Valve and game developers have a bit of a fight on their hands here, with a French court ruling that Valve should allow users to re-sell their digital games.
Reported by the French website Next Inpact, the French consumers group UFC Que Choisir had a victory against Valve as French courts have ruled against them on the topic of reselling digital content. From what I've read and tried to understand, the courts have basically said that when you buy something on Steam it is indeed a proper purchase and not a subscription.
Valve has been ordered to pay damages at €20K plus €10K to cover some costs. On top of that, they will also have to publish the judgement on Steam's home page (presumably only for users in France) and for it to remain visible for three months. If they don't, they will get a fine for each day of €3K. To Valve though, that's likely pocket change. The bigger issue though, is how other countries inside and outside the EU could follow it.
Speaking to PC Gamer who got a statement from Valve, they are going to fight it. Of course they will though, they could stand to lose quite a lot here and it would set a pretty huge precedent for other stores like GOG, Epic, Humble, itch and all the rest.
There's a lot to think about with this situation. Valve could end up changing the way they deal with this, just like they did with the nicer refunds option which came about after legal issues too. Imagine being able to sell and transfer a game over to another Steam user. Valve could take a cut of that most likely too.
Something to think on there is how this could affect game developers too, I'm all for consumer rights but I do try to think about all angles. We could end up looking at higher prices overall, no release day discounts, more micro transactions, more games updated as a constant service, games that require an online account as a service so you're not paying for an actual product and so on as developers try to keep more income when many smaller developers are already struggling.
Interesting times.
Hat tip to Nibelheim.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
Quoting: chancho_zombiewell you can sell your games ... you could sell all your account.Pretty sure that's currently prohibited and can get the account banned if Valve found out.
4 Likes, Who?
Those French... The market will simply adapt. Publishers will create scarcity to drive up prices. And day 1 buyers will rush to finish the game in order to sell it before the prices lowers to much.
All in all I see more trouble than benefit for us gamers, with very expensive day 1 costs and a lot of license micromanagement. Not only for games but any digital good. Bad bad stuff.
Except for game quality. I'm just trying to imagine Borderlands 3 (just because it's the topic of the week) release in a world with second hand markets. No matter how much you try to manipulate the press and the metacritic score. People who can't play the game now will just sell it with the idea to rebuy it later when it's fixed at a lower price. And ofc in the immediate effect would be the game price plummeting and a financial disaster.
Nedless to say that releasing an untested and badly optimized game would quickly become a suicidal move and nobody would do it.
Anyway I think Valve (supported by all the other digital store owners) should be able to appeal to EU court. A fundamental difference like this in national regulatuon is highly disfunctional to the single market. The way I see it is that either that's the EU stance or is no member state stance. Mixed scenarios cannot reasonably exist.
All in all I see more trouble than benefit for us gamers, with very expensive day 1 costs and a lot of license micromanagement. Not only for games but any digital good. Bad bad stuff.
Except for game quality. I'm just trying to imagine Borderlands 3 (just because it's the topic of the week) release in a world with second hand markets. No matter how much you try to manipulate the press and the metacritic score. People who can't play the game now will just sell it with the idea to rebuy it later when it's fixed at a lower price. And ofc in the immediate effect would be the game price plummeting and a financial disaster.
Nedless to say that releasing an untested and badly optimized game would quickly become a suicidal move and nobody would do it.
Anyway I think Valve (supported by all the other digital store owners) should be able to appeal to EU court. A fundamental difference like this in national regulatuon is highly disfunctional to the single market. The way I see it is that either that's the EU stance or is no member state stance. Mixed scenarios cannot reasonably exist.
6 Likes, Who?
rustybroomhandle Sep 19, 2019
I hope y'all like microtransactions, because this will just drive big studios to add even more of that shite.
Also, you all think consumers will benefit, but I foresee bots buying and selling en masse while some greasehead gets stinking rich of other people's hard work.
Also, you all think consumers will benefit, but I foresee bots buying and selling en masse while some greasehead gets stinking rich of other people's hard work.
12 Likes, Who?
Quoting: fagnerlnIf steam doesn't allow the user resell games from their library, is up to the user agree with it.
The users already voiced their opinion through the EU parliament : it is illegal to prevent a user from reselling.
If steam doesn't want to allow user to resell game, it can leave the EU market.
Quoting: Liam DaweQuoting: chancho_zombiewell you can sell your games ... you could sell all your account.Pretty sure that's currently prohibited and can get the account banned if Valve found out.
Yes that's part of the ruling, tying the game to the account (and every services) is illegal. The game should be resellable by itself.
Quoting: MalNedless to say that releasing an untested and badly optimized game would quickly become a suicidal move and nobody would do it.
How horrible.
Last edited by minidou on 19 September 2019 at 9:46 pm UTC
7 Likes, Who?
You know, I kind of feel like Valve could dodge this bullet and/or use it in its favour. They could allow users to resell games on their accounts, but the sale would need to go through official Steam channels, be done at whatever the current store price is, and the user would simply get a cut (presumably in their Steam wallet if that satisfies the courts), not unlike Epic’s creator codes for streamers.
So e.g. instead of a 70/30 split on a regular sale, there could be a 60/30/10 cut if Valve grant 10% of the sale to the user, or something like 65/25/10 if they share the cost with the publisher. This way, there wouldn’t be an opportunity for mass resale. Now of course, there wouldn’t be an incentive for buyers to look for second-hand licenses specifically if the price is the same, but Valve could develop an auction house-style system like in MMOs (or as already used for trading cards) where there’s kind of a backlog of users who want to get rid of their license and whenever a new sale is made on the store, the user who has been waiting to resell the longest gets their wallet credit and the license is removed from their account. This also prevents scamming on both ends.
An alternative would be to go full auction house/trading cards with it and let users set the price they want to buy/sell at, with Steam and the publishers also taking a cut there. But I feel like that would hurt Steam and publishers more (taking a smaller cut on cheaper sales, presumably) and open the way to chaotic speculation.
It’s absolutely a tricky idea to approach since the system was never designed for it in the first place, but done right it could be an opportunity to integrate a very popular feature that no other storefront has ever wanted to offer and that consoles have been working on preventing for years.
So e.g. instead of a 70/30 split on a regular sale, there could be a 60/30/10 cut if Valve grant 10% of the sale to the user, or something like 65/25/10 if they share the cost with the publisher. This way, there wouldn’t be an opportunity for mass resale. Now of course, there wouldn’t be an incentive for buyers to look for second-hand licenses specifically if the price is the same, but Valve could develop an auction house-style system like in MMOs (or as already used for trading cards) where there’s kind of a backlog of users who want to get rid of their license and whenever a new sale is made on the store, the user who has been waiting to resell the longest gets their wallet credit and the license is removed from their account. This also prevents scamming on both ends.
An alternative would be to go full auction house/trading cards with it and let users set the price they want to buy/sell at, with Steam and the publishers also taking a cut there. But I feel like that would hurt Steam and publishers more (taking a smaller cut on cheaper sales, presumably) and open the way to chaotic speculation.
It’s absolutely a tricky idea to approach since the system was never designed for it in the first place, but done right it could be an opportunity to integrate a very popular feature that no other storefront has ever wanted to offer and that consoles have been working on preventing for years.
4 Likes, Who?
Kimyrielle Sep 19, 2019
Quoting: fagnerlnIs hypocrisy that a defensor of freedom want a intervention from state.
Preventing people from abusing their freedoms is one of the most basic reasons for governments (and thus, laws) to exist in the first place. If we wouldn't have laws preventing you, it would be in your "freedom" to murder somebody because you don't like their face. Humans are by nature greedy and egoistic. They one thing that can guarantee a stable society is a strong government that steps in when people abuse their power and makes some laws telling them not to.
Last edited by Kimyrielle on 19 September 2019 at 9:46 pm UTC
6 Likes, Who?
This would be a very disruptive change, and change can always be unpleasant. On the other hand, considering the entire history of 'digital goods' and our 'ownership' of them, I can't deny it's nice to see the needle go the other way for once 
Edit: Thinking about concessions, I wouldn't be opposed to a 'grace period' after a game is released during which it can't be resold; the first week/month/etc. It's not something we do with physical goods, of course, but the internet is a global market of maximum convenience, and I think this would have the potential to really hurt a lot of devs out there, and the industry generally, if you always have instant access to a cheaper copy that the developer won't see money on. This way games get a fair shake during the launch and players retain the proper rights of ownership forever after.
Last edited by HadBabits on 19 September 2019 at 10:01 pm UTC
Edit: Thinking about concessions, I wouldn't be opposed to a 'grace period' after a game is released during which it can't be resold; the first week/month/etc. It's not something we do with physical goods, of course, but the internet is a global market of maximum convenience, and I think this would have the potential to really hurt a lot of devs out there, and the industry generally, if you always have instant access to a cheaper copy that the developer won't see money on. This way games get a fair shake during the launch and players retain the proper rights of ownership forever after.
Last edited by HadBabits on 19 September 2019 at 10:01 pm UTC
3 Likes, Who?
Avehicle7887 Sep 19, 2019
Although the consumer might be at an advantage here, I can already see the downsides: More DRM, indie devs losing profit and even risk going out of business and DRM-Free stores would have to stop selling games to french customers otherwise they risk a serious issue. I doubt they will stop at Valve, it would be unfair otherwise.
This is a very bad call, and it shows clearly that the people making these decisions have no clue about games and of the challenges devs face every day. They're just paper pushers who didn't think of the consequences, which outweigh the benefits here.
Even if this rule goes against me (the consumer). I don't agree with it and I don't want it.
This is a very bad call, and it shows clearly that the people making these decisions have no clue about games and of the challenges devs face every day. They're just paper pushers who didn't think of the consequences, which outweigh the benefits here.
Even if this rule goes against me (the consumer). I don't agree with it and I don't want it.
10 Likes, Who?
I only sold about 2 games I bought over the last 30 years, and likely bought a handful of used ones (some of those as collector items, so I would have come cheaper buying new). I don't see this changing much in the future.
Still, there's plenty at stake here, not the least our customer rights when it comes to software. And this can be much more far reaching than games, as software starts to permeate a lot of goods and could be (and already is, to some degree) used to prevent us from selling or passing on stuff that's rightfully ours. So I am generally in favor of this ruling and quite a bit curious how this will pan out eventually (guess the ruling isn't final and there are some higher courts that'll have a say on the final outcome).
Also, Twitter deemed to remind me that there is Robot Cache, a platform in development that is all about selling digital games. I have no clue how it's supposed to work, but it's not like the French have a monopoly on the idea :-).
Still, there's plenty at stake here, not the least our customer rights when it comes to software. And this can be much more far reaching than games, as software starts to permeate a lot of goods and could be (and already is, to some degree) used to prevent us from selling or passing on stuff that's rightfully ours. So I am generally in favor of this ruling and quite a bit curious how this will pan out eventually (guess the ruling isn't final and there are some higher courts that'll have a say on the final outcome).
Also, Twitter deemed to remind me that there is Robot Cache, a platform in development that is all about selling digital games. I have no clue how it's supposed to work, but it's not like the French have a monopoly on the idea :-).
2 Likes, Who?
Comandante Ñoñardo Sep 19, 2019
I think the response from Valve for to keep the consumers calm could be eliminating the Two weeks and two hours time limit for to ask a refund...
It can be interesting to be able to refund a game you finished last year....
From a consumer point of view it will be awesome, but from a publisher point of view it will be a nightmare.
It can be interesting to be able to refund a game you finished last year....
From a consumer point of view it will be awesome, but from a publisher point of view it will be a nightmare.
0 Likes
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me