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

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

mor2 on 04 July 2012
Kasz216 said:
mor2 said:
Kasz216 said:
BIG day for Steam.

How so because all I see is lose of revenue. 

IF (huge if) this rulling will not be overturned, the other providers will get time to catch up and the only thing that steam wins is less sales. Since everyone will be passing thier games along.

if that's the case, I don't think you know much about the digital PC buisness or economics...

1) Platforms like steam become needed with this ruling.  If forced to provide a way to sell your used goods, having a user name based software management program is needed. 

2) Steam could also pull a gamestop and offer to BUY games back for store credit, and then turn around and resell them as used in the store.  Like.... I think it was GOG that was going to try and do that?   Most people woudl go with this "quick and easy" way rather then track down someone.

3) Second hand markets drive sales in primary markets.  While this gurantees nothing for the individual publishers, some will lose out, others will gain greatly, and steam will be collecting the extra revenue all the way.

I dont think you understand the fine print. First every digital provider has this or will have time to catch up(no addiitnal user base). Second, the profit from sales, resale means that instead of tweeting hey guys there is a nice game on sale on steam, i'll tweet 'I am finished with it anyone want it' or instead of buying 'anyone has it'? (i.e. loss of sale) 

Third if I can resale my product then I dont have to use them(so no hidden resale fees), and as I pointed here, unlike them I dont have their expensses, that user mangemnt site/board you are talking about I can get up for few dozen bucks a month.(there is no way they compete with this).

Firth you confuse physical resale model with digital one... IMO the only thing you are going to see is 'renting', like OnLive and Gaiki 



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 04 July 2012
mor2 said:
Kasz216 said:
mor2 said:
Kasz216 said:
BIG day for Steam.

How so because all I see is lose of revenue. 

IF (huge if) this rulling will not be overturned, the other providers will get time to catch up and the only thing that steam wins is less sales. Since everyone will be passing thier games along.

if that's the case, I don't think you know much about the digital PC buisness or economics...

1) Platforms like steam become needed with this ruling.  If forced to provide a way to sell your used goods, having a user name based software management program is needed. 

2) Steam could also pull a gamestop and offer to BUY games back for store credit, and then turn around and resell them as used in the store.  Like.... I think it was GOG that was going to try and do that?   Most people woudl go with this "quick and easy" way rather then track down someone.

3) Second hand markets drive sales in primary markets.  While this gurantees nothing for the individual publishers, some will lose out, others will gain greatly, and steam will be collecting the extra revenue all the way.

I dont think you understand the fine print. First every digital provider has this or will have time to catch up(no addiitnal user base). Second, the gain money from sales, resale means that instead of tweeting hey guys there is a nice game on sale on steam, i'll tweet I am finished with anyone want it or instead of buying anyone has it? (i.e. loss of sale) 

Third if I can resale my product then I dont have to use them(so no hidden resale fees), and as I pointed here, unlike them I dont have their expensses, that user mangemnt site/board you are talking about I can get up for few dozen bucks a month.(there is no way they compete with this).

Firth you confuse physical resale model with digital one...

1) Except, most people only want one digital provider.  This forces clustering.

2) And then you use that money and buy more games... and other things in the economy.  It's turns games into liquid assets.  Though most people won't do this, most people will actually just resell back with no hasle.

3) Don't get what your saying there.  The court said there has to be a way to resell it that is free.  It didn't say that you can sell it outside of the framework of the software like Steam.

 

Also, physical resale, and digital resale are functionally the same.  DIgital resale isn't the first market of durable goods that hold up.

A good example is fine jewlery, which argueably is "more duarble" then videogames, since videogames lose value over time as they fall behind in tech specs and technology.  While Diamonds and gold more or less last forever and can be resold in it's old style for quite a bit.

Sure, a digital version of the Atari game would be in perfect condition today...  Are many people going to be jumping to buy Combat though?


Now... a diamond neckleace from back then?  That's held up in value much more.



kitler53 on 04 July 2012
NJ5 said:
SamuelRSmith said:
NJ5 said:
SamuelRSmith said:
I don't like this ruling, bad for property rights.



100% serious.

Before you buy something, it is first the producer's property. If they want to put on obligations (such as not being able to resell) that you agree to, then the producer should be able to enforce those obligations. If you don't agree to those obligations, don't continue with the transaction. You have no right to play games, but that have property rights.


But after you buy something, it is your property and no one has any business restricting your property rights. That is the definition of buying as far as I know (and the court seems to agree).

so by your definition leasing a car should be illegal...

i get it, if you truely own something you should own it. if a car cost ~$10,000 to make and you pay them ~$15,000 than sure the car is yours in its entirely to do with as you please.  if you pay ~$300 upfront than you need to live within the boundaries of the terms of your agreement and the original manufacture should have some say in how and what you can do with that property.

when you buy a game you are putting down ~$60 which is a hell of a lot less than the ~20M it took to create the game.  i kind of think is is unfair to say you fully own that software.  you didn't put down the kind of money needed to truely own it.

i dunno, i can't say i completely disagree that end users should be able to transfer licenses.  but there also need to be some protection to businesses to prevent abuse too.  if not then our economy if fucked in that there will be no investment where there is no ability to make money means there is not jobs.

 

anywho, probably doesn't mean much anyways.  cloud/software as a service is just around the corner.  by the time the details of the ruling if determined the whole issue will be gone.  you simply won't have the ability to buy software ever again.



Mr Khan on 04 July 2012
SamuelRSmith said:
Kasz216 said:
Rhonin the wizard said:
mor2 said:

the whole point of this ruling that steam will have to make due for a way to allow me to resale my game, so less taking it literally and more reading between the lines...

Steam can already achieve this:

Allow its users to trade games they own with the same method they use to trade gifts, the money either being transfered to Steam Wallet or directly to a bank account.

Or simply allow users to trade games just like gifts and how the payment is made is of no concern to Steam, users having to use sites like eBay or PayPal to transfer money from one to the other.

Edit: There is also a digital distribution site that allows you to trade-in a game you bought, it is called Green Man Gaming. Not the same as reselling a game, but it is close.

Yeah, if anyone is rising up their glasses in celebration today... it's steam.  They're already the most popular DD platform, are already set up to more or less handle this ruling, will essentially force people to use their steam more often seeing more steam deals and games, and in general likely force more and more companies into steams hands.

BIG day for Steam.


Hmm, maybe. If there's no difference between a first and second hand title (and, honestly, why would there be?), then there will be no difference in price. This may be good for Steam, and the gamer, as they each get a bigger slice of the pie without the publisher... but which publishers are going to want to agree to that?

publishers will either have to build up the infrastructure to do this, stop selling in EU, or submit to one of the established players in the market.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

kitler53 on 04 July 2012
SamuelRSmith said:
NJ5 said:
SamuelRSmith said:

Depends.

If, when you exchange the property, you sign a contract stating that you must use the property in a certain way, then you must stick to that contract.

Also, if you buy a license (which most software is sold as), the software is still not your property. You may be able to sell the license, unless it is part of the agreement that you signed (clicking I Agree, or whatever).


You can't sign your rights away in a contract (even if you do so willingly and voluntarily). Companies like to pretend that what they write in these "license agreements" is gospel, but it's only gospel as far as it doesn't contradict the law.

First and foremost, you do not have a right to a specific piece of property, so you're not selling away anything. You have the right to obtain property, and you can't alleviate that through contract, but this is something different. This is how you use a specific piece of property, which, obviously must not contradict the law.

I'm saying this new law diminishes property rights because it reduces the amount of control that a producer has over their own property. Just because a game exists, and you have money, does not entitle you to that game. There must be a willing transaction, and the producer may have certain stipulations which they may want to enforce via contract. A law like the one being discussed reduces the stipulations that property owners can put on their property, and, thus, damages property rights.

To give the usual example if I sign a contract saying that you will torture me, that doesn't cease my right to live without being harmed by you.

I don't see the distinction between buying a "software" and a "license". Either I can re-sell the "software" to someone else or I can sell the "license". The effect is the same, after I sell it I can't use it and the other person can.

When you buy a piece of property, you own the property. When you buy a license, you do not. That's the distrinction.

When you buy a piece of property, you may sign a contract specifying what you can and can't do with the property (like, for example, when you buy a house in a gated community, they might have certain rules about noise pollution, pets, whatever), but the property is still yours. When you buy a license you're effectively buying access to somebody else's property. If the license states that it is non-transferable, then it is not transferable.

Obviously, the European Court (or whatever its proper name is) disagrees with me here, and is thinking about "consumer rights" (bollocks). Unfortunately, like many of the European political elite, they seem to forget that most consumers are also producers. So, when you damage producer rights, you're also indirectly damaging consumer rights. These sorts of deals should just be left to the market, with so many competing publishers, developers, distributors, alternatives, the markets will find the right balance between what's good for the particular producer, and what's good for the particular consumer.



i like your post.  consumer and producers right need to be both considered.  this ruling is too one sided for my taste.



Around the Network
Burning Typhoon on 04 July 2012
Rhonin the wizard said:
Burning Typhoon said:
Lol... I see monthly subscriptions. And, how will the prices work on re-sale? Well, I see it now... Europe will have less digital games...

You'll probably have to pay just to browse the stores, and pay a subscription to play games. Or, if this turns out to be more money than it's worth, no digital games. Nothing good's going to come from this.

Abandoning a market of millions of customers, brilliant business strategy you got there.


Maybe... But, wait a second... Does this apply to all digital media... Like books?  Well, I guess I wont have any distributed in Europe...  ever.  And, it will be be abandoned because not enough profit will be made... Otherwise, they'll stay.



SamuelRSmith on 04 July 2012
Kasz216 said:
SamuelRSmith said:
Kasz216 said:
Rhonin the wizard said:
mor2 said:

the whole point of this ruling that steam will have to make due for a way to allow me to resale my game, so less taking it literally and more reading between the lines...

Steam can already achieve this:

Allow its users to trade games they own with the same method they use to trade gifts, the money either being transfered to Steam Wallet or directly to a bank account.

Or simply allow users to trade games just like gifts and how the payment is made is of no concern to Steam, users having to use sites like eBay or PayPal to transfer money from one to the other.

Edit: There is also a digital distribution site that allows you to trade-in a game you bought, it is called Green Man Gaming. Not the same as reselling a game, but it is close.

Yeah, if anyone is rising up their glasses in celebration today... it's steam.  They're already the most popular DD platform, are already set up to more or less handle this ruling, will essentially force people to use their steam more often seeing more steam deals and games, and in general likely force more and more companies into steams hands.

BIG day for Steam.


Hmm, maybe. If there's no difference between a first and second hand title (and, honestly, why would there be?), then there will be no difference in price. This may be good for Steam, and the gamer, as they each get a bigger slice of the pie without the publisher... but which publishers are going to want to agree to that?

It's either agree to that, or have everyone create their own expensive as hell databases with usernames for every single game people own.

Which would only serve to fuck over their own market share, since it's been shown that people generally only want one DD service.

This likely screws over Origin, because nobody will want to put so much money in a main competitors hands.

Sure Steam is a competitor too, but they're a laid back not wanting to expand time company that exists seemingly to just print money and give the owners and big wigs an enviroment they like to make their games.

Well, there's Games For Windows, Steam, Origin, Direct Download.

Such databases, while vast, are not that expensive, especially when you consider how much profit could be in it.



SamuelRSmith on 04 July 2012
Mr Khan said:
SamuelRSmith said:
Kasz216 said:
Rhonin the wizard said:
mor2 said:

the whole point of this ruling that steam will have to make due for a way to allow me to resale my game, so less taking it literally and more reading between the lines...

Steam can already achieve this:

Allow its users to trade games they own with the same method they use to trade gifts, the money either being transfered to Steam Wallet or directly to a bank account.

Or simply allow users to trade games just like gifts and how the payment is made is of no concern to Steam, users having to use sites like eBay or PayPal to transfer money from one to the other.

Edit: There is also a digital distribution site that allows you to trade-in a game you bought, it is called Green Man Gaming. Not the same as reselling a game, but it is close.

Yeah, if anyone is rising up their glasses in celebration today... it's steam.  They're already the most popular DD platform, are already set up to more or less handle this ruling, will essentially force people to use their steam more often seeing more steam deals and games, and in general likely force more and more companies into steams hands.

BIG day for Steam.


Hmm, maybe. If there's no difference between a first and second hand title (and, honestly, why would there be?), then there will be no difference in price. This may be good for Steam, and the gamer, as they each get a bigger slice of the pie without the publisher... but which publishers are going to want to agree to that?

publishers will either have to build up the infrastructure to do this, stop selling in EU, or submit to one of the established players in the market.


There are already several players who have the infrastructure, and it's not the most expensive thing in the world to set up, which means other players could easily get in the market.



mor2 on 04 July 2012

 

@Kasz216. What it says that once they sell me the game they loose the right to control its distribution and the only limitation is that they have a right to implement a DRM in order to make sure that I stop using the product after I sold it. Meaning that if I bought a game I can hand it to you(sell for free) and you'll be able to play it and worst thing they can do is an "online pass", which is transferred to you (unless you resale it to me) - that is all.

Technically It basically change nothing for Digital distributors and in case of platforms like steam which also provide the DRM, it will mean that they will need to add another menu 'transefer/sale' game like send gift.

 

As for economy argument, I am not sure why its hard to understand, this is not physical goods, there is no high distribution cost and its as fast as few clicks and we are talking here specifically about steam. So explain to me If right now I am buying several games a month and after that at most I'll be buying one game a year and sharing "sale/resale" between all my friends and vice versa. 

Also as for steam other services unless steam amends its policy and make a "steam pass", for the price calculated for one user, they'll service as many users as resales will happen.


So how is it a big day for steam?(and/or developers Read this) Espcialy when we go beyound sharing games with my friends and make a little site lets call it 'open gaming' that helps connect people to share them, (espcaily when we do it for free), basicly there would be no reason to buy any game older than two weeks and in the bottom line both steam and developers now would get only a couple of sales per hundreds before(i.e. how rental modle works).

 

So tell me how are they going to be able to sastain themself? how is this =/= a rain of new types of "online passes" and move to cloud gaming?



Mnementh on 04 July 2012
theRepublic said:

This means Steam, GOG, Origin, et al., NEEDS to supply a way to transfer the ‘right to download the game’ to the proper party.  Whether this feature will include a nominal fee or not remains to be seen.  Don’t be surprised if it does; the potential revenue to be made there is astounding.  Here’s a hypothetical for you: Even if the fee is something around ten cents and it’s Euro counterpart, the volume alone could net Gabe and company quadrillions of dollars.  Gorillians even."

Any thoughts on who is right?  My thought is that Gamasutra missed that point, and the digital sellers will need to support used sales.  I could be wrong though.

Heise (german tech-news) disagree with this interpretation:

http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/EuGH-Klares-Ja-zum-Weiterverkauf-gebrauchter-Software-1631306.html

Basically they argue, the judges have ruled, that Oracle (in this case) cannot forbid the resale of their software-download. But they didn't forbid entangling software with a account (like Steam or itunes) or with the hardware. That wasn't part of the ruling. A different case would be needed, to open up Steam.

And for MP3s and movies it is very clear: seems the european law has a specific definition of software: written in a  computer-language that allows for loops and conditional jumps. As a programmer I agree with this definition. But that means, MP3 and videos are not covered by this decision. The article hopes for later rulings in this area.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]