack]

This law seems like it'd be way too hard to enforce, what's to stop people from just selling their games and then 'forgetting' to delete/lock their copies?

Steam, Origin, and others could just revoke your access to the games when you re-sell them. Though this relies on them embracing this and setting up systems that allow it.

And when that happens, presumably these gamers will just illegally download it and Steam/ Origin/ etc won't get any money at all.

Wat?

Are you trying to imply that after you sell a game, you should still be able to play it?

Come on, that doesn't even work when you resell anything else.

 

[Nielas]

What people dont seem to realise is that all this ruling means is that is is LEGAL to resell digital downloads NOT that the ability to do so has to be provided. So yes you can if you wanted to resell that drm free game you just bought off GOG, but nowhere does it say steam must provide a way for you to sell on games you have bought from them...

Steam would not be allowed to block you from reselling the game. So A sells their Steam game to B and then informs Steam that B is now the legal owner of the game. If Steam refuses to transfer the access rights to the game to B then it's not hard to argue that they are blocking the sale. The issue would most certainly end up right back before the courts.

Let's not forget that each EU country will write their own laws to govern this. They could easily come to different conclusions what has to be allowed and what the digital distribution companies are required to do.

 

[CoL0sS]

I applaud the idea (there are couple of games I'd like to get rid of in my Steam library) but part of me is worried for the same reason -

Publishers and devs are already implementing all kinds of asshole moves to make their games profitable, including but not limited to cutting out half the game and selling it as DLC and so on. This will just make it even worse as their costs to develop games keep going up and gamers keep giving money to each other and those brick and mortar moneytraps instead.

New digital versions of popular games are already too expensive to justify buying them from Steam/Origin without users being able to sell them at their leisure. Not to mention that in these kinds of transactions middle-man (company) would always take a cut.
I'm all for options but considering how well we gamers follow through with our threats/boycotts and how good we are with making our voices heard this will provide publishers with just another excuse to bump up the prices or implement draconic DRM measures.

And to further rain on your parade:

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.

 

[Hjalmar Fryklund]

I wouldn't worry about pirates damaging their physical computer components through malware. That's FUD with very little basis.

I don't particularly worry about them either, it's not my computer(s). But why do you think that they are unlikely to get themselves in trouble with viruses (besides being tech-savvy, that is)?

So anyway, contributors: all those people who buy the game from the publisher, or through a distributor (like Steam or Gamer's gate) or even buy unused games in brick&mortal shops or through mailorder. Game companies only churn out new games for us, because of some of that first sale money goes to the company.

Regular customer that doesn't buy used games, then? Gotcha, thanks.

As for my hypothetical used sales scam, why would you want to reward me for just transfering my DRM-free digital game to you, and just maybe (you'll never know) delete it on my own PC afterwards?It takes no effort on my side and I lose nothing.

Firstly, that same agrument can be leveled at physical used games (that are DRM-free, of course). There is little stopping me (besides my conscience) from cracking a disc, then copying the files in it to my hard drive, and then waltzing away to GameStop to sell the disc there. So, if you are okay with physical used games you are going to have to explain exactly which difference between physical and digital games it is that is making you hold that position of yours. If you dislike all used games to begin with, we are going to have to alter the angle of our debate. Or end it, effective immediately.

Secondly, your argument applies primarily to DDs that let you directly download games onto your hard-drive without any DRM or strings attached. Which would be DDs like GOG or Gamer´s Gate. A client-driven service like Steam or Origin would be able to impose penalties for this sort of thing and trying to pull off such a scam could risk you a locked account.

However, I will concede that DDs like Gamer´s Gate would effectively be setting themselves up for scams if they started to implement this system. But that is not as different from physical used game selling and reselling as your argument seems to be implying.

 

[Wicky_42]

How does the buyer know I'm sending him the original and not just making a copy for him?

Is there even an original? I'm thinking no.

This is even dumber than regular used sales, where you may atleast sometimes get the manual and the case with the game.

Who here will pay for a "used" digital copy, that they can also torrent for free?

It's a transference of a license - like when you buy a game on Steam, say, the license is added to your account. This law means it's now legal to sell this license to someone else, ie delete the license from your account and add it to theirs. Is that really all that hard to understand?

Not from the sellers perspective, but the buyer is a different case. A legal alternative to a DRM-ridden transfer: I have legal, digitally distributed games without any DRM.
Example TW2, which is both on Steam and GOG. To buy a TW2 license from a Steam owner rather than from me, suggests people will pay MORE for the added hassle and limitations of DRM.
Most gamers will see the big problem with my happy little alternative, while it still remains the better choice all the same.

Hey, if there's no DRM involved, then this law basically makes it legal for you to give the install files to someone else in exchange for money, on the understanding that you've uninstalled the copy from your machine - as opposed to piracy, which isn't protected by any laws.

Who here will pay for a "new" digital copy, that they can also torrent for free?

Well, since the Escapist frowns on piracy, members here can on the outside fall into only 2 categories: nice guys and just plain fools. They are buying.

I'm not sure what you thought I was saying here, but I was making the point that if you're saying people will pirate rather than buy used, they're just as likely to have pirated in the first place, thus making piracy irrelevant. Some people want to do stuff legally - now their options are that much more open.

 

[Terramax]

Why would someone buy a game at full price, re-sell it for a smaller price, and then pirate it?

I mean future games. If you know you're likely to have games revoked, or possibly get banned from playing the games altogether/ important aspects like online, wouldn't you more than likely not bother at all?

EDIT: Sorry, I think I may have mis-read something here. I thought you were referring to people being penalised. NVM, I'm being silly.

I doubt it. District 9 was considered a low-budget movie, and it cost about $60 million to make.

Is that considered an indie film? Because I'm referring to all films (not just typical Hollywood).

 

[oktalist]

This law seems like it'd be way too hard to enforce, what's to stop people from just selling their games and then 'forgetting' to delete/lock their copies?

The same things that already stop people from playing pirated games?

so you are saying that they are actually giving money to the developers now? I meant from a moral standpoint, not a legal one

Buying new doesn't give money to the developers. Your money goes to the publishers, who did exactly squat in developing the game beyond providing the venture capital. The developers have already received all the money they're ever going to get for the game before it's even released.

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.

Everybody wins! I know I would buy a lot more new games if there was a part-exchange system like this.

...A hell of a lot more.

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

Publishers (like all sellers of goods) don't need any help inventing bullshit reasons to charge the absolute maximum that they think people will be willing to pay. They have all the bullshit reasons they could ever want; they have no reason to concern themselves with legitimate reasons.

If you could buy a new license for $60 or an identical used license for $50, I'd wager they'd see fewer new sales than they would if the new licenses were discounted. So I'd expect to see more fire sales, not less.

Steam would not be allowed to block you from reselling the game. So A sells their Steam game to B and then informs Steam that B is now the legal owner of the game. If Steam refuses to transfer the access rights to the game to B then it's not hard to argue that they are blocking the sale. The issue would most certainly end up right back before the courts.

This needs to happen. Would make an interesting test case.

Let's not forget that each EU country will write their own laws to govern this. They could easily come to different conclusions what has to be allowed and what the digital distribution companies are required to do.

I don't think the EU Court works that way. You may be thinking of the EU Parliament.

 

[oktalist]

I don't hate used sales. I hate Gamestops used sales. A day after release and selling a game for 5 dollars cheaper.

I don't have a problem with that. If two people buy a game on release day and one of them hates it, I don't think the publishers are entitled to two full-price sales out of that.

I do think the person that hated it would get a better deal selling it on eBay or something rather than going to Gamestop, though.

 

[Laurents van Cauwenberghe]

Well last I heard Valve was looking into the option to make games sellable through Steam, and I don't see EA complying with that. Let's see how the digital distributors react for real, though. Let's celebrate a little victory nontheless, my consumer brothers. And sisters.

However.

I am now taking bets. How many armchair lawyers will pop up in this thread, whining about how EU courts have no idea what they're talking about and how we should just bend over because those poor publishers have to feed their children too?

what is that pic you have there? it looks awesome

 

[Krion_Vark]

I don't hate used sales. I hate Gamestops used sales. A day after release and selling a game for 5 dollars cheaper.

I don't have a problem with that. If two people buy a game on release day and one of them hates it, I don't think the publishers are entitled to two full-price sales out of that.

I do think the person that hated it would get a better deal selling it on eBay or something rather than going to Gamestop, though.

I probably should have clarified that having it be sold at 5 dollars cheaper is what I do not like. Especially considering the person who sold it to them will get like 15-25 dollars depending on the game.

 

[Hjalmar Fryklund]

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.

Everybody wins! I know I would buy a lot more new games if there was a part-exchange system like this.

...A hell of a lot more.

I think it could at least minimize the potential money losses from these digital-used-game-scams that some people keep bringing up. Even if you would end up getting scammed by someone who cracked and copied the game files before selling it back to you, you would at least not be giving them any actual money.

 

[BaronUberstein]

Makes perfect sense if you make the copy unusable for the original owner after transferring.