News - EU rules that users can resell digital downloaded games

[csgohan4]

Ultimately who is the winner and loser here really? If they do go down the route of subscription model, that is bad for the Consumer

[Malphas]

Makes you wonder if this will affect digital distribution services at all. Will they have to provide a way of transferring to someone else now?

I doubt they'll be obliged to make it easier for the consumer, the ruling would affect the customer's right to resell, not make it compulsory for the providers to make it more technically feasible. That said, Steam are quite pro-active in terms of allowing you to gift games you already own and such, so it's not unimaginable that they could provide some sort of transfer services provided the publishers agree.

[csgohan4]

I doubt they'll be obliged to make it easier for the consumer, the ruling would affect the customer's right to resell, not make it compulsory for the providers to make it more technically feasible. That said, Steam are quite pro-active in terms of allowing you to gift games you already own and such, so it's not unimaginable that they could provide some sort of transfer services provided the publishers agree.

But Origin on the otherhand are more difficult and this could be a problem

[ET3D]

Steam are quite pro-active in terms of allowing you to gift games you already own and such

Quite the opposite, far as I can tell. You even lose a double copy you buy in most cases (i.e., if you have a game and buy a pack containing it, you lose the extra copy). The Steam license also forbids more than one person to use an account. GamersGate is the best store I know in terms of gifting, since anything you bought and haven't downloaded yet can be gifted. Extending gifting there to comply with this decision will be easy.

Anyway, this is pretty exciting. The EU does come up with some nice decisions from time to time. This is also relevant to a lot of other software. Some software is even sold with personal named licenses. Perhaps these might no longer be sold in the EU.

[kalniel]

Ultimately who is the winner and loser here really? If they do go down the route of subscription model, that is bad for the Consumer

Nothing changes really. This law was already in place in Germany, but it looks like it was challenged (for application in Germany) and went to a higher court in the EU, which has upheld the German law and clarified the the conditions by which a product can be considered to be owned by the buyer, even if the terms state otherwise.

Licensed games in Germany usually come with a revocation system if there is a limit on number of installs - same as securom basically.

Services like Steam are possibly not affected if they are providing access to a library of games rather than acting as a retailer - steamworks enabled games will probably come under this category. Think of Steam as a version of cloud gaming where you cache files locally to improve performance. Same probably applies to Diablo 3.

Quite the opposite, far as I can tell. You even lose a double copy you buy in most cases (i.e., if you have a game and buy a pack containing it, you lose the extra copy).

That's not the case. If you get an extra copy then you can gift it. The only time you can't would be if the pack games weren't being sold separately.

[aidanjt]

Services like Steam are possibly not affected if they are providing access to a library of games rather than acting as a retailer - steamworks enabled games will probably come under this category. Think of Steam as a version of cloud gaming where you cache files locally to improve performance. Same probably applies to Diablo 3.

Uh, no. Steam sells lifetime software licenses for a fixed sum, and provides the software via download to use it. This ruling effects steam as it would for origin, or any other such CDN service. The judgement is pretty clear, no matter how you try to wiggle around reclassifing what Steam do, they're still a games vendor just like GAME, minus the boxed software.

[scaryjim]

C'mon... Who's gonna be the man, the legend, the freer of our unwanted games? Dare I say... The Messiah?

Well, my step-son's copy (boxed, retail, I might add) of Skyrim is currently registered to my Steam account. I want to "resell" it to him. Might be worth an email.... "Dear Steam, In light of the latest ruling by ..."

[kalniel]

Uh, no. Steam sells lifetime software licenses for a fixed sum, and provides the software via download to use it. This ruling effects steam as it would for origin, or any other such CDN service. The judgement is pretty clear, no matter how you try to wiggle around reclassifing what Steam do, they're still a games vendor just like GAME, minus the boxed software.

You're agreeing with me. I said if they are providing access to a library of games rather than acting as a retailer. If they're acting as a retailer then they're a games vendor just like GAME. If they're acting as a library provider like onLive etc. then it's possibly different.

Where it gets interesting is online passes..

[kingpotnoodle]

I'm don't entirely agree with this, if people buy a creative work and then sell it on second hand then multiple people have enjoyed it/used it but only the first has actually paid anything to the creator of the works. In the case of software and games in particular then the more widespread second/third/fourth hand use is then the more it is going to push up first-buyer shop prices to cover the costs of development.

Musicians receive royalties whenever their work is played in public, photographers take a fee if someone re-uses their photo, in cinemas everyone pays to see the film, but if you buy a DVD or CD everyone at home can enjoy it for no extra cost... are games more like a CD or DVD, you pay for a media and can use whatever is on it? Maybe, but unlike music and cinema the industry doesn't have an equivalent of concerts and cinemas... or perhaps the equivalent is online play, so you can get the second hand disc, install the software, play the single player but each online player should pay a fee to join in.

I can see this type of ruling and the "second hand problem" dramatically changing the industry to either an entirely subscription model (relies on internet connection to play) or free to play initially but with paid unlockable content (content that is somehow limited to only one person ever). The shame is that either way the industry is going to be wasting a lot of money on combating the inevitable idiots who try to hack it and play for free because their bad attitude won't bend to paying for something they're getting enjoyment out of.

[crossy]

In this brief moment of sanity can they cast their gaze over the UK government and raise their banhammers again?

The EU should ban the UK government? I'd go along with that ....

Anyone know if the publishers plan to appeal this decision (assuming that there IS the ability to appeal of course)?

[Malphas]

Quite the opposite, far as I can tell. You even lose a double copy you buy in most cases (i.e., if you have a game and buy a pack containing it, you lose the extra copy).

What happens to your duplicate copy depends on whether or not the game's publisher allows it to be gifted or not. Valve's stance is to allow gifting.

[Malphas]

I'm don't entirely agree with this, if people buy a creative work and then sell it on second hand then multiple people have enjoyed it/used it but only the first has actually paid anything to the creator of the works. In the case of software and games in particular then the more widespread second/third/fourth hand use is then the more it is going to push up first-buyer shop prices to cover the costs of development.

That's how the market for almost every other good works though. When you buy a new car, you're not just paying for the physical materials and labour, you're also paying for the engineering and the R&D, etc. (similarly to the development costs for a game or other creative work). Meanwhile everyone buying a car second hand (i.e. the vast majority) aren't contributing to that.

[Brewster0101]

And thank the EU for that (for a change).

+ 1 , something actually good and useful coming out of the EU courts.

[badass]

Dopes this mean people on forums will finally shut up incorrectly telling people that want to transfer their OEM Windows license to another computer/person that the EULA denies them that right?

"the exclusive right of distribution is exhausted on first sale"

The legal opinion that OEM licenses were unenforcable due to EU rules preventing restrictions on resale has been the consensus for years now. Now it is enshrined in case law.

[badass]

That's how the market for almost every other good works though. When you buy a new car, you're not just paying for the physical materials and labour, you're also paying for the engineering and the R&D, etc. (similarly to the development costs for a game or other creative work). Meanwhile everyone buying a car second hand (i.e. the vast majority) aren't contributing to that.

Indeed. However the second hand car buyers (and potentially software buyers) are increasing both potential sales and values of new cars (or software) as the people that buy new cars (or software) can take into account anticipated second hand value before buying.

[DeludedGuy]

I'm don't entirely agree with this, if people buy a creative work and then sell it on second hand then multiple people have enjoyed it/used it but only the first has actually paid anything to the creator of the works. In the case of software and games in particular then the more widespread second/third/fourth hand use is then the more it is going to push up first-buyer shop prices to cover the costs of development.

Musicians receive royalties whenever their work is played in public, photographers take a fee if someone re-uses their photo, in cinemas everyone pays to see the film, but if you buy a DVD or CD everyone at home can enjoy it for no extra cost... are games more like a CD or DVD, you pay for a media and can use whatever is on it? Maybe, but unlike music and cinema the industry doesn't have an equivalent of concerts and cinemas... or perhaps the equivalent is online play, so you can get the second hand disc, install the software, play the single player but each online player should pay a fee to join in.

I can see this type of ruling and the "second hand problem" dramatically changing the industry to either an entirely subscription model (relies on internet connection to play) or free to play initially but with paid unlockable content (content that is somehow limited to only one person ever). The shame is that either way the industry is going to be wasting a lot of money on combating the inevitable idiots who try to hack it and play for free because their bad attitude won't bend to paying for something they're getting enjoyment out of.

Do you think the same about Art? Pieces of art are sold on a daily basis, enjoyed by the owner, who can then sell it on if he chooses, the Artist has only received the initial sum.

What do you think about the second hand car market? Should we stop people from buying second hand cars?

I hold on to great games, I wouldn't want to sell them - the games I have sold on are the crap games that I wouldn't want to play again, if developers make a great game, they will make money.