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

[Tallim]

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...

"Therefore the new acquirer of the user licence, such as a customer of UsedSoft, may, as a
lawful acquirer of the corrected and updated copy of the computer program concerned,
download that copy from the copyright holder?s website. "

From the ruling. You have the license so the copyright holder has to provide access to a copy. I think given it's "copyright holder" that this will produce further complications with things like Steam as they mostly have distribution rights and unless it is one of "their" games then you pretty much circumnavigate them.

Interestingly enough the sale of the license also grants the sale of all updates and alterations as well so stuff like online pass and dlc integrated into the program must also be made accessible to the new owner of the license.


Disclaimer:I'm completely shattered and dosed with painkillers so any or all of that could be complete nonsense........

 

[Irridium]

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).

Ah, I see. I was referring to Hollywood movies. With movies in general 30 million sounds like a decent estimate.

As for District 9, I don't think it was considered indie. It was definitely considered on the small scale though.

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.

I am pretty sure that is factually incorrect, but I am having a hard time finding the data to back that up. As far as i remember fro the last time looking into this.

Its pretty hard finding the numbers because the thing about DVD's is that they sell a lot longer after.
Also that it varies from movie to movie.

I found a comparison on "Batman: The Dark Knight" where it was $533,345,358 profit ticket sales and from $257,873,052 DVD sales. Domestic that is. I could find the international numbers for the ticket sales, but not for the DVD sales.
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2008/BATM2.php
If you got a better source then please let me know.

I'm having a hard time finding sources myself, actually. I just figured that since DVD sales can last considerably longer than a theatrical release, they'll eventually make far more money for a studio. Well, for the most part, anyway. A bit hard to find data to back that up, though.

What I did find is this article [http://www.backstage.com/bso/advice-columns/business-of-acting/business-of-acting/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003951917] for aspiring actors that breaks down where the money comes from after release, though. It also notes that DVD's are a very large market, but it's shrinking rapidly. It's also from 2009, if that matters.

Seems the process of making money on a film is quite the clusterfuck, to put it lightly.

 

[Vault101]

I don;t get it though...there would literally be no difference between a "pre owned" digital game and a new one

at least in real life the physical copy (wear and tear) and taken into account but here...

 

[Griffolion]

Great to see high court holding this up. But let's be real here, EA and Valve aren't going to do a damn thing to get in line with it, you'd have to take them to court and fight it out.

 

[Scorched_Cascade]

Great to see high court holding this up. But let's be real here, EA and Valve aren't going to do a damn thing to get in line with it, you'd have to take them to court and fight it out.

Technically you could sell steam accounts with the game on.

Find a game you're not sure about? Gift it to an alternative account of yours. Find you don't like it? See the username password to the account. The buyer will change the password so that you no longer have access to the game making it a perfectly legal sale.

 

[Vegosiux]

at least in real life the physical copy (wear and tear) and taken into account but here...

What wear and tear?

This argument has been brought up in the thread several times by now, but when it comes to the game itself, just in what way is the quality of a pre-owned game degraded compared to the quality of a new one? It should still play as well as it did when it was new.

Find a game you're not sure about? Gift it to an alternative account of yours. Find you don't like it? See the username password to the account. The buyer will change the password so that you no longer have access to the game making it a perfectly legal sale.

Yeah well, I'm sure dummy accounts like that would be frowned upon because they'd create all kinds of additional unnecessary server load.

 

[Vault101]

at least in real life the physical copy (wear and tear) and taken into account but here...

What wear and tear?

This argument has been brought up in the thread several times by now, but when it comes to the game itself, just in what way is the quality of a pre-owned game degraded compared to the quality of a new one? It should still play as well as it did when it was new.
.

the disk is more likley to be scratched..I mean generally there's no difference.....but I guess your paying less for the fact that somone else has had their grubby hands on it

also theres the issue of not having those "extras/online passes" I mean my copy of battlefeild 3 is pretty much worthless from a trade in point of veiw

 

[veloper]

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.

The seller uninstalling the (DRM-free) game or not, is a skinner's box scenario. This is unverifiable. Not even sure it is still a valid question with a real answer, because a game is information in essence, valuable only when previously unknown and afterwards infinitely reproduceable.
I know I wouldn't give easy money to some dude who may or may not uninstall his game.

Following the logic to it's final conclusion I wouldn't take the Steam "used" sale alternative either, because DRM just makes a product worse for the consumer and I don't see why I should care whether the previous owner X, can play the game or not.

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.

On the PC I wouldn't be so sure about that.
On xbox there may be many clueless without the knowhow and/or social connections to pirate games, but on the PC there is no barrier and many of us actually started gaming as kids, playing copied games. I suspect many gamers that are playing legal games on the PC may be more of the honest/idealistic minority.
I could also be wrong on that account, but atleast for me and people around me,supporting the devs and giving something back to keep them going has been my only motive to drop some money on games, because nobody can make us do anything.

 

[veloper]

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)?

In my experiences with fixing other people's computer probs, is that people who aren't savvy enough end up getting virusses and maleware in any case.
Also virusses and malware that destroy hardware by controlling system resources on a very low level, like stopping systemfans are extremely rare, if not hoaxes most of the time. You'd need to target and code for specific brands and components.

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.

Well maybe that example isn't so different from my argument. Forging the correct appearance of the disc and the case would be alot more work, but I still wouldn't want to give them my money for that effort.
I don't care what other people do on their PC, but I do care where my money is going.

 

[Tony2077]

so its legal will they ever give us the ability to do it?

 

[Carpenter]

Good news? Saying it's legal to give away the content would be good news I suppose, saying it's legal to sell, therefore making a profit off something somebody else made, is despicable. Still, I guess that doesn't matter on this site. As long as we gets our video games for a small price, it's ok that we are giving money to people that have done nothing to create it.

 

[mateushac]

I can totally see Single Player games ceasing to exist.
uninformed judge is uninformed.

 

[Hjalmar Fryklund]

In my experiences with fixing other people's computer probs, is that people who aren't savvy enough end up getting virusses and maleware in any case.
Also virusses and malware that destroy hardware by controlling system resources on a very low level, like stopping systemfans are extremely rare, if not hoaxes most of the time. You'd need to target and code for specific brands and components.

Fair enough then.

Well maybe that example isn't so different from my argument. Forging the correct appearance of the disc and the case would be alot more work, but I still wouldn't want to give them my money for that effort.

Eh?

Question 1: Why would you forge a disc and case rather than do what I suggested in my previous reply to you?

Question 2: Few private persons would have steady access to the equipment for this, right?

Question 3: Wouldn't the expenses for the printing material, machinery and contracting for case moulding outweigh the profits?

Question 4: Following from no. 3, very few private persons would be in a position to profit from this kind of scam, right?

Question 5: Did you mean to imply that you see this sort of forgery as an equivalent to this used game scam you are suggesting?

The rest of this post is going to be a recap of some of my views (for the moment) on this subject. This is not directed at you, veloper, so feel free to skip this part should you feel as such.

How would I organize a client-driven DD that deals in used games?

Take the following scenario:

Anna wants to get rid of a game on her DD account. She sends a message to the bots manning the game libraries support to notify them of this. The bots then proceed to revoke her license to the game, effectively making it dead weight on her hard drive. In return for doing this, Anna will receive a 5-15% discount (determined by various factors such as season, game´s current market value) on the next game she purchases.

This would mean that even if the Anna decides to find a crack to the game she had her license revoked for rather than deleting the remaining files, thus gaming the system, the DD would still not lose money on this, merely profit slightly less from Anna´s next game purchase.

The moral of the story: Lower profits do not equal greater costs. They may have similar effects on businesses, but they have their distinctions too, as exemplified above.

 

[veloper]

In my experiences with fixing other people's computer probs, is that people who aren't savvy enough end up getting virusses and maleware in any case.
Also virusses and malware that destroy hardware by controlling system resources on a very low level, like stopping systemfans are extremely rare, if not hoaxes most of the time. You'd need to target and code for specific brands and components.

Fair enough then.

Well maybe that example isn't so different from my argument. Forging the correct appearance of the disc and the case would be alot more work, but I still wouldn't want to give them my money for that effort.

Eh?

Question 1: Why would you forge a disc and case rather than do what I suggested in my previous reply to you?

You could do it multiple times this way.

Question 2: Few private persons would have steady access to the equipment for this, right?

Question 3: Wouldn't the expenses for the printing material, machinery and contracting for case moulding outweigh the profits?

It cost money to do this and it's not worth it on a small scale, but that's not my problem. Bootlegging like this does happen though.

Question 4: Following from no. 3, very few private persons would be in a position to profit from this kind of scam, right?

Yes and I wouldn't want to give themmy money anyway.

Question 5: Did you mean to imply that you see this sort of forgery as an equivalent to this used game scam you are suggesting?

The copy of the DRM-free game is an undetectable 100% perfect copy. Infinitely reproduceable. So bootlegging 2.0, if people would be dumb enough to throw money at used digitally distributed games.

 

[Hjalmar Fryklund]

You could do it multiple times this way.

Yes, but as you concur below, you won't really profit from this unless you go medium-scale or higher. A scam artist who would try to sell these to consumers at open markets or to used-game retailers like GameStop would be facing a high risk of getting caught for this. A digital one, not so much.

But this isn't the main problem I have with your argument (and in hindsight, my own too).

Question 2: Few private persons would have steady access to the equipment for this, right?

Question 3: Wouldn't the expenses for the printing material, machinery and contracting for case moulding outweigh the profits?

It cost money to do this and it's not worth it on a small scale, but that's not my problem. Bootlegging like this does happen though.

Question 4: Following from no. 3, very few private persons would be in a position to profit from this kind of scam, right?

Yes and I wouldn't want to give themmy money anyway.

The problem here is that you are drawing a comparison here which doesn't hold up that well to closer scrutiny. The physical scam requires money, material and equipment to pull off, the digital one requires someone to have a computer (which they would have anyway, if they are going to use the game or the internet).

However, this goes the other way as well. My argument falls apart when you point out that my example is only profitable once. The digital version would be profitable until the market is effectively sated.

We are going to start arguing in circles if we don't draw a line here, so let attempt to do that by granting that you may indeed have made a point below here.

Question 5: Did you mean to imply that you see this sort of forgery as an equivalent to this used game scam you are suggesting?

The copy of the DRM-free game is an undetectable 100% perfect copy. Infinitely reproduceable. So bootlegging 2.0, if people would be dumb enough to throw money at used digitally distributed games.

Having gotten over my initial "WTF?!" moment that jumpstarted this discussion, I will concede that you have a valid concern here. Some private person who bootlegs a digital game to sell it (digitally) to another consumer (while keeping a master copy of their own) would certainly be guilty of what you are talking about.

CAPTCHA: full stop.

Not quite yet, captcha. But I do feel we are drawing close.

 

[veloper]

You could do it multiple times this way.

Yes, but as you concur below, you won't really profit from this unless you go medium-scale or higher. A scam artist who would try to sell these to consumers at open markets or to used-game retailers like GameStop would be facing a high risk of getting caught for this. A digital one, not so much.

But this isn't the main problem I have with your argument (and in hindsight, my own too).

Question 2: Few private persons would have steady access to the equipment for this, right?

Question 3: Wouldn't the expenses for the printing material, machinery and contracting for case moulding outweigh the profits?

It cost money to do this and it's not worth it on a small scale, but that's not my problem. Bootlegging like this does happen though.

Question 4: Following from no. 3, very few private persons would be in a position to profit from this kind of scam, right?

Yes and I wouldn't want to give themmy money anyway.

The problem here is that you are drawing a comparison here which doesn't hold up that well to closer scrutiny. The physical scam requires money, material and equipment to pull off, the digital one requires someone to have a computer (which they would have anyway, if they are going to use the game or the internet).

However, this goes the other way as well. My argument falls apart when you point out that my example is only profitable once. The digital version would be profitable until the market is effectively sated.

We are going to start arguing in circles if we don't draw a line here, so let attempt to do that by granting that you may indeed have made a point below here.

Question 5: Did you mean to imply that you see this sort of forgery as an equivalent to this used game scam you are suggesting?

The copy of the DRM-free game is an undetectable 100% perfect copy. Infinitely reproduceable. So bootlegging 2.0, if people would be dumb enough to throw money at used digitally distributed games.

Having gotten over my initial "WTF?!" moment that jumpstarted this discussion, I will concede that you have a valid concern here. Some private person who bootlegs a digital game to sell it (digitally) to another consumer (while keeping a master copy of their own) would certainly be guilty of what you are talking about.

CAPTCHA: full stop.

Not quite yet, captcha. But I do feel we are drawing close.

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.

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

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.

 

[Hjalmar Fryklund]

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?

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.