By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - European Union court: Consumers have the right to re-sell their Digitally Distributed games

Can the licence be sold cross-platform? For example I buy Resident evil 6 on PSN and sell it to an Xbox user? That would be all sorts of awesome. Obviously, the file would have to be converted so it's Xbox compatible. I can buy a second hand Car, house, console etc already, so this bring DD into that territory. Just because i'm not giving money directly to the producer, does not mean i'm not putting money into the industry. The cash I gave someone to buy their second hand game can be used to buy a new game by the seller.



Around the Network

This should pave the way for more use of online content. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the content distributors use this as an excuse to skyrocket the prices of all digital distributed content.

Watch this space...



fordy said:
This should pave the way for more use of online content. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the content distributors use this as an excuse to skyrocket the prices of all digital distributed content.

Watch this space...


Even if prices increase because of this, that's not such a bad thing for gamers, because it would also mean that you could resell your game for a high price after you are done with it, i.e. the same situation as with selling used DVDs (except easier because you don't have to snail mail anything :P).



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

NJ5 said:
wfz said:
This is...worrisome news. At first it sounds amazing for consumers, but I'm sure there are going to be serious reprimands from publishers who do not appreciate this ruling.

I'm not sure of the exact legal differences between holding a digital license and a physical copy, but one thing I do know is that digital licenses never wear down or expire. You could have the same copy sold 200 years from now if someone wanted it, and it'd be just like brand new. That kind of destroys the sales of digital goods, don't you think?

Does this apply to games only, or would someone be able to sell their iTunes music?


You have that quite backwards. The fact that digital copies don't wear out is a plus for their value, and therefore is a plus for the publishers who sell them.

Now the publishers that sell titles which lose their replay value after a few hours of play, they should worry, because people might realize quicker that those titles don't have much monetary value. But that's the way it should be, and those publishers should not be protected from this reality...


How is that positive for publishers? What they care about is money. If their product never loses value, then the only positive gain for them would be being able to sell that product at a higher price point since it doesn't lose value.

 

But publishers probably can't get away with pricing their games much higher than they are now. Considering many gamers will set up huge systems of trading games to share amongst each other rather than buying new copies, I fail to see how this is positive at all for publishers. Please enlighten me. :P



wfz said:
NJ5 said:
wfz said:
This is...worrisome news. At first it sounds amazing for consumers, but I'm sure there are going to be serious reprimands from publishers who do not appreciate this ruling.

I'm not sure of the exact legal differences between holding a digital license and a physical copy, but one thing I do know is that digital licenses never wear down or expire. You could have the same copy sold 200 years from now if someone wanted it, and it'd be just like brand new. That kind of destroys the sales of digital goods, don't you think?

Does this apply to games only, or would someone be able to sell their iTunes music?


You have that quite backwards. The fact that digital copies don't wear out is a plus for their value, and therefore is a plus for the publishers who sell them.

Now the publishers that sell titles which lose their replay value after a few hours of play, they should worry, because people might realize quicker that those titles don't have much monetary value. But that's the way it should be, and those publishers should not be protected from this reality...


How is that positive for publishers? What they care about is money. If their product never loses value, then the only positive gain for them would be being able to sell that product at a higher price point since it doesn't lose value.

 

But publishers probably can't get away with pricing their games much higher than they are now. Considering many gamers will set up huge systems of trading games to share amongst each other rather than buying new copies, I fail to see how this is positive at all for publishers. Please enlighten me. :P

I'm going to make an analogy...

Imagine a car maker invented a car that doesn't need maintenance and lasts forever (and which you can resell). Wouldn't you pay more for this car than for a car that degrades with time or a car you can't resell?

Why wouldn't this be the case for games? Steam / PSN / etc. games are not always sold for 60 € btw...



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Around the Network
NJ5 said:
wfz said:
NJ5 said:
wfz said:
This is...worrisome news. At first it sounds amazing for consumers, but I'm sure there are going to be serious reprimands from publishers who do not appreciate this ruling.

I'm not sure of the exact legal differences between holding a digital license and a physical copy, but one thing I do know is that digital licenses never wear down or expire. You could have the same copy sold 200 years from now if someone wanted it, and it'd be just like brand new. That kind of destroys the sales of digital goods, don't you think?

Does this apply to games only, or would someone be able to sell their iTunes music?


You have that quite backwards. The fact that digital copies don't wear out is a plus for their value, and therefore is a plus for the publishers who sell them.

Now the publishers that sell titles which lose their replay value after a few hours of play, they should worry, because people might realize quicker that those titles don't have much monetary value. But that's the way it should be, and those publishers should not be protected from this reality...


How is that positive for publishers? What they care about is money. If their product never loses value, then the only positive gain for them would be being able to sell that product at a higher price point since it doesn't lose value.

 

But publishers probably can't get away with pricing their games much higher than they are now. Considering many gamers will set up huge systems of trading games to share amongst each other rather than buying new copies, I fail to see how this is positive at all for publishers. Please enlighten me. :P

I'm going to make an analogy...

Imagine a car maker invented a car that doesn't need maintenance and lasts forever (and which you can resell). Wouldn't you pay more for this car than for a car that degrades with time or a car you can't resell?

Why wouldn't this be the case for games? Steam / PSN / etc. games are not always sold for 60 € btw...


Not everyone can pay that larger upfront price, even if they wanted to buy the game and keep it forever. This simple reason is why we have month payment options for expensive devices such as phones and now video game consoles (360). Are they going to start offering monthly payment options for consumers who can't put up that higher cost up front?

Those consumers simply will not buy the product and instead will buy it cheaper second-hand (as there is absolutely NO detriment to buying second-hand, you don't have to worry about defects/bumps/scratches/wearing parts/etc). This is destroying your consumer base for profitability...



wfz said:


Not everyone can pay that larger upfront price, even if they wanted to buy the game and keep it forever. This simple reason is why we have month payment options for expensive devices such as phones and now video game consoles (360). Are they going to start offering monthly payment options for consumers who can't put up that higher cost up front?

Those consumers simply will not buy the product and instead will buy it cheaper second-hand. This is destroying your consumer base for profitability...


People who can't afford 10-20 € in extra price are the people who, today, cannot afford to buy more than one game. Those people would be able to resell games in order to buy new ones, so the resale of games also takes care of that "problem"...

Here's another way to look at the whole digital distribution thing... It allows publishers to get a bigger cut of the game (no retailer in the middle). They can put this extra revenue into mitigating whatever negative effects these consumer rights have on them.

In the end, consumers should have a right to sell something they own, and no amount of crying from the publishers should change that (and hopefully it won't). It is this way for every industry in the world whether their products degrade or not... In the end a good game will still sell many copies because many people will want one, and the used market cannot multiply the number of existing copies (only piracy can).



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

How exactly does one go about selling their digital copy at the moment? Once we redeem a code its gone and its not going to work again.



 

UltimateUnknown said:
How exactly does one go about selling their digital copy at the moment? Once we redeem a code its gone and its not going to work again.

Depends on what game / what service you're talking about. On Steam there's no way to resell (hopefully this court decision or a subsequent one makes them support reselling).

When it comes to games without DRM or with a serial-key you can simply sell your license/serial code to someone, and you don't use it after it's sold... That simple (although it might take some time until the digital "used" market flourishes enough to make this easy and commonplace).



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

This is good, now it needs to come to USA. Also if you sell a used digital item, it is basically brand new as you can not have damaged it. So I am wondering what people would sell their used digital items for?