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

Maybe something can be done where some of the resell value goes to the developer. Like a %10-20 amount or something.

Quoting: AnanaceSomething 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.

I like this idea. For example, disable achievements, leaderboard and cloud saves, because you did not pay the full price, which includes these "extra services".
Overall I am not happy with this and I fear a negative impact on a market.

They only thing I would be happy about if I was in France, I could buy a Windows laptop and then resell Windows license. :D

As a owner of 500 games many of which i have bugger all intention of playing I welcome this news i could probably sell a least 400 games i wouldnt care if it was at 99p a throw or even 50p a throw just to offload many indie darlings and triple a games i never got into like GTA 5 etc

Quoting: ArehandoroWhen one buys a 2nd hand book, film, album or game, does the content differ? Is the content less enjoyable because the medium it comes in isn't in mint condition? In my case, I know the answer to both questions (NO).

For me, the content of a book is less enjoyable, if the book is crumbled, stinks because the pre owner was smoker or has stains for example from dirty fingers. The binding of a book also breaks down through use.

But all this does not happen to a digital copy of a game. The pre users were smoking or played it a lot, or they had dirty fingers while playing... DOESN'T MATTER. The used copy is always as good as an unused one.


Last edited by einherjar on 20 September 2019 at 11:08 am UTC

Quoting: KuduzkehpanThis will affect poor countries in positive way.Also ability to re-sell games will create a big marketing between players and maybe it creates a blackmarket inside the whole gamer community. At least i will be happy to sell my games and get some profit for re-investments and other development purposes.
Also i prefer a renting system which protects both developers and costumers in same time. Just for cases like
"facepunch and rust" as follows pay 10 dolar euro or whatever to rent a game for 3 months. Then decide to buy or not. This is also why DEMO's are up and running.

Not sure of that. If publishers discover that selling games on poor countries undermines the sales on the rich ones, they will simply increase prices on poor countries or stores will add more restrictions to those markets.

Quoting: einherjarBut all this does not happen to a digital copy of a game. The pre users were smoking or played it a lot, or they had dirty fingers while playing... DOESN'T MATTER. The used copy is always as good as an unused one.

I'm not sure why you all get worked up about such minor details. It's pretty obvious that digital and physical products are not the same.

The issue at hand is that when those digital markets formed they where until now pretty unregulated and extremely one sided when it comes to consumer rights. It was basically always "If you want that game you have to agree to our completely stupid EULA or GTFO". This is now changing. They didn't had refunds either until they got forced to do them.

It is an illusion that those markets will regulate themselves. They themselves are pushing for laws as much as they can to cement their full control, like for example the law that prevents you from tampering with DRM even if they shutdown the online service and the product you purchased becomes useless.

It is about time that the consumer side gets represented and we get back to a reasonable fair market that isn't so one sided when it comes to ownership and what you can do with your own stuff you actually payed for. There has to be done a lot more and hopefully the right to do the same thing with an account will hopefully be next.


Last edited by ZeroPointEnergy on 20 September 2019 at 11:37 am UTC

Quoting: ShmerlHm, according to this. EU already allowed it before. So what's new in this ruling?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine#Application_to_digital_copies

QuoteIn Europe, the European Court of Justice ruled, on July 3, 2012, that it is indeed permissible to resell software licenses even if the digital good has been downloaded directly from the Internet, and that the first sale doctrine applied whenever software was originally sold to a customer for an unlimited amount of time, as such sale involves a transfer of ownership, thus prohibiting any software maker from preventing the resale of their software by any of their legitimate owners.[5][6][7] The court requires that the previous owner must no longer be able to use the licensed software after the resale, but finds that the practical difficulties in enforcing this clause should not be an obstacle to authorizing resale, as they are also present for software which can be installed from physical supports, where the first-sale doctrine is in force.[8][9] The ruling applies to the European Union, but could indirectly find its way to North America; moreover the situation could entice publishers to offer platforms for a secondary market.

It's not "new" because it's not a new law, it's a ruling. Valve's EULA contains illegal clauses, the ruling confirms it.

I think people are making far more fuss about this than what is really going on. It appears to me that the ruling is about the passages in the licence agreement that forbid users from reselling their games. I suspect that all that is needed for Valve (and other stores) is to remove those passages and inform the users that this is in fact legal. However, nowhere does it really say that Valve needs to implement a system for people to resell individual games to other users. Which means that all that the net effect maybe that you will be allowed to resell your entire account. How many users will that benefit?

Quoting: EhvisI think people are making far more fuss about this than what is really going on. It appears to me that the ruling is about the passages in the licence agreement that forbid users from reselling their games. I suspect that all that is needed for Valve (and other stores) is to remove those passages and inform the users that this is in fact legal. However, nowhere does it really say that Valve needs to implement a system for people to resell individual games to other users. Which means that all that the net effect maybe that you will be allowed to resell your entire account. How many users will that benefit?

This reminds me of the good old wow times, when you had to go to the chinese to illegally buy a lv 60 Tauren druid. Now we could just all go to the cow market parisienne. :D

Quoting: ZeroPointEnergy

Quoting: einherjarBut all this does not happen to a digital copy of a game. The pre users were smoking or played it a lot, or they had dirty fingers while playing... DOESN'T MATTER. The used copy is always as good as an unused one.

I'm not sure why you all get worked up about such minor details. It's pretty obvious that digital and physical products are not the same.

Yes, so the reselling can not be treated the same. It is not a minor detail. If you can sell something millions of times, without it getting worn down, it is not a minor detail.
The developer must get the money for his job with a significantly lower amount of sales.

Quoting: ZeroPointEnergyIt is an illusion that those markets will regulate themselves. They themselves are pushing for laws as much as they can to cement their full control, like for example the law that prevents you from tampering with DRM even if they shutdown the online service and the product you purchased becomes useless.

But regulating them in the same way as physical goods (that can only be sold a limited time) is also not the best idea.
Of course a lot of things can be made better - but in a smart way. And this seems not to be a smart way.
It leeds us to even more "software as a service" and monopolism.