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

Interesting times ahead. Assuming this wiggles its way into EU laws (and then likely to other places too).
Software distribution might become more efficient. Take me as an example, some games/software is "kinda interesting", but there is no way in hell I'm paying full price for it, nor maybe even 50% so only chance for me to consider buying it is if we get "sick sale" with discount of say 80%. With used market I would assume prices could fall more in line with "remaining demand" and not just on publishers whims to do sales (which then end).

Now another thing, that I think might happen and I would personally like very much - it should really screw over AAA games. Use game market => less first/full price sales => less possible revenue => max expenses for production can not be as high => no more games costing multi millions to develop. I actually think this is much better for indies that do "cheaper work" (the production cost is not astronomical). Though for previous statement there is one other facet to consider. Kinds of games that will be made will likely change significantly, again for the better, for my personal tastes. As certain games, that games that are more of game, will become more common, while games that are less of a game will be less common. What I mean by games that are games - games that have qualities of "real games" like chess, go, hex = infinite replay value, and not some mildly interactive story. So that will be good for such games as I see them retaining value (if game is good) over whole market better than story based games as they have better replay value - so you have bigger chance to want to keep it. Also this gold for E-Sports, kinda, as such games are all about replay and honing skills => you do not want to sell your copy. Visual novels though... I see them in worst situation with this, with story based RPG's probably second on chopping block (the size of impact from this); while something like DOTA or StarCraft being least affected, though they will might need to work harder to keep world engaged with product.

Quoteas more as I analyze this I consider more implications. This would be the end for indie games that sell cheap like below 1 usd. They are effectively killing that niche market forever. And there are a lot of decent indie games for less than 1 usd.

I actually do not see this at all, with price that low, anyone can by it as first sale, and savings when buying resale are basically cents (depending on "transaction costs" it might never be cheaper to buy second hand, as publisher can have better terms). And if this lowers prices of all other games, than this $1 game comparatively looks better (say we have indiecheapo for $1 vs ElGrandeAAA for 80$, from price you think difference in those games is huge, but then with this after some tiem you see indeacheapo is still $1, while ElGrandeAAA is now just $20, so comparatively indie game got 4x better if judging by price ratio!) As I said previously most screwed will be big budgets :)



Another thing with resale, sensibly keys will have to be tied to store platform forewer, otherwise nothing can be enforced. But it most likely will not legally stand to resell for say steam wallet "cash" as that is not a real money, that you can buy bread and milk with, its more like store coupon and can likely be appealed. So likely digital stores will need ways to allow users to "cash out" their stuff, with all fun that this might imply.

I do not agree that it is all that good for resellers, at least not in long run. They can be squished in seconds, just change how keys (and complaints related to them) are handled and they are 100% done. Humble store might however have problems on their hands, though they might end up converting to distributor like steam or gog itself.

Quoting: Avehicle7887Although 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.

There are two issues here, justice and economics.
The justice one is . . . not exactly simple, but actually I think pretty simple in essence once all the froth is boiled off. And on the justice angle I think the basic point is people should own the stuff they buy. So on that front I think it's a good ruling. And I'm willing to see a certain amount of negative practical consequences to have that principle upheld. I won't go so far as to say let justice be done though the sky fall, but I don't believe in letting expedience win all the time; it tends to be a false expedience in the longer run.

The economic one is I think a lot less simple than many people here think. It's about equilibria IMO. There's a lot of talk about how devs will all go out of business because of this. But devs always go out of business, always have and always will, and any change to the rate of it caused by this will be temporary, until a new equilibrium is reached. And it may not have any impact at all. Basically, I think there's a sort of, how to put it, natural rate of developer failure. If there are few developers compared to the size of the market, then they will nearly all do well, and word will get around that game developing is a great thing to get into. Then there will be more game developers; the numbers will keep rising until the market is saturated and developers start going out of business, at which point word will get out that game developing is a lousy thing to get into. Fewer developers will enter and, with those failures, the number of developers will fall, at some point making the field less cluttered for those who remain, who will do better. Basically it all fluctuates around an equilibrium level of some number of dollars in the market per developer which represents a level of developer income and rate of developer bankruptcy that's sort of neutral in terms of how much it tempts people to get into the biz. It's probably a lower number of dollars, with higher levels of failure, than strict rationality would dictate 'cause certain people have an emotional yen to make games and people tend to be optimistic about their ability to beat the odds. Since news is not instant and it takes a while for it to sink in, even if the market stayed static there would be a lot of fluctuations around whatever the ultimate equilibrium would be. But in the real world, there are shocks to the market--it grows, it shrinks, and it does things which affect profit per sale, which works pretty much as if the market had grown or shrunk. So you never actually hit the equilibrium level and stay there. Every time there's a shock, it impacts the profit per developer, which in the end will lead to more developers entering or leaving, heading towards (and overshooting) that equilibrium level.
So, if a decision like this is a shock that drops the profit per game, effectively shrinking the number of dollars in the market, it will cause more failures, yes, but only until we reach that equilibrium number of dollars per developer again. It wouldn't be a catastrophe forever changing the landscape, just a shock equivalent to a slight shrinkage of the game market.

But I'm not sure it would even represent such a shock. People assuming it would are implicitly assuming a customer base whose purchasing operates in a way like, each customer buys a certain number of games, or something like that. This works for, say, food--you buy the groceries you need to eat; if they get more expensive you spend more money on groceries, if they get cheaper you may spend less. Even there, it's not always the case--often consumers will try to avoid spending more by buying lousier food if groceries get more expensive, and if groceries get cheaper they may even do things like go organic or get fancier things they wanted but couldn't afford. With gamers I think it's even more pronounced; most gamers don't have a set list of games they will buy, after which they will stop. Rather, they spend roughly what they can afford, or what they're willing to waste on this particular hobby, plus a bit more if they see something particularly shiny. So here's the thing: Gamer A re-sells a game to gamer B. What does gamer A do with the money? Probably buys a game. Quite likely gamer A considers the sale a reduction in the total they have spent on games, so they now have more room in their game-buying budget. I just today on a GamingOnLinux thread saw someone comment that they bought a game using the money they have from getting a refund on another game. That's how gamers think, that's I think how the gaming market works. If that's the case, something like this will have surprisingly little effect on net developer income.


Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 20 September 2019 at 6:37 am UTC

Quoting: g000hFor those thinking this will be a good thing for DRM-Free Gaming: I think the opposite - This will push all new commercial games to become purely rental titles, i.e. You can download the game for free, but you won't be able to play it without a subscription. DRM-Free games will just be for free gaming (i.e. where no money is paid for the game title). Commercial game developers won't be releasing DRM-Free any more.

Until the next lawsuit. I'm not sure getting around law is quite so simple as all that.

Quoting: SalvatosIf this became law, I can only imagine the entire industry shifting to a Stadia-like approach where the distributors make it very clear that you’re only renting access to a stream that you can influence to some extent (via controller input during gameplay and via payment for specific content [games] being streamed to you), not any sort of tangible product. As others have said, that sounds like the ultimate DRM.

I mean they already try the streaming thing right now to take away control from the consumer even more. They don't need that law to get that motivation. I don't think streaming will work for most games though. I think this is a casual market thing.

This industry uses laws tho restrict stuff and take rights away from the customers for years. It is a bit sad to see so much concern for them when there is finally a push in the other direction that only gives us some basic rights back we had before. This is hopefully only the start.

On the question of keys and, basically, cheating and such . . . I am not now nor have I ever been a fan of cryptocurrency. But this strikes me as a potential application for blockchain stuff. Not, like, mining, just the blockchain ability to verify authenticity.

I think that the major issue with this ruling is that the digital goods in question have no degradation - or logistics costs - at all. There will be absolutely no difference between a "brand new" copy of a digital game, or a "second hand" one, unless introduced artificially through some kind of copy degradation mechanic to not support resale again after X times.

With no product degradation between sales, and no logistical cost (in time or money) you - as a developer - would literally have to compete with your own product in the market, as "used" copies would be bit-by-bit identical to the "new" ones which you need to sell in order to recoup development costs.
I can see this ending up much like the piracy argument which drives DRM, where games sales are going to be crucial in the first weeks of the game release, only this time backed by legal rulings. As you - again as a developer - will have to start competing with your own product - sold at a cheaper price at the exact same quality - the moment the first players finishes their copies and wants to get some money back by reselling it.

So really, the only way I could see this not causing a massive impact on game development - especially single-player and other games which are possible to "finish" - would be if artificial degradation or other resale restrictions (logistical cost) were introduced. Something to make "new" copies somehow different from "used" ones, to make sure that there's at least some reason for people to want to pay more for a "new" copy rather than a bit-perfect "used" one.


Last edited by Ananace on 20 September 2019 at 6:36 am UTC

Quoting: Nevertheless

Quoting: Jiskinoh my... I saw so stupid comments I don't know where to start...

QuoteValve and developers will be more profitable to abandon the entire French market

France is like their 7th market, how this could be more profitable?

QuoteI 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.

If a second hand market would crash a business, we will not even have cars... There are many reasons to leave France as a company, like taxes, strong social laws, etc., so just don't say anything you don't know about.

QuoteThis will hurt everyone.

Too many arguments I don't know what to say...

There is a difference between second hand cars and second hand software: Cars tend to catch scratches. Second hand games are indistinguishable from new games.
There is another one: There are no DRM free cars that you can simply keep when you sell them.

Second hand cars do not need servers. Games will have to be detached from accounts, to be able to sell them. So Valve could simply charge a percentage fee for detaching keys. I on their side wouldn't help to sell the keys, just detach and deliver them.
Developers still won't like the idea. They will sell less copies. Lifting prices would make second hand games even more attractive, but would also lift the detachment fee.

So yes, I think one result would definitely be higher prices for games.

Yeah yeah... And when you have issues with your second hand car you can fix it because there are factories that keep constructing pieces, with paid and trained people. It involves money too.

If you have a second hand game on steam, maybe you will not have the steam success, etc.

And as far as I know, the French Court hasn't prevent Steam to lock the resell to their platform only and to add transactions fees.

Quoting: AnanaceI think that the major issue with this ruling is that the digital goods in question have no degradation - or logistics costs - at all. There will be absolutely no difference between a "brand new" copy of a digital game, or a "second hand" one, unless introduced artificially through some kind of copy degradation mechanic to not support resale again after X times.

With no product degradation between sales, and no logistical cost (in time or money) you - as a developer - would literally have to compete with your own product in the market, as "used" copies would be bit-by-bit identical to the "new" ones which you need to sell in order to recoup development costs.
I can see this ending up much like the piracy argument which drives DRM, where games sales are going to be crucial in the first weeks of the game release, only this time backed by legal rulings. As you - again as a developer - will have to start competing with your own product - sold at a cheaper price at the exact same quality - the moment the first players finishes their copies and wants to get some money back by reselling it.

So really, the only way I could see this not causing a massive impact on game development - especially single-player and other games which are possible to "finish" - would be if artificial degradation or other resale restrictions (logistical cost) were introduced. Something to make "new" copies somehow different from "used" ones, to make sure that there's at least some reason for people to want to pay more for a "new" copy rather than a bit-perfect "used" one.

An interesting point. I do think there is one thing that does degrade games and most digital goods--or rather, degrade their value: Time. Old games go on sale, because people are not willing to pay as much for old games. Novelty wears off.
I've seen someone in the thread mention the idea of a minimum time delay before resale; that might be an acceptable compromise. Of course, most people aren't going to want to resell instantly in the first place, because they want to play their game; they didn't buy the thing just to immediately not have it any more.