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.
well 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.
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.
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.
If 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.
well 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.
Nedless 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
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.
Is 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
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
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.
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 :-).
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.
DRM-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.
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.
Being able to resell what you own used to be possible. What's so horrible about getting that right back ?
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.
i 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.
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
Being 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?
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).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
Being 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.
... 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.
+ Click to view long 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?
I 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?
See more from me