-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Steam should let users resell games, French court rules
- Thread starter Deleted member 15428
- Start date
That's because of the lack of legislation on the issue and on digital content in general. Eventually the law will catch up as younger generations become lawmakers.
This will probably go to the Court of Cassation. If they find in favor of this judgement, I'd expect Valve to appeal to the ECJ.
Edit: Also, you should remove 'convicted' from the title. Conviction only occurs in criminal cases.
Edit: Also, you should remove 'convicted' from the title. Conviction only occurs in criminal cases.
It definitely will go. And valve won in ECJ German case few years back. So very low chances sadly.
Yes, that's the case here too, but that's obviously not responsive where the term isn't illegal. You might like it to be, but that's not the current interpretation of digital licensing.
Pretty funny, publishers have pushed for all digital so that they could kill off the used game market and take complete control of pricing, and now they may end up with an even worse situation because the one disadvantage of used physical media (condition) is no longer a factor. I expect this will be fought tooth and nail and end up losing eventually though.
Not that I'm against reselling digital games, there're plenty of things I'd gladly play only once and rather returned some of my money after that, but how exactly are you going to regulate market of the "second-hand" digital goods? When there's a question of how it's going to hit physical sales on consoles and what it would mean for devs and pubs who would basically be forced to compete with their own product?
I Don't know why Valve is the only one here.
But maybe the judgment could make "Jurisprudence" and snowball to other stores too.
But maybe the judgment could make "Jurisprudence" and snowball to other stores too.
Then I'll view it from your perspective, where is the line drawn between what control platform holders have over how content is functionally managed and an account user's access to it? Are players technically entitled to hack in multiplayer servers because users are simply modifying their property? Would automated networks of instantly buying/selling game licenses as they're used on demand be fair game? Are digital distributors legally entitled to give access to every single version of a game as it's updated since it could be said that all of these constituted being their property at some point?
Similar to what Microsoft proposed with the XB1?
Edit: and thank you!
Well some of them may not appeal to people on this forum, but in game launch events that make you want to be there on day one. Or rather than charging £60 for a digital code, start offering physical packages that come with a code, as well as other gaming goodies currently reserved for overpriced 'collectors editions' (as an additional option to physical with cartridges and disks which I know people love). Platform holders could offer rewards programmes that make people want to buy from the PS/Xbox store for example. Basically pump up the value of the games as a package so people WANT to pay full price on day one.
Neither has anyone who believes that never being able to sell any games you purchase is a good thing. There needs to be some solution.
There is for the actual developers though. Imagine if after day/week 1 sales you essentially can expect in the region of zero money directly from your product ever again. Because for basically any even semi decent game, there will always be a willing audience selling the product and undercutting the version that actually gives the developers their money. Activision and their ilk would manage , but it could easily be incredibly detrimental to indie developers.
It's that or they let you resell the license to steam, but give you such a piddling amount that it's not really worth it. (Something like, 10% of the purchase value or current value on sale, since it'd be coming out of valves share, probably whichever is lower)
I know, there isn't any specific legislation on the matter. It will be settled eventually but it hasn't yet.
Different laws govern specific aspects of a given field. The right to resell a game that you bought will be governed by the relevant article of a bill of law, the rest will be governed by another article or another law entirely. Lawmakers have the ability to allow the reselling of games without granting the right to hack the servers. As an example, you can buy a book and sell it to someone else but you can't buy a book, copy it multiple times and sell it to lots of people. You have the right to sell the item but not to reproduce it which is governed by copyright law.
This reasoning sounds flawed since they grant you a right to download as many copies of the game you want -- they're not just selling you a copy of a game
You're ignoring the heart of the issue in that what this is actually about is ownership, reselling is only the tiniest bit of this puzzle. How are you handwaving the implications of the rights of this very thing you want implemented?
And until that happens, we only have years of upheld digital licensing contracts to judge.
My point is that, given that lack of legislation (or litigation), your comment that illegal terms are void in a contract is still non-responsive, unless you meant to say you want it to change in the future?
I don't understand what you're saying. You have ownership over one particular copy of the code, the one that you paid for. Why would that ownership grant you power over anything else?
I'm a skeptic. A system-wide possibility of re-selling software will essentially make subscription services, GaaS and micro-transactions obligatory, and I don't think there's a need for pushing that currently. Consumers aren't in a terrible position either considering how much entertainment you can get these days per dollar, so what is this supposed to achieve exactly?
A digital copy being sold from a consumer is virtually identical to a copy sold from Steam, so how is the market supposed to adapt to that?
A digital copy being sold from a consumer is virtually identical to a copy sold from Steam, so how is the market supposed to adapt to that?
Last edited:
Yes, obviously. For something to be considered illegal there has to be a law that states it is illegal. It's the basic legal principle of nulla poena nullum crimen sine lege (no penalty and no crime without law).
Because you've now arbitrarily drawn a line between what the platform holder had control over and what you had control over. If something is your property and you freely control it, why can Valve draw any limits whatsoever on your property or the way its accessed or modified? You explicitly said you owned the very bits on their servers that make up the content you have access to, why are you not free to modify that data as you wish as its owner in the same way that I can modify an engine in the car of my garage?
No matter how I slice it in my head, I don't think the world is actually ready for this. There's so much that could go wrong with this, for the industry, for the user,... While a physical good is finite and obviously only exists as is, a digital good you can make copies of so the only solution to combat people just buying, making a copy of, and then selling the original is stricter and much harsher DRM and tracking where games go, etc. And it basically would push GaaS and games-as-a-service stuff a lot harder than it's being pushed already.
The only way I think this might be feasible in the present day is if you sold entire accounts rather than individual pieces of your library.
The only way I think this might be feasible in the present day is if you sold entire accounts rather than individual pieces of your library.
If it ends up being done like RobotCache is doing it, you'll get 25% and the publisher will get 70%. If the publishers were to only get 10% then I'm betting they'd push up base prices of games and throw in all sorts of crap, like online passes, to get people to buy 'new'.
Anyway, I'd be highly surpised if digital resales actually becomes standard. Almost everyone who sells digital goods will be lobbying against this.
Luckily you're purchasing a license to the game, not the bits.
I have now idea how anyone demanding a digital second hand market expects this to work without throwing everything into chaos.
The only way digital second hand would work is if you have to host the files for the second hand buyer yourself (and that comes with a lot of new legal problems). As long as the original plattform is still providing the files and service completely it is not second hand or "used", there is no difference to a brand new purchase. It's like you buy a retail copy at Amazon, than sell it again, but instead of sending out your copy, amazon has to send the new owner a brand new copy for free. It's a stupid concept. Even if the plattformholder would take a cut of "second hand" sales it doesn't make any sense for a thing like this to exist.
And a solution where people can offer their digital copy directly on the original plattform/transfer the license to someone else, than the industry would die because nobody would buy a more expensive "new" copy. Tons of people would get cheap keys from shady resellers, play and than sell again, possibly even for a higher price than the original key. This all would be a downwards spiral of massive headaches.
And what about DRM-free games? Basically impossible if second-hand is legal as nobody could stop you from just keeping your copy after selling the original license.
The only way digital second hand would work is if you have to host the files for the second hand buyer yourself (and that comes with a lot of new legal problems). As long as the original plattform is still providing the files and service completely it is not second hand or "used", there is no difference to a brand new purchase. It's like you buy a retail copy at Amazon, than sell it again, but instead of sending out your copy, amazon has to send the new owner a brand new copy for free. It's a stupid concept. Even if the plattformholder would take a cut of "second hand" sales it doesn't make any sense for a thing like this to exist.
And a solution where people can offer their digital copy directly on the original plattform/transfer the license to someone else, than the industry would die because nobody would buy a more expensive "new" copy. Tons of people would get cheap keys from shady resellers, play and than sell again, possibly even for a higher price than the original key. This all would be a downwards spiral of massive headaches.
And what about DRM-free games? Basically impossible if second-hand is legal as nobody could stop you from just keeping your copy after selling the original license.
Yeah, but why are you restating my correction of your earlier comment? Dressing it up and parroting it back to me doesn't really change the fact that you were the one who clearly meant to imply that digital licensing contracts are illegal.
We've talked about it for years in our circuit. If I had the ability to purge stuff from my steam account- I'd do it. Allow me the ability to sell- and just take a portion- or turn in- and give me pennies on the dollar for old stuff- I feel like there's a way they can win here. I wonder if it's adapt or die?
I think digital resale could be a good thing. To be quite honest, I wouldn't part with most of my games, but it would be better for all of us if we could. When I sold my Wii U, I basically gave up my digital purchases. Why should I have had to do that?
I'm content that anyone providing a platform for the resale should be entitled to take a cut for themselves and the publisher, anything back for something I don't play and don't want, and being able to transfer digital goods would make them much much more attractive. I only buy digital at the moment if its an absolute must have to me and I want to have it on the console at all times (particularly useful on the Switch for example).
If it grants more rights to the consumer, I'm in favour.
I'm content that anyone providing a platform for the resale should be entitled to take a cut for themselves and the publisher, anything back for something I don't play and don't want, and being able to transfer digital goods would make them much much more attractive. I only buy digital at the moment if its an absolute must have to me and I want to have it on the console at all times (particularly useful on the Switch for example).
If it grants more rights to the consumer, I'm in favour.
I don't feel like I really need to litigate decades of Microsoft specifics for people to understand what I mean. Hell, just in the past couple of days there have been multiple front page posts about their somewhat questionable practices.
In general, a massive, trillion dollar company is not going to propose some paradigm shift towards consumer rights in opposition of gaining more profit. If they're not forced into it, more often than not it's going to be them trying to take a bigger piece of the pie rather than giving you one.
Are there examples where this hasn't been the case? I'm sure, but let's not pretend like a healthy level of skepticism isn't warranted when it comes to the videogame industry.
Because ownership over a specific copy of a piece of code doesn't automatically grant you rights that extend beyond that ownership. I don't know how much clearer I can be.
Because you are confusing the general principle that I stated (in the EU something being on a contract doesn't make it valid if it is against the law) with its specific application in a case where no law still exists. I responded to your comment that says "it's in the contract" and I explained that in the EU that's not enough. Anything put on a contract has to also not be against the law. That is the general principle.
Right. And right now it is not against the law, with nothing but your sense that it should be to warrant introduction of any commentary about whether digital licensing contracts are void or voidable. I don't think I've misunderstood anything.
I know I'd definitely buy more games if I knew I could sell them, even if it meant losing some value.
The part about "digital licencing contracts" is something that you added yourself, that's why you misunderstood. My response was not about digital licencing contracts specifically. It was about contract clauses in general.
Honestly convicted sounds like they've done something horribly wrong. No other company is held to this standard.
Yay for consumers. Bad for content creators, unless all games end up being on one subscription service or another, so you never own it in the first place.
This would just need to become a gift situation. Valve did it once with Steam Gifts they can do it again
Interested to see how this works. Surely the ruling should also apply to that album off I tunes I bought 4 years ago too but never listen to....
I feel most of you have ignored what I would consider o e of the most important issues. The way valve defines the "purchase" of a game is as a "lifetime" subscription with a one time payment, and as such you don't retain ownership. That's one of the main things the French court room issue with, which opens the door to classifying them as outright purchases and having ownership of them as a result
And this is where valve's definition of a subscription falls apart, according to French law:
I am not a lawyer and I may be wrong. My sister however is currently in law school and studying European Law and agrees with my interpretation. I actually teach legal English, so I'll bring this as a case study/class assignment at the firm next time I go there.
Edit: the point I was trying to make is that this case could be brought in other EU countries.
And this is where valve's definition of a subscription falls apart, according to French law:
I am not a lawyer and I may be wrong. My sister however is currently in law school and studying European Law and agrees with my interpretation. I actually teach legal English, so I'll bring this as a case study/class assignment at the firm next time I go there.
Edit: the point I was trying to make is that this case could be brought in other EU countries.
I didn't misunderstand. Ignoring the fact that the entire thread is about digital licensing, to the extent it is about contracts at all, you were replying to this comment when I replied to you:
And whether or not it was specifically in that context, what I've said doesn't change. It's not an impactful distinction.
This would be good for consumers but awful for developers if it was implemented. It seems unreasonable that only Valve would be charged with providing this when to my knowledge there isn't a single digital storefront out there that allows purchased digital content to be resold, short of selling the entire account, though perhaps Valve is an easy target given the fact that they already have a mechanism for users to sell content they own on the Steam Marketplace