A French court has ruled that Valve should allow people to re-sell their digital games

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.

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.

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.

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 Dawe

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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 :-).

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.

Quoting: Avehicle7887DRM-Free stores would have to stop selling games to french customers otherwise they risk a serious issue.

I don't see how it affects them at all.

Quoting: Avehicle7887This 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.

Being able to resell what you own used to be possible. What's so horrible about getting that right back ?

This is simple, Valve should close doors on France. This is beyond ridiculous, why suing Valve specifically when every other virtual store including console ones are doing the same.
Now imagine the impact for developers, Funny thing Epic shills will celebrate this when they support Epic because "Epic is cool with devs", lol. They are so dumb.

Quoting: linuxcityi would not mind selling games i no longer play or transfer them to another user

Of course you dont!! All of this is about you and only you, the other people who could get involved negatively doesnt matter.

This behavior of not thinking how anything could affect anyone else but me is a cancer.
We have a healthy gaming sector(not in the employee yet) when we have plenty of competition that allows users to get games in nice sales, but with things like this, I see developers raising prices in order to get the revenue lost by the fact people can resell their games for whatever price they like. This is something really stupid, ruled by a court that has no idea of how the gaming industry is working right now!!

This will affect indies really hard.

My take on this:

Digital License* is a supplement for a Physical Good -- namely a DVD game that retains value and be resold.

I can see Frances take on this being practical, and from a consumer perspective I 100% agree with users should be able to sell games or accounts (collections of games).

Where it gets tricky for Valve is I am not sure what their license terms stipulate with content creators and if they legally have the authority to implement this feature.

Assuming they are strong-armed be the law though I can't see how publishers and content creators can really hold them accountable when they are forced to legally comply.

I agree with France, I also think that this should not be a suit against Valve but effect all digital software goods hopefully not only in France but the greater world.


Last edited by ElectricPrism on 19 September 2019 at 10:50 pm UTC

Quoting: minidouBeing able to resell what you own used to be possible. What's so horrible about getting that right back ?

If you dont get it now, youll be not getting not even in a million years.
Funny thing is how to get an indie game for 5$ then reselling it in 3$, taking 5$ for a possible sale to that indie. But who fck1ng cares you are not an indie dev, right?

Quoting: ElectricPrismI can see Frances take on this being practical, and from a consumer perspective I 100% agree with users should be able to sell games or accounts (collections of games).

You said it, this is 100% from the consumer POW without taking into account how this could hit devs.

Tell me how we can create better laws for a better world when we make laws just taking one of the sides into account?

It is really disappointing to see the comments and likes here, its like Linux people really hates proprietary software so hard that they would like to see the gaming scene being hit negatively, Just because some extra bucks.


Last edited by orochi_kyo on 19 September 2019 at 10:10 pm UTC

Quoting: minidouBeing able to resell what you own used to be possible. What's so horrible about getting that right back ?

It's the implications and how it will affect the industry that we all love, that's what's horrible. You need to look at it more than just an us versus them type of situation. If this goes through and goes across other countries and stores, look at what I wrote at the bottom of the article. PC gaming would become pretty terrible as a whole and indies especially, a large majority would likely throw in the towel completely.

Quote... 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.

My thoughts exactly. While I don't doubt the good intentions behind this move, publishers/stores aren't just going to throw up their hands and leave everything as it is just with re-selling allowed. They'll figure out workarounds. And those will probably end up being more harmful to consumers than non-transferable licences.

The one law that always gets passed is the law of unintended consequences.

Quoting: Dunc

Quote... 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.

My thoughts exactly. While I don't doubt the good intentions behind this move, publishers/stores aren't just going to throw up their hands and leave everything as it is just with re-selling allowed. They'll figure out workarounds. And those will probably end up being more harmful to consumers than non-transferable licences.

The one law that always gets passed is the law of unintended consequences.

I see many devs including Ubisoft leaving France, losing hundreds of jobs just because people want to resell a game they get for 15$ for 5$ bucks. I would be agree if this were the gaming market in the 90s where every game on cassette or disk costed 60$ but in this digital era, games are really cheap and people still want to resell it? How cheap one can be?

There is potential that this move could cause the gaming industry to go into a subscription model, where you actually pay to use (rent) a game per hour, rather than having any ownership. Potentially the games would be "free" but then playing them would cost money. This would bother me, because I like an upfront payment and then being able to play the game as long as I like with no additional costs (other than electricity bill).

This will be an interesting change. It really benefits DRM free stores like GOG - their users already could sell the game if they wanted(breaking the law in a hard to detect fashion), but usually didn't. Some publishers will definitely try to dodge the problems by going into microtransations, where the game is free, but the money is in small items tied to the account, although if this ruling stands, in game item trading might be next.

Quoting: chancho_zombieI don't think valve will allow copies to sell in their own marketplace, stupid politicians they want valve to shoot at their own legs.

But there’s no other sensible way to do it. What Valve sell is already licenses, not self-contained products. The same argument used in favour of piracy (it’s not stealing because it doesn’t take anything away from the seller) applies here in reverse: if a gamer sells an executable, they can also keep it and keep selling more copies. There’s no way to manage that if you look at it this way. A single person could buy a game from Valve then resell it for 1$ less to every other gamer in the world. That’s an extreme example, but it’s the kind of unsustainable opportunity you would create with this kind of law (not that we’re talking about an actual law at this point).

As much as I want to have control over the software I buy, by not being hindered by DRM, it has to be considered a license for it to be commercially practicable. It doesn’t matter that it’s a perpetual, permissive license, just as long as it protects the rights of the content creators and authorized distributors. Valve need to retain control over what is being sold somehow, otherwise it’s really just piracy with benefits since now the pirates get to make money off of it.

So if you’re selling licenses to download and use software via a Steam account, where else are you going to resell them but on Valve’s own systems where they can manage who rightfully owns those licenses?