News - EU rules that users can resell digital downloaded games

[kalniel]

Yep and new cars are priced accordingly high - they are in effect subsidised by second hand sales*.

I've long been arguing for the same thing with games - a higher initial price so that developers can make a living, while allowing second hand sales to help subsidise the initial price (and with natural decay you'll get more or less money back depending how long you continue playing the game).

* and also parts, servicing and finance to be honest, especially the latter.. I hope those don't come into play for games.. though I guess microtransactions...

[GaryRW]

Meanwhile everyone buying a car second hand (i.e. the vast majority) aren't contributing to that.

Not directly, but the second hand resale value is clearly relevant to the people buying it new - I'm pretty sure new car sales would go down pretty sharply if you suddenly weren't allowed to sell them on, get a trade in price etc... The economics of the car market is established and used to the fact that there will almost certainly be multiple owners for each car.

The arguments are in my eye exactly the same as second hand sales of retail boxed games - on that front I agree with the decision entirely. The only practical issue to me is that second hand digital will be more attractive, i.e. if all you're getting is the ability to install/play something with no physical media, box, instruction manual, etc... does it matter in the slightest that it's "second hand"?

I assume the current economic/business models for digital distribution don't take into account the ability to re-sell. If e.g. Steam are forced to allow second hand sales, will the the big Steam sales reduce as the developers/publishers need more cash from the first sale to make up for (potentially) lost sales? Or will, as others have said, the entire industry shift to renting access to a game rather than selling a license/ownership?

[Edit - i.e. basically what others have all said first in reply )

[Ross1]

I guess the depreciation over time can come from technological advancement, rather than the product actually degrading. I still find it a bit concerning that given any 'used' digital copy is bit for bit exactly the same as a 'new' copy, there would never be a reason to buy a new game if there is a person willing to sell their copy.

I guess it probably wont affect steam other than giving you the 'right' to sell your steam account.

[ET3D]

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.

Not true. See here. Only very specific packs give you extra copies.

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.

True, but that's how it's always been before the digital age, and prices haven't been reduced due to going digital. In fact the normal prices of physical books and games are often less than the prices of digital ones. (Although digital is more often discounted.)

The ability to lend and sell what you have is normal in a market, and it has beneficial effects. I haven't seen proof that it hurts the market, though that's commonly said by publishers. People who sell usually put the money directly into new games, and people who buy used are introduced to franchises they might not have bought otherwise, which they'll be more likely to buy new in the future if they like them.


And looks like the EU is continuing with the good work: Acta: Controversial anti-piracy agreement rejected by EU.

[Zeven]

This could mean the end of extravagant discounts, however, as publishers will have to worry over second hand sales. Why should they "reward" gamers with low prices if the latter group can just get games second hand? Digital downloads don't suffer from wear and tear either so you would basically be getting a second hand product in perfectly new condition.

[pfb201]

Yeah indeed. It seems the UK is very stoic in the beliefs/regulation of digital purchases. Surely this will not be hard to implement on a Steam/Origin basis where your games are removed from the store when the license is transferred. Exactly like "real" games in CD/DVD format.

[crossy]

I guess the depreciation over time can come from technological advancement, rather than the product actually degrading. I still find it a bit concerning that given any 'used' digital copy is bit for bit exactly the same as a 'new' copy, there would never be a reason to buy a new game if there is a person willing to sell their copy. I guess it probably wont affect steam other than giving you the 'right' to sell your steam account.

Don't agree with that last bit, mainly because that "if there is a person willing to sell their copy" means that it'd be a sellers market - at least initially. You will always get folks who are willing to pay full price in exchange for getting the "Game Of The Year" on launch day. If you don't believe that, then cast your mind back to all those CoD launches where folks were queueing outside GAME/HMV at midnight.
Don't forget the pester power factor too - if el sprog's friends have all got "Bang, Bang, Shooty, Car Race III" then your sprog will definitely have an incentive to get a copy (or at least annoy you into getting one for them). And I guarantee that "wait until it's available second hand" will cut no ice at all.

Yeah indeed. It seems the UK is very stoic in the beliefs/regulation of digital purchases. Surely this will not be hard to implement on a Steam/Origin basis where your games are removed from the store when the license is transferred. Exactly like "real" games in CD/DVD format.

Hmm, I think you meant account rather than "store" in that? Otherwise you'd be proposing that you could only ever have one copy of a particular title and selling your current copy meant that you could never buy another.

Assuming you did mean "account" then that'd seem like a reasonable way to do things - especially if the Steam/Origin/uPlay/etc client also removed the program from your PC (although it couldn't do anything about backup copies I guess - but online activation should deal with that).

I can't see any problem in them (EA et al) defining a second hand value. So when you'd finished with BF3 (for example) then you could "deactivate" your copy and get back the current "resale" value - more than likely as digital store credit. In the case of the publishers own stores this would seem like a good deal - keeping the punters in your ecosystem.

[kingpotnoodle]

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.

And the price of unique art (as in not a mass produced print) is beyond most, do we want that to happen to games?

Cars and most other machinery have an ongoing generation of money from repairs, parts, servicing so manufacturers continue to make money even though the machine has been sold on to another person. Games developers don't have this.

So because some people play second/third/+ hand you are now penalised and must pay out a larger price for your games which you want to keep. In effect this punishes eager fans who want to play a game soon after release and keep it.

I don't think paradigms from other industries really work so well with games and other software.

[DeludedGuy]

And the price of unique art (as in not a mass produced print) is obscene, do we want that to happen to games?

Cars and most other machinery have an ongoing generation of money from repairs, parts, servicing so manufacturers continue to make money even though the machine has been sold on to another person. Games developers don't have this.

I think you will find that games developers do have something similar, its called expansion packs...

[kingpotnoodle]

I can't see any problem in them (EA et al) defining a second hand value. So when you'd finished with BF3 (for example) then you could "deactivate" your copy and get back the current "resale" value - more than likely as digital store credit. In the case of the publishers own stores this would seem like a good deal - keeping the punters in your ecosystem.

That would never work, how many people are going to keep a game if they've played it through? It would be effectively selling the game at (initial price) - (2nd hand price). Each person would only in effect pay a few pounds for having played the game rather than £30+. You'd have to hugely increase sales for that to pay for itself...

[kingpotnoodle]

I think you will find that games developers do have something similar, its called expansion packs...

You mean downloadable content, expansion packs are no different to the original game in terms of second hand treatment being resold as a disc. And how long until it's enforced that people are trading their DLC access, you bought the "Sword of Massive Face Whacking" from the developers, but then sell it on... again developer profits down.

Software development as an industry needs to make money, if most of the players actually pay another gamer rather than the developer then the initial purchase price is going to rise - that or we'll end up with a subscription/rental model which will cost loyal fans a lot in the long term. I've been playing Skyrim for months, even if I had to pay only £5 a month I would now have spent more than I did to purchase it on Steam. That sort of thing will destroy the community, modding and long term player segment by pricing people out.

[aidanjt]

You mean downloadable content, expansion packs are no different to the original game in terms of second hand treatment being resold as a disc. And how long until it's enforced that people are trading their DLC access, you bought the "Sword of Massive Face Whacking" from the developers, but then sell it on... again developer profits down.

Software development as an industry needs to make money, if most of the players actually pay another gamer rather than the developer then the initial purchase price is going to rise - that or we'll end up with a subscription/rental model which will cost loyal fans a lot in the long term. I've been playing Skyrim for months, even if I had to pay only £5 a month I would now have spent more than I did to purchase it on Steam. That sort of thing will destroy the community, modding and long term player segment by pricing people out.

Most games these days only take a day or two to complete. A subscription model would kill them faster than dead. They're just going to have to make better games to compel gamers to retain purchases, like they should have been doing anyway.

[kingpotnoodle]

Most games these days only take a day or two to complete. A subscription model would kill them faster than dead. They're just going to have to make better games to compel gamers to retain purchases, like they should have been doing anyway.

Depends in the charging scheme, wouldn't if charges were something like:

Month1 = £20
Month2 = £10
Month3+ = £5pm

They would price them for profit same as they do now, we'd probably end up paying more in the long run. Digital only distribution makes this possible, as soon as someone stops paying their client (e.g. Steam) prevents launching the game. Wouldn't be too hard to ensure only authorised copies could run but it would sure make it a PITA for customers wanting to play offline.

If you complete it in a few days you only pay 1 month and then stop. It kills the second hand market, so more people are paying that £20... from a publishers perspective it looks like all win to me. Not so bad for people playing quick games as they have only paid £20, same as you might have done buying second hand on a fairly new game. It would also encourage longevity and replay value to be built in... however those who do play a big game like Skyrim, Fallout etc over many months are likely to end up getting ripped off - this is what I do an why I don't like the idea of subscription services and as such am wary of things forcing the industry down that path.

It's the direction the second hand market will force the industry, and I can unfortunately see why from a business perspective... otherwise it's like buying season ticket a theme park, having your fun and then selling that season ticket to a mate who also goes and has their fun, then sells it to a mate... IMHO games are more analogous to that type of interactive entertainment than they are to passive forms like DVDs, music or art, or to any other commodity.

[IronWarrior]

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.

With that sort of logic, every time you buy something second hand, the original owner or IP has to be paid again, let's see how fast you change your mind once the car industry tries the same business model.

[kalniel]

With that sort of logic, every time you buy something second hand, the original owner or IP has to be paid again, let's see how fast you change your mind once the car industry tries the same business model.

Well as already mentioned, the car industry both gets continually paid through service parts/franchises and has a high enough initial cost of cars to make the business profitable in the long run.

[aidanjt]

Depends in the charging scheme, wouldn't if charges were something like:

Month1 = £20
Month2 = £10
Month3+ = £5pm

They would price them for profit same as they do now, we'd probably end up paying more in the long run. Digital only distribution makes this possible, as soon as someone stops paying their client (e.g. Steam) prevents launching the game. Wouldn't be too hard to ensure only authorised copies could run but it would sure make it a PITA for customers wanting to play offline.

If you complete it in a few days you only pay 1 month and then stop. It kills the second hand market, so more people are paying that £20... from a publishers perspective it looks like all win to me. Not so bad for people playing quick games as they have only paid £20, same as you might have done buying second hand on a fairly new game. It would also encourage longevity and replay value to be built in... however those who do play a big game like Skyrim, Fallout etc over many months are likely to end up getting ripped off - this is what I do an why I don't like the idea of subscription services and as such am wary of things forcing the industry down that path.

Nobody is going to buy that that is a genuine subscription model at all, least of all an ECJ judge, who isn't going to be terribly amused with companies trying to worm their way around a prior ruling. Now if publishers want to charge complete distribution platform access to all games for £X/m, then you might be talking. But again, that brings us back to them losing out in the long run, as soon as users get bored of the offerings they're going to stop paying, and that doesn't really take long unless there's an exceptional title which keeps them interested.

It's the direction the second hand market will force the industry, and I can unfortunately see why from a business perspective... otherwise it's like buying season ticket a theme park, having your fun and then selling that season ticket to a mate who also goes and has their fun, then sells it to a mate... IMHO games are more analogous to that type of interactive entertainment than they are to passive forms like DVDs, music or art, or to any other commodity.

It doesn't matter if the software is interactive. The ruling applies to all copyright material, with an emphasis on software, because software publishers are the target of the prosecution.

In any event, their focus should be on making great games people want to keep, and they should have been doing that for years instead of ramming DRM down people's throats discouraging them from buying at all.