Steam should let users resell games, French court rules
- Thread starter Deleted member 15428
- Start date
This would never work without games going up in price significantly.
This is not like buying/selling physical games.
This is like passing around a file on your computer. That never degrades in quality. And there are countless amounts of these files out there being sold by people other than the original distributor. And those files are 100% just as easy to obtain as they are from the original distributor, and they are 100% the exact same quality.
A store would pop up in no-time hosting a marketplace for people to throw their files on to, and after a month or two of the file's original release, there would never be any reason to buy the file from the distributor ever again.
Solution? Games cost twice as much. And small developers go out of business. And AAA developers close studios.
I expect this to be appealed in some way. You are purchasing a license to content from a service, not a game. Sorry. The world has changed.
This is not like buying/selling physical games.
This is like passing around a file on your computer. That never degrades in quality. And there are countless amounts of these files out there being sold by people other than the original distributor. And those files are 100% just as easy to obtain as they are from the original distributor, and they are 100% the exact same quality.
A store would pop up in no-time hosting a marketplace for people to throw their files on to, and after a month or two of the file's original release, there would never be any reason to buy the file from the distributor ever again.
Solution? Games cost twice as much. And small developers go out of business. And AAA developers close studios.
I expect this to be appealed in some way. You are purchasing a license to content from a service, not a game. Sorry. The world has changed.
Devs have no right to a kickback after the initial sale, no matter the percentage. It's European law and also quoted in the OP.
Valve only has a right to ask for a percentage if they act as an intermediary
Nah, Microsoft - and anyone - could implement resell and trading on digital purchases without any of the DRM Microsoft was proposing to tie to physical discs. You would need DRM for digital goods to facilitate that kind of trading and lending and reselling, but not on physical discs. The only reason they needed that DRM as a mandatory thing across all games was for physical disc control - preventing free and unsupervised resell of physical discs. They could have continued to offer digital transfer specifically and/or optionally on digital downloads if they'd wanted, but they ditched the whole thing when they couldn't retain control over discs too.
Again, so what?
If someone were to sell their digital game and lose access to it as a result then the same thing is happening as with selling a physical game.
It's not like they would have infinite copies of it to sell just because it's digital. It would be just that copy that they bought.
And any number of competing intermediaries could easily pop up to sell licenses.
Also I don't see how this would ever stop at games. Any movie from a service that you've purchased should also be included. Hell, why can't I sell my subscription to Netflix if I've got a year left on it? Why can't I sell my album that I own on iTunes to someone else's iTunes account? Why can't I sell my access to the New York Times? It's all digital licenses.
Is this a joke? Small devs don't use procedural generation to nickel and dime consumers. They use it because hand creating content is expensive and takes time and they don't all have the resources or luxury to do so. Is this a joke post or did you put no thought into it at all?
It's right I the article, they are going after other storefronts next
OP
OP
Fine, let's assume that you can resell a license you bought infinitely. There's no world in which that license will not be time-limited. Publishers and developers will find a way around it. They'll instead be functionally renting you the game from now on, instead of letting you own it indefinitely. Then you can still resell your license, but once its time is up, it can't be reactivated to play the game. It is 100% not going the idyllic way you imagine it will.
Not even that. This is basically just passing around a license to download the software and use it on the Steam platform. Valve would have to limit this to just games that use their built-in DRM. As the non-DRM games on Steam can still be played outside of the Steam platform.
I can see it working. Valve already has the infrastructure in place with their Steam inventory. Valve use to let customers buy games and store them in their inventories to give to other users. But they stopped it, due to people abusing the different regional pricing.
Of course it won't if defense forces stick up for these corporations for no reason and just hurt their own rights as consumers in the process.
Right like, there are not equal consequences here. The physical resale market does not hurt developers and publishers as much as digital resale would. Accordingly, there will be changes, they will get their money, and one solution would definitely be to only sell you temporary access to a game.
This would be such a drastic change that the entire industry would definitely change how they sell games. There wouldn't be a good guy to support vs. the bad guys. A global change would need to happen in order for the entire industry to continue operating as it does now.
It's good to see buyers regain some of their rights that have been lost to digital licensing. However someone is going to have to grapple with the fact that digital games don't degrade in quality over time unlike physical objects. We're probably long overdue for a reckoning with 'licensing' software rather than selling it.
The notion of adding fees/taxes to consumer sold items seems like a short term (or simply bad solution). I could imagine that developers may bring back online multiplayer passes or other one-time goodies for initial buyers to try and claw back some profits from the second hand market. Another option might be to explore SaaS like sales where you buy access to a game for a period of time. Either way this will impact and put some downwards pressure the sale prices/profitability of older games.
The notion of adding fees/taxes to consumer sold items seems like a short term (or simply bad solution). I could imagine that developers may bring back online multiplayer passes or other one-time goodies for initial buyers to try and claw back some profits from the second hand market. Another option might be to explore SaaS like sales where you buy access to a game for a period of time. Either way this will impact and put some downwards pressure the sale prices/profitability of older games.
Last edited:
I'm not being a corporate apologist here. I think it's a cool idea. But money is what drives decision making in entertainment. It wouldn't be the first time when a policy with a positive intent has the effect of worsening the situation for the people said policy is supposed to help.
Or worse which i see more likely to happen the License will only guarantee you access to "core files" (are those files playable who know the license only guarantee you access to the core files) any additional files needed would mean you would need an account with the publisher and they will see its a resold license at which point they ask the new license holder to pay a fee to access any additional files.
While i imagine most users would be willing to sell individual licenses I doubt they will sell their account which gives them access to play other games they own.
This is a valid concern. Yes. To sell a game, you'd have to go online and deactivate it on your Steam client so you can't abuse the system. I can happily live with that. We already have to go online with Steam anyways. It is a negligible inconvenience.
It's not like we don't already have DRM and GaaS (MMO, subscription services, etc.) so if the industry want to move that way, it's their right. People will vote with their wallets.
And as far as DRM-free games, well those can already be abused just fine right now, so there is no diminished incentive there that I can see. It'll still boil down to trusting that customers won't be pricks and will support their favorite devs.
Let's not forget that cracking exists right now on PC. All games older than a month or two are freely available to all those who are somewhat patient/unethical. Everybody can already abuse the system just fine. But most people aren't assholes. Thank god.
But "these corporatins" will just make even more gaas games the people who will suffer the most are indies and studios who make singleplayer games.
I'm sure all the indie devs on this board and out there love to be thought of as corporations just sticking it to consumers! Nevermind the big devs will be largely unaffected by this as they've already started moving their primary revenue sources over from the initial sale to subscriptions and GAAS transactions
I don't see a scenario where the consumer benefits from this.
The market will just shift away from digital licenses rather than conforming to this.
The market will just shift away from digital licenses rather than conforming to this.
Valve can then act as an intermediary and, out of the goodness of their hearts give a large cut to devs. If they don't want to, that's on them. I definitely want part of the cut to go to devs to support them so they can keep making games I love so I'll move to a storefront that gives devs a cut. Competition in action so to speak.
Heaven forbid we actually take a nuanced look at the economic impacts of this policy rather than just blindly hating on companies.
I want good outcomes. No matter how you slice it, this isn't a good outcome.
If they do that then there should be an appropriate backlash.
Why is it okay for these corporations to benefit from the digital age (selling more games to more people than ever) but it is not okay for consumers to expect basic rights?
People should stop making excuses for them.
They cannot ask for it, but it does not mean they cannot have one if everybody involved in the transaction agrees to.
If valve were to set up a key re-sell within their client, they could give the original right owner a cut as a sweetening pill..
I think this is cool but I worry what it would mean for the gaming industry.
1. Used game sales is what caused publishers to start doing shit like day one editions, DLC, pre order bonuses and micro transactions in the first place. And I think this would just intensify that.
2. Indie developers would feel this hard. I don't care if Ubisoft loses some sales due to digital resale but indie devs that sell games digital only on Valve could really get fucked here. Many of them sell less than 20,000 copies of their game....a digital resale market would probably put many of those developers into bankruptcy with a quickness.
1. Used game sales is what caused publishers to start doing shit like day one editions, DLC, pre order bonuses and micro transactions in the first place. And I think this would just intensify that.
2. Indie developers would feel this hard. I don't care if Ubisoft loses some sales due to digital resale but indie devs that sell games digital only on Valve could really get fucked here. Many of them sell less than 20,000 copies of their game....a digital resale market would probably put many of those developers into bankruptcy with a quickness.
It isn't okay, but the reality is that consumers don't have the same bargaining power as big business. Corporate lobbying has shown time and again how lopsided the interests are divided, also in the "consumer-friendly" EU. Even if they do, it won't help. Look at what happened with article 13 of the new EU copyright directive.
Not only Indies, this world effectively kill pc gaming (except for streaming services)
I wonder if a lot of you refer to all devs as "corporations" just to justify not giving a shit about the majority that clearly aren't
People should be pretending there's a straight forward solution to this being implemented. There's alot of variables that need to be considered.
Comment on RockPaperShotgun mentioned that this might just revoke Valve's right to ban people for selling games/accounts? Perhaps it doesn't also force them to make games individually able to resold. They just can't go after you for doing something like selling your credentials.
Fair enough.
They clearly wouldn't do it of their own initiative but if stuff like this ruling happens more then who knows.
Several points:
-This will affect more than just Steam
-Steamworks is not anti piracy. From Valve's own words: "The Steam DRM wrapper by itself is not a anti-piracy solution"
-You don't actually have to use Steam to run all the games on there anyway
-Pirating a game has a bunch of consumer downsides that a built-in solution wouldn't have. Buying a game -> backing it up -> selling it is far easier than finding a torrent or something
I didn't say that it was to nickel and dime consumers, I said that it's easier to get money that way and easier for small developers to develop them.
I enjoy them too, don't use my post to argue something I've never said.
I don't know about where you live, but very few political parties in my country are thinking about digital commerce and consumer rights within this space. Only fringe parties. So of course politicians instead look to what lobbyists want from them. Maybe things will change once digital gets completely unbalanced.
I think the law is worded in such a way that the developers couldn't be compensated for the secondary transaction. Steam could be but I don't think the developer could. That is a major problem in finding a solution that doesn't hurt developers.
OP
OP
No, it's not problem solved.
Instead of getting a 70/30 cut of your games you're getting a far worse cut for a product that is completely identical to your own.
You are literally replying to an indie developer who sells his amazing, polished RPG for a measly $15 (and who discounted it repeatedly too). Jesus.
Moreover, if this law ever takes hold, not only those games will die off, but the "greedy microtransaction" publishers will just ramp up this model even more.
Even then, Google Stadia would also be affected. As Werezombie pointed out in the start of the thread, if this ruling gets enforced it would mean that subscriptions, free to play and physical-only releases would be the only viable business models for distributing media, and the latter won't work for PC gaming. The buy-thing-for-a-set-price model would be killed off by "second hand" digital downloads driving down the price of everything. DRM would be mandatory, too, so GOG would be dead.
The general attitude in this thread bothers me a lot.
"But this will just push publishers more toward paid subscription/service models!" So what? They're already doing that whenever they can anyway. Feels really weird to see that excuse trotted out as a reason to oppose a consumer-friendly ruling.
The restrictions imposed upon digital licenses have long been an affront to the right of first sale. The ruling in the OP should be viewed as an attempt at course correction first and foremost.
"But this will just push publishers more toward paid subscription/service models!" So what? They're already doing that whenever they can anyway. Feels really weird to see that excuse trotted out as a reason to oppose a consumer-friendly ruling.
The restrictions imposed upon digital licenses have long been an affront to the right of first sale. The ruling in the OP should be viewed as an attempt at course correction first and foremost.
Basically this.
There's no digital cars or pc hardware in sale last time i checked.
There's atleast 7 or 8 posts in this thread already explaining (the obvious) why selling a digital and a physical product isn't the same thing.
"They're already doing that"
I can assure you atleast 90% of devs on pc aren't doing any of that. The ones that already does that are the ones that will find a way to survive with more gaas stuff in case something like this happens, because they're giant already.
The niche indie stuff will take the blow and likely disappear. Yay for be able to sell your digital game and not having anything non gaas/mainstream in the market.
Last edited:
What about a price floor that is set off of the retail price in the market (like a reseller cannot legally sell their copy below 20% of the retail price) coupled with a reseller fee enacted by the intermediator (Steam in this case)?
This creates friction (you have to give Steam a cut of your sell), gives the consumer the right to sell and prevents a race to the bottom?
This creates friction (you have to give Steam a cut of your sell), gives the consumer the right to sell and prevents a race to the bottom?