Steam should let users resell games, French court rules

[Stop It]

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.

Click to shrink...

But that's patently untrue.

On consoles the console itself is DRM. You can't make copies of the disc that work on the console and you can't make digital copies that work either. The license is tied to a user and thus, can be untied and transferred. The current protections against piracy will be unaffected by a user being able to sell their entitlement digitally.

On PC the disc is irrelevant and you can't resell pc games to begin with. So DRM wouldn't be affected because it's already there and frankly, some people who would circumvent DRM for piracy may actually be given a reason to buy games on PC if they can get their money back legitimately.

 

[Deleted member 15428]

If you can just sell "used" digital games, that would probably kill a lot of publishers and developers.

Click to shrink...

Depending on a legal loophole to survive is not a good idea in the first place

 

[Alexandros]

If you can just sell "used" digital games, that would probably kill a lot of publishers and developers.

Click to shrink...

They could provide incentives to customers to prefer a new copy. DLC included, cosmetics, fancy physical versions, free games as pack-ins, you name it.

 

[spam musubi]

They could provide incentives to customers to prefer a new copy. DLC included, cosmetics, fancy physical versions, free games as pack-ins, you name it.

Click to shrink...

it's more troublesome for indie games that usually don't engage in practices like that

 

[LordRuyn]

According to this tidbit of European law, devs and publishers should not be able to to take a cut from resale of digital goods

Exhaustion of the right is a principle according to which once a work has been sold with the author's authorization, the author no longer has control over subsequent resales.

Click to shrink...

Again, I could be wrong

 

[Deleted member 15428]

According to this tidbit of European law, devs and publishers should not be able to to take a cut from resale of digital goods



Again, I could be wrong

Click to shrink...

Why would they? They already sold the game, it's not theirs anymore

 

[Deleted member 5621]

Yay, consumer rights.
Nay, even harsher DRM that will inevitably happen.
Two edged issue, really. And how would that work with DLC? Or pre order bonuses? Would I have a list of "extras" on my game page on Steam, like "pre order golden skin", "extra mission 1" and such that could be resold, like CSGO/Dota2 skins? Could them be bought even if you don't own the game, so you could resell/gift them?

 

[Madjoki]

They could provide incentives to customers to prefer a new copy. DLC included, cosmetics, fancy physical versions, free games as pack-ins, you name it.

Click to shrink...

But since you'd have ability to sell the new license, used copies would include same stuff. (And breaking license to pieces would most likely be against law, as is in software case)

 

[Alexandros]

it's more troublesome for indie games that usually don't engage in practices like that

Click to shrink...

Yeah that would definitely require a period of adjustment.

 

[Windu]

I would definitely love the ability to have a 2nd hand digital games market.

I have always thought games that have been delisted from a store should have the ability to be traded and sold to other people. Since you can't buy them officially anymore.

 

[LordRuyn]

Why would they? They already sold the game, it's not theirs anymore

Click to shrink...

I agree. I posted it because some were suggeting a 10% cut by pubs/devs, this says it can't happen (in Europe)

 

[Alexandros]

But since you'd have ability to sell the new license, used copies would include same stuff. (And breaking license to pieces would most likely be against law, as is in software case)

Click to shrink...

Of course, that goes without saying.

 

[Dogui]

This would just kill the tiny indie market. They already struggling in the actual environment, something like this happening would erase them out of the map :p

 

[Dyle]

Depending on a legal loophole to survive is not a good idea in the first place

Click to shrink...

But it's been the standard business model for the entire industry, multiple industries really, for years. That's not a loophole, that's just standard practice, even if the legal framework behind it might not be fully formed or technically correct. The companies who will be hurt by this will be predominantly small, independent companies who don't have the resources to incentivize the first sale or generate revenue through ongoing transactions. Enacting this will only increase the power of the largest companies in the industry

 

[Alexandros]

But it's been the standard business model for the entire industry, multiple industries really, for years. That's not a loophole, that's just standard practice, even if the legal framework behind it might not be fully formed or technically correct. The companies who will be hurt by this will be predominantly small, independent companies who don't have the resources to incentivize the first sale or generate revenue through ongoing transactions. Enacting this will only increase the power of the largest companies in the industry

Click to shrink...

Or it might generate more sales as a whole by putting money back in the hands of customers. If I could sell part of my library I would have more money to buy new games with.

 

[catswaller]

A change like this would heavily favor
a- people who can sell physical/unique items that decrease in perceived value after resale
b- storefronts who can pay for exclusives to attract content. With much smaller tails on sales, developers would have much less bargaining power/reason to turn down an up front gauranteed payment, even a smaller one.

I'm kinda ambivalent about both of these things -- what are the pros that have people in this thread excited about this?

 

[Hybrid Rainbow]

Microsoft wanted to implement such a system with the XBox One, lending digital purchases to friends and reselling them, but got a ton of flack for it as a draconian DRM system because it required occasionally being online to update the license to make sure you weren't playing a game you had loaned or sold, so they dropped the whole system.

Click to shrink...

Lol it's a little bit more draconian than you are implying. MS wanted to make it that when you played a used game from any source, the Xbox would check the server to see if you owned it. If you didn't, it would take you a screen on where you could purchase it. Also that occasional online check was every 24 hours I believe and would lock you out of your library if you missed the check. It was a terrible system overall and one MS rightfully got flack for.

 

[Alexandros]

I'm kinda ambivalent about both of these things -- what are the pros that have people in this thread excited about this?

Click to shrink...

I can get back money from games that I don't intend to replay and spend them on new games or anything I want.

 

[Dyle]

Or it might generate more sales as a whole by putting money back in the hands of customers. If I could sell part of my library I would have more money to buy new games with.

Click to shrink...

True, but a lot, if not most, of that money wouldn't go to developers. In that situation you would probably spend the money you made selling your used games to purchase other used games. Few consumers would use that money to buy new games that they wouldn't have bought otherwise when they could just buy a used game that would be functionally identical, but cheaper. There would be very few incentives to buy a new copy and generate revenue for developers. and overall the amount of money going to developers for their work would likely decline, even if more people are playing their games overall. I think it would increase the amount of money entering the digital games economy but would shift a lot of that money away from developers and towards consumers, and since consumers have limited time and interest, it seems unlikely that money would all go back into games

 

[Ruruja]

Finally, I can sell all the shit games in my steam account.

 

[AppleMIX]

Or it might generate more sales as a whole by putting money back in the hands of customers. If I could sell part of my library I would have more money to buy new games with.

Click to shrink...

Sales would have to be a order of magnatuide higher to make up the lost revenue. That simple won't happen because it doesn't happen in the used game market right now.

 

[Alexandros]

True, but a lot, if not most, of that money wouldn't go to developers. In that situation you would probably spend the money you made selling your used games to purchase other used games. Few consumers would use that money to buy new games that they wouldn't have bought otherwise when they could just buy a used game that would be functionally identical, but cheaper. There would be very few incentives to buy a new copy and generate revenue for developers. and overall the amount of money going to developers for their work would likely decline, even if more people are playing their games overall. I think it would increase the amount of money entering the digital games economy but would shift a lot of that money away from developers and towards consumers, and since consumers have limited time and interest, it seems unlikely that money would all go back into games

Click to shrink...

Sales would have to be a order of magnatuide higher to make up the lost revenue. That simple won't happen because it doesn't happen in the used game market right now.

Click to shrink...

I agree with both of you but this would be beneficial to customers so the market would have to adjust accordingly.

 

[AppleMIX]

I agree with both of you but this would be beneficial to customers so the market would have to adjust accordingly.

Click to shrink...

But that means less capital for publishers and less resources to publish games.

 

[rustyphish]

Yay, consumer rights.
Nay, even harsher DRM that will inevitably happen.
Two edged issue, really. And how would that work with DLC? Or pre order bonuses? Would I have a list of "extras" on my game page on Steam, like "pre order golden skin", "extra mission 1" and such that could be resold, like CSGO/Dota2 skins? Could them be bought even if you don't own the game, so you could resell/gift them?

Click to shrink...

I assume the same way it works now with discs. Usually those things come with a single-redemption code that redeems them for one account.

If you sell a physical copy of a used game that had a pre-order bonus, the new buyer doesn't then get that bonus on their account.

I imagine this is one way developers will make up for the profitability. We may see a day soon when the license for games is basically a trial and you buy season passes and expansion content beyond that.

 

[Alexandros]

But that means less capital for publishers and less resources to publish games.

Click to shrink...

Sure, but more money for us customers.

 

[rustyphish]

But that means less capital for publishers and less resources to publish games.

Click to shrink...

Or, alternative monetization.

There are plenty of games that make billions of dollars while charging nothing for the original sale.

 

[Lausebub]

Or it might generate more sales as a whole by putting money back in the hands of customers. If I could sell part of my library I would have more money to buy new games with.

Click to shrink...

But most people would just buy used games again. Why would I buy something like Journey new, when i can get it as easily for 5$ less.
This wouldn't be sustainable for Indie devs and bigger publisher would just do even more Gaas games.

 

[Deleted member 2840]

Oh Boy. On one hand, selling my old collection seems great.
On the other hand, why would I -ever- buy an indie game directly instead of a "used" copy? Indie developers have been complaining about things for ages already, imagine what'll happen to them if this starts happening.

 

[Lausebub]

Or, alternative monetization.

There are plenty of games that make billions of dollars while charging nothing for the original sale.

Click to shrink...

But under the laws in question, I should also be able to sell all my cosmetics and DLCs.

 

[Dogui]

I agree with both of you but this would be beneficial to customers so the market would have to adjust accordingly.

Click to shrink...

Tiny indies would adjust by going the smartphone game route of being free with 90% of content locked through mtx.

As a consumer, i wouldn't exactly like this.

 

[rustyphish]

But under the laws in question, I should also be able to sell all my cosmetics and DLCs.

Click to shrink...

IANAL, but I believe this is only things you procure a license for yes? I've never read the purchase agreement on a skin or anything like that, but I'm certain it could be classified differently

 

[Deleted member 15428]

Oh Boy. On one hand, selling my old collection seems great.
On the other hand, why would I -ever- buy an indie game directly instead of a "used" copy? Indie developers have been complaining about things for ages already, imagine what'll happen to them if this starts happening.

Click to shrink...

For the same reason you'd buy a physical game new instead of used

 

[Deleted member 11214]

This is a great way to make sure we only get high-quality games via console exclusives, subscription services like Stadia and Apple Arcade or exclusivity deals like Epic provides.

It would devastate every level of development.

 

[Ox Code]

But most people would just buy used games again. Why would I buy something like Journey new, when i can get it as easily for 5$ less.
This wouldn't be sustainable for Indie devs and bigger publisher would just do even more Gaas games.

Click to shrink...

Agreed. The only real ways the industry could grow with this as a precedent is either through GAAS or a Game Pass-equivalent service. Either way, the concept of ownership this ruling is trying to protect would have little to no value in those places.

 

[Ionic]

Or it might generate more sales as a whole by putting money back in the hands of customers. If I could sell part of my library I would have more money to buy new games with.

Click to shrink...

I think people are arguing that yes, you would have more money to buy games, but you would likely buy a used game, and in order to get that money to buy that used game, you sold a bunch of used games to other people who may have otherwise bought new. So instead of people putting new money into the gaming scene, it would become more like just shuffling already existing money around.

I think big companies can take the brunt. They managed it during the Blockbuster and Gamestop eras, but indie games as we know them today have not existed in the framework of being resold or traded around. I hope their niche still has enough resources for survival.

For the same reason you'd buy a physical game new instead of used

Click to shrink...

I do prefer my zeroes and ones to be untouched, and my game manual PDF to not have and creases on it. The only reason to buy new would be nobody is selling it yet and you want it now.

 

[Cordelia]

Will this applicable to consoles digital store too?

 

[Ducarmel]

It will mean nothing until its rigorously enforced.

I also imagine if this law becomes a thing it would mean fees for cloud space. i doubt these companies would want to hold our data for free. I can see publishers/digital store front get around this buy making you accept a cloud fee for a resalable license that probably would make reselling the game more expensive or a license that cant be resold for free cloud space

 

[werezompire]

Allowing resale of digital games would basically destroy every game company, big and small, that did not transition immediately to a subscription-only model or a physical-only model. Basically, developers & publishers would never see a cent from their games after the initial launch period because there would also be someone willing to sell a used copy at an undercut price and the used copy would be functionally identical to a brand new copy. Also, DRM would get FAR more intrusive and widespread than it is now.

 

[Ferulci]

A change like this would heavily favor
a- people who can sell physical/unique items that decrease in perceived value after resale
b- storefronts who can pay for exclusives to attract content. With much smaller tails on sales, developers would have much less bargaining power/reason to turn down an up front gauranteed payment, even a smaller one.

Click to shrink...

This is a great way to make sure we only get high-quality games via console exclusives, subscription services like Stadia and Apple Arcade or exclusivity deals like Epic provides.

It would devastate every level of development.

Click to shrink...

So far, my feelings as well. This seems like a pro-consumer move at first but I really can't see this not firing back in a very bad way.
In theory, this sounds great for the consumers....unless the industry responds and "adapts" with more monetization, more online pass, more in-app purchases or simply increasing prices. You can easily argue that it is not great for consumers.
For developers, especially indies, it is something that will make the ecosystem even harsher. It could be an open invitation for studios to move to subscription services or store with exclusivity deal.

 

[catswaller]

I can get back money from games that I don't intend to replay and spend them on new games or anything I want.

Click to shrink...

but games that you want have to get made by the market for you to buy them, unless you're looking to start a used game resale company or something I don't really see the pro.

is ~$100 dollars a year back on games you purchase worth a crippled market? I don't mean that rhetorically like, what amount of cash back on games you buy do you consider worth X less games you enjoy a year?

 

[elyetis]

I've both hoped to see the industry move into that direction, and feared how they would react to it.

 

[Master Alucard]

I've both hoped to see the industry move into that direction, and feared how they would react to it.

Click to shrink...

clearly big pubs will push even harder for subscription services. the moment you can resell digital product is the moment they try to take away your "ownership"

 

[Deleted member 10601]

Steam gamepass when?

 

[Deleted member 2840]

For the same reason you'd buy a physical game new instead of used

Click to shrink...

Huh, never knew you could find pubes in an used digital game copy. The more you know!

 

[Morrigan]

Edit: Also, you should remove 'convicted' from the title. Conviction only occurs in criminal cases.

Click to shrink...

Not sure if convicted is the appropiate term here.

Click to shrink...

Honestly convicted sounds like they've done something horribly wrong. No other company is held to this standard.

Click to shrink...

I've edited the title and added a source in English. "Convicted" here comes from a somewhat shoddy translation of the original French article on Reddit.

Fully agreed. The industry has managed to handwave the issue so far by claiming that it sells "licences, not games" but it's bullshit and has always been bullshit. If you buy a piece of digital content you should be able to freely sell it to someone else.

Click to shrink...

Why is it bullshit? How is a video game license different than any other non-resellable software license?

They could provide incentives to customers to prefer a new copy. DLC included, cosmetics, fancy physical versions, free games as pack-ins, you name it.

Click to shrink...

But then you could argue that they would have to be part of the re-sold package so that's no incentive at all.

Moreover, this would encourage even worse and even more intrusive monetization/GaaS schemes, which, well, I don't know about you, but I sure as shit don't want. And it would kill indies.

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.

Click to shrink...

Allowing resale of digital games would basically destroy every game company, big and small, that did not transition immediately to a subscription-only model or a physical-only model. Basically, developers & publishers would never see a cent from their games after the initial launch period because there would also be someone willing to sell a used copy at an undercut price and the used copy would be functionally identical to a brand new copy. Also, DRM would get FAR more intrusive and widespread than it is now.

Click to shrink...

Agreed with this.
IMO anyone cheering for this hasn't thought things through.

 

[Mass_Pincup]

This definitely shouldn't happen.

The reason I don't buy used physical games is because I want a brand new disc and a case that hasn't been smeared by some disgusting person. If I could buy used digital games, why would I ever buy a new one? There would be exactly zero reasons to do so.

Click to shrink...

Same reason people buy game day 1.

 

[collige]

I assume the same way it works now with discs. Usually those things come with a single-redemption code that redeems them for one account.

If you sell a physical copy of a used game that had a pre-order bonus, the new buyer doesn't then get that bonus on their account.

I imagine this is one way developers will make up for the profitability. We may see a day soon when the license for games is basically a trial and you buy season passes and expansion content beyond that.

Click to shrink...

Why shouldn't I be able to also sell my season pass too then?

I agree with both of you but this would be beneficial to customers so the market would have to adjust accordingly.

Click to shrink...

"The free market will figure it out" is an extremely myopic viewpoint imo

 

[StrangeRoboMemory]

This would be amazing but I don't think it'll actually happen.

 

[Deleted member 10629]

That would be extremely welcome. Everyone has a game or two that will just sit there forever.

 

[rustyphish]

Why shouldn't I be able to also sell my season pass too then?


"The free market will figure it out" is an extremely myopic viewpoint imo

Click to shrink...

Little tough if the season is over.

I just don't get why we have to make it like there couldn't possibly be nuance in this. You can sell concert tickets second hand before the show, but they're useless after. These are not new problems for retail.