EU court rules people can resell digital games
gamingbible.com
Finally some good news! I've been waiting for quite a while for such a ruling.
Edit: Seems this cites an article from 2012, I didn't notice that (and it's still news to me). Though there's still hope that it'll happen, EU is slow, but usually eventually gets shit done.
This article is based on an article from Eurogamer in 2012 [1].
There're more recent similar rulings like in France in 2019 [2], but Valve already appealed. It will take many years until there's a final decision.
[1] https://www.eurogamer.net/eu-rules-publishers-cannot-stop-you-reselling-your-downloaded-games
[2] https://www.tomshardware.com/news/valve-steam-resell-games-ban-france-eu,40438.html
This is an 11 year old article, so hardly "news"
???
Click through to the real article, not the reblog
Interesting! I wonder how/if platforms will implement this, maybe my backlog will finally make me some money 😆
Right??? There's lots of games I own that I played through once or twice and will probably never play again. I was hoping something like this would come along someday.
Please Valve, be the first to implement a market for the players on Steam, and once again you’ll be the pioneer that everyone tries to copy.
They literally just need to add a way to "repackage" a game from your library into an inventory item and then they could use the Marketplace they already have
It would be cool but they probably wouldn't pay money directly to your bank on sale. It would still be locked to Steam. Wish valve let you transfer money out.
Greenmangaming was doing this a decade ago. Steam wouldn't be the first,but it might be the one to get it to stick.
(Ironically, it was predominantly steam games at first that couldn't be traded on GMG)
WELL, good thing for Steam and others they sell "perpetual limited licenses" of games instead of "digital copies".
The EU doesn’t mess around, their definition of digital purchase is what matters, not the wording in steam EULA
Yeah consumer retail has implied contracts that override anything you write in a TOS or EULA. You can add certain things with those but there's still a basic commercial transaction happening that is bound to the rule of law.
I'm mentioning this because I remember EU going after Valve sometime in 00' or early 10' because of this, and remember Valve basically saying "well, we will no longer sell digital goods then, enjoy your licenses". I know I remember this but I cannot find a source on google...
Need someone who knows more about EU law to chime in here: does this mean valve et al will be forced to implement a way for users to resell/transfer games to other users?
As others have pointed out, the original article is from 2012, and even with similar rulings in EU countries more recently, it will take years before we see any result of this.
But I think the ultimate answer to your question here is: yes, that would become a thing.
But there is so much to this that makes it hard to predict how good it would be. Who decides the price? What rules will there be on when and how you can resell?
NFT game licences turn digital game sales into used game trading like you'd find at gamestop - except still being equivalent/identical to brand new purchases
Yep tradable licenses is about the only thing NFTs are actually good for.
Not really, though. NFTs only benefit is to distribute trust/authority. In this case there still needs to be some central authority who will actually honor it and provide the game at the end (either Steam or the game's creator or something else). It is far more energy efficient for that central authority to also track who has what without performing useless work.
Steam or the creator shouldn't be a central authority: If you have a game on steam and want to sell it to someone and they then activate in on epic, that should be possible. There should be zero influence from those parties over what happens with the NFT. It would also be legal, at least over here, to procure an erm backup copy from somewhere if you have such an NFT. And the NFT can live on after the original minter (presumably the publisher) went out of business. Say, GOG or archive.org could offer a service where the gamer pays a small fee and they can download binaries+emulation environment for those abandoned NFTs.
Neither the publisher nor the original store have any legal standing preventing any of this because exhaustion. Which is also why you can get Windows keys for dirt-cheap in e.g. Germany: There's a small cottage industry buying up volume licenses at bankruptcy proceedings and then sell them on, unbundled. Microsoft can do exactly as much about it as Coca-Cola can stop you from selling individual cans from a sixpack.
That's an interesting idea to me, particularly regarding preservation of games of bankrupted companies. I'd still be in favor of a central registrar as opposed to NFTs, just because of the huge inefficiencies and environmental impact of that (essentially useless) computation.
There would need to be some governing authority dictating that companies need to honor the download of games not purchased from them (essentially the government of each country that has this as a law). It would make sense to me that that same government could host a service to keep track of the transactions. Or, more likely, the government just mandates the companies to play nice and exchange purchase data with each other. Sure, in some sense you're letting the wolves run the henhouse, but it also isn't that different from a game company refusing to give you a game you purchased from them. They could do that, but you would take legal action against them. Same thing here.
I don't mind tradable game items too, it would be cool if valve didn't have a monopoly on community trading. They could still even take an automated royalty cut with NFT trades
Problem there is the gas cost of blockchain is too high. Recording transactions on chain is expensive. It might be worthwhile for full game transfers, but for cosmetics? I doubt that.
You could also achieve exactly the same benefits without adding in the expense of gas fees at all. Indeed that gives you quite a few other benefits like being able to reverse fraudulent transactions and being able to ensure the platform gets a cut.
Why should steam get a cut if I sell a game.
Presumably becuse their the ones paying server costs to host the game, let you download it again and again on diffrent devices, and manage all the technical issues with the system of getting it to you.
What blockchain? There are many implementations, there's no reason there has to be excessive "gas" costs. These are solved problems
What blockchain doesn't have high transaction costs once it scales up to large usage? Fundamentally blockchains are about hyper-redundant indestructable storage with expensive costs for writing to that storage to prevent flooding it with garbage. The most mature and sophisticated blockchain that doesn't involve burning down a forest to solve sudokus is the Ethereum network, which is probably the one to point to when we're talking about a large blockchain, and that's one that uses the subcurrency of "gas" to model paying for recording into that ledger.
Are there any blockchains that could handle transaction volumes on the scale of a game-store like Gog or Epic (much less Steam) without putting non-trivial prices on writing the transactions to the ledger?
One example already handling game item NFTs with super low fees https://loopring.org/#/ Another example of super high scalability with extremely low fees https://ripple.com/xrp/
You'd obviously build a bespoke purpose built solution instead of shoehorning it into some random existing crypto network
Why bother with NFTs? every storefront already has a licensing system, the only benefit I could see is being able to move it from storefront to storefront, but they will never go for that. Even then it could be done much more efficiently other ways.
Direct trading of games between individuals. Not locked into one market that could shut down. EA and Steam sell the same game. EA wouldn't let valve have a monopoly on used game trades
Wouldn't surprise me if, assuming this actually comes to fruition, certain game stores such as epic or any of the non-Steam/GoG stores end up implementing the selling of your digital games in the most absolute abhorrent ways imaginable. Things like making the service to sell your games on their shops run at a snails pace, being forced into a profit cut because you use their service, or just flat out editing your account to make you break ToS and then deleting your account.
A) Article isn't available
B) Before the garbage article was taken down, all it did was source an eurogamer article from 2012 when the law changes first where made
C) y'all wasting your time
I'm not sure how to feel about this, to be honest.
I don't have any serious plans or anything, but I do want to dabble in a bit of gamedev. Nothing major, just like an RPG or something that I put on Steam for like $5. I imagine there's a lot of people who take bets on their future by releasing games that cost $10 or $20.
Why would anyone pay full price for games if you could get them from a trading platform for like 75%? I bet there's a lot of people that would buy my game, play through it once and then sell it for maybe $4. And others who thinks anytime that pays full price for a game is an idiot.
Indie Devs would have to rise prices, perhaps drastically, to cover the lost revenue here. This would also put an end to Steam sales, because the instant you put your game on sale it sets the price for it in third party markets.
What about bigger games like BG3? What's stopping me from buying it full price, copying the files somewhere and then instantly reselling it? It would probably force them to implement strict DRM restrictions, and probably the nasty rootkit kind.
I'm personally against DRM and don't want to release a game with it, but the fact that this lowers the bar to piracy so much may force my hand.
I honestly believe this could spell the end of the indie gaming scene.
The same thing that's stopping you from downloading the files now. A combination of ethics and the value legitimately owning the game adds to your purchase.
Yeah, you could already pirate it today. You could even buy it, copy files and refund it, but you probably don't.
The ethics get muddier for your average person, though. Piracy is (to a good chunk of people) clearly wrong: there is something someone made that most people had to pay for and you're getting it for free. That's not how things are supposed to work.
With this, you are still paying money for the game, it's just cheaper, but games are cheaper when they're on sale, too. I think a much larger group of people will make use of "used" digital games without giving a ton of thought to the fact that the game creator is getting less than those who are fine with pirating games. On top of that, ethics aside, one of those activities is illegal and the other potentially legal, which does affect how people make decisions as well.
My guess is if that happens, studios will choose not to put their games on sale anymore or less frequently. Why would they discount the game when the used market is an option. It also depends on the average price of the game used and if a sale undercuts the used market. Lots of variables and there's opportunity to boost new sales in the form of perks, bundles, exclusive in game content, etc...
I think the key part there is that when they disconnect a game they still get (almost) pure profit off that sale. For a used game, they're only getting some percentage of it if the person selling is getting a cut or majority. I think the creator would always prefer sales and avoid the used market at any cost, since it provides them no value and actively hurts their more lucrative sales.
I don't think buying used is unethical if the law establishes that, just buying to download and immediately resell, which I don't think that many would rationalize as any better. I think the people most likely to do it are people who pay to pirate now who might pay a little for a slightly easier experience.
I fully acknowledge that it's a grey area, but I've personally always considered resale of digital goods (goods which can be obtained purely digitally, even if sold in a physical medium) to be unethical, although legal. If I'm going to pay money to it, I want the money to go to the person who created it, not to someone else who happened to purchase it or, worse, some company that provides no value other than encouraging those transactions.
To me, resale on physical goods is ethical because there are two core differences with those which could be acquired purely digitally. Physical goods degrade with use, providing reduced value compared to new goods. And it is better for unwanted physical goods to continue to provide value for someone than for it to enter a landfill.
same reason why people buy games even though they can pirate them to get them for free
For this to become a serious issue a couple of conditions need to be met:
Now, given the fact that I have full confidence in your ability to create something worthwhile (because you would do so from passion), this cycle will likely be broken at some point.
There's also the other option where people will circulate their second hand games with the knowledge they'll be able to buy back another copy somewhere down the road.
But yes, you're right that this will bring a new factor to the gaming industry that everyone has to take into account. Keep in mind that your financial security in the indie gaming sector is fully dependant on wether you develop something worthwhile. You are in no way entitled to be able to make a living from publishing games regardless of their quality. Which is the beauty of the indie games segment: the more love and care you put into your game, the bigger the chances are that it'll be a success.
Movies were resellable for decades and b movies still existed.
GOG literally exists and yet gamers still buy it on Steam.
If steam implements it, it may be more accessible and thus make it more relevant but as of now, nothing would really change.
I've no doubt that Steam, PSN, etc can avoid complying with the spirit of the law on this, but the writing is on the wall as far as subscription services go.
Since I got my PS5 just over a year ago, I own 2 games for it. GoW Ragnarok that came with it, and BG3 that was only available digitally. PS+ has provided all the rest. I've spent the last week playing Teardown which is great. If this law actually happens, then all devs, not just indie ones, will be relying on game subscription service revenue.
SteamDB gives a value of 2500€, 9500€ if I bought everything with today's prices, for my library, most of which are from Humble Bundle, and I have probably 150 unredeemed keys as well. I could easily sell 95% of them as I've played through them or don't like them, and net a sizeable profit in the process. And I'm definitely not alone.
They would have to implement some sort of revenue sharing for sure that guaranteed some of the resell value went back to the developer, or this would indeed be the result. Also all bundle/discount sites would die overnight anyway.
Locked credits to steam and they take a big cut.
Better than nothing I suppose..
Fine by me.
Please enforce this for console games as well. Digical games and DLCs are typically more expensive than both new and used physical games. Physical games prices usually decrease few months after release, digital one rarely do.
It's obvious that vendors rely on digital restriction (aka DRMs) to kill the used market and sell older games at higher price. I'm avoiding digital games and DLC because of this, and I'm reluctant to buy a new console given the hard push toward digital games and attempts to kill the used market.
If this really happens I'd get to "clean" my steam library
I'd get to sell my PlayStation & Xbox Inventories to purchase more games on Steam <3
This is pretty stupid considering digital Goods have no physical presence, no scarcity,