Support NeoGAF

[NiiloPielinen]

Implications for any digital products are enormous.

Imagine you buy a license to view a movie for 10$. Then after watching it you decide to be charitable and sell it forward for 1 cent. Someone buys it, watches it and puts it back to sale for 1 cent. Rinse and repeat.

Or buying a game from GOG, copying it, then selling it immediately.

Used digital copy = brand new digital copy. You don't need to arrange physical exchange of goods like with non-digital goods. There is practically no waiting on delivery.

 

[Mistake]

I knew day 1 with steam and apple music that I was just buying some stupid license, which is why I never used them. I have no interest in some company’s UI being the lock and key to my files

 

[Fuz]

Oh people will be able to sell their games. The horror. Just like they can now with console games and how they could do it just 10 years back on PC.

Don't jump to conclusions.
On an ethical, just point of view I'm absolutely convinced we should have all the possible rights on whatever we purchase, including reselling. This applies to games too.
I'm just thinking forward to what publishers might do to circumvent this. We all know they are scum. I fear a bigger push on always online, GAAS, subscriptions.
Wonder if we'll end up having the right to sell subscripted games or MMOs accounts.

All things considered, I'm firmly in favour of the right to resell. But I value freedom over all to autism levels.

Or buying a game from GOG, copying it, then selling it immediately.

I thought about this too but... if you just want the free game, what's stopping you now from pirating it? There isn't much difference.

 

[RedVIper]

Don't jump to conclusions.
On an ethical, just point of view I'm absolutely convince we should have all the possible rights on whatever we purchase, including reselling. This applies to games too.
I'm just thinking forward to what publishers might do to circumvent this. We all know they are scum. I fear a bigger push on always online, GAAS, subscriptions.
Wonder if we'll end up having the right to sell subscripted games or MMOs accounts.

All things considered, I'm firmly in favour of the right to resell. But I value freedom over all to autism levels.

I thought about this too but... if you just want the free game, what's stopping you now from pirating it? There isn't much difference.

Well piracy is illegal in some places, this wouldn't.
Some people might have ethical issues with piracy and would be fine with this.

 

[johntown]

Simple, you sell it and you can’t play it anymore. This isn’t hard.

What about Steam offline mode? How do you prevent someone from installing the game on a PC, then keeping the game and having it launch in offline mode but with Steam online the player has sold the game?

Just to make sure this is very clear. Someone installs Steam on a second PC. Then they install all their games, launch them once and then take the PC offline and keep it offline and just use Steam in offline mode and then sell all their games online on another PC.

I guess the all French users would no longer be able to play games in offline mode.

So you see it is not as easy as you claim.

 

[Woo-Fu]

I'd simply stop selling games in France. Well, unless you want to become the most popular way to launder money in Europe. The liability for Valve is enormous if they have to broker effectively infinite license transfers.

 

[Zog]

What about Steam offline mode? How do you prevent someone from installing the game on a PC, then keeping the game and having it launch in offline mode but with Steam online the player has sold the game?

Just to make sure this is very clear. Someone installs Steam on a second PC. Then they install all their games, launch them once and then take the PC offline and keep it offline and just use Steam in offline mode and then sell all their games online on another PC.

I guess the all French users would no longer be able to play games in offline mode.

So you see it is not as easy as you claim.

Doesn't Steam need an online check from time to time?

 

[Dargor]

This is good, hope every country in the world does the same in the future.

 

[Ballthyrm]

I don't see the "consumers" winning in the long term here.
This is a pro-consumer move that only going to make things worse IMHO.

By forcing law that are designed for physical goods on digital goods they are really opening pandora's box.
They are not considering the impact this can have on the whole gaming ecosystem, this is a very narrow minded way of reading the law.

Imagine a world where this is applied.
Publishers and game devs only make money for the first few weeks of sales.
Of the gross revenue their take is somewhere around 70-85 %.

After the first 2 weeks of sales they don't make any money because it gets taken over by the used market.
What follows is a death loop between the price of new and the price of used until it get to zero.

Most of the money that the Publisher made has now to account for the entire marketing budget, development budget and the price of the servers / maintenance for patching, etc..
With big games upper cost being in the 100's of millions, this math simply doesn't work.
Even with 60 dollars game it already doesn't work.

______________________________________________

What then is going to happen. Where will the money to pay for all this cost is going to come from ?
Well i have a few ideas and most of them aren't any good.


-> More subscriptions based product, say hello to the end of ownership, you can play the game only if you pitch in directly to the publisher.
They can control end to end the value generated by their product. You can't access their product unless they allow it on other distribution services.

-> FTP everything, with games approaching the value of zero faster and faster, the money isn't going to be made on release. (this is what happened on mobile games, Value went to ZERO)
Whales are now going to pay for everything, say hello to pay to win, and Fortnite-like money making scheme. (we are already moving in that direction)

-> Indefinite lease on a platform (like Steam). contract change from buying a licence of a game to a lease agreement. Your games are tied to the lease platform.
You don't "own" anything anymore, just the access which you can't sell.

-> video game streaming but with the actual business model. You can buy game and the streaming platform take a cut (google Stadia)


_______________________________________________

TLDR: money pay for the development of games, no money = no games
If devs don't get payed, games don't magically appear.

PS: you can say goodbye to Indies, they essentially survive on sales today because you can't resell the key afterwards.
They haven't the structures nor the scale to survive of the business models suggested above.
It will become like book authors, a few make it and most don't make any money. (and mind you, games are a lot more costly to make than books)

 

[johntown]

Doesn't Steam need an online check from time to time?

Steam does not but some games might depending on the game some games require an Internet connection too. The ones that don't would be the issue.

 

[lukilladog]

This reads like: 'Please guys, don't support the First Sale Doctrine or the game publishers will punish us. '

Yeah, I´m reading to see if someone makes some good argument against this ruling, but this is manipulative arguments and reductio ad absurdum galore. Personally I think It´s the market that should adapt to people´s rights, not the other way around.

 

[Zog]

Yeah, I´m reading to see if someone makes some good argument against this ruling, but this is manipulative arguments and reductio ad absurdum galore. Personally I think It´s the market that should adapt to people´s rights, not the other way around.

Yep. Game consumers are so used to getting shit on that they now think that if they aren't shit on, the market will collapse. They say things like: 'but how will Valve be able to program their system to transfer a license from one account to the other and how will they ensure the seller can't still play it.' They are just looking for excuses, any excuse.

I am sure Valve can work this out. Maybe uninstall the sellers copy before finalizing the sale. It really isn't as hard as some people are pretending it is. If used sales were going to kill the market, there wouldn't be a market today because used game shops would have killed it long ago.

They act like enforcing consumer friendly rules against their drug dealer will hurt them worse than letting the drug dealer continue with the status quo

 

[Dontero]

Don't jump to conclusions.
On an ethical, just point of view I'm absolutely convince we should have all the possible rights on whatever we purchase, including reselling. This applies to games too.
I'm just thinking forward to what publishers might do to circumvent this. We all know they are scum. I fear a bigger push on always online, GAAS, subscriptions.
Wonder if we'll end up having the right to sell subscripted games or MMOs accounts.

Court ruling also handles this side of things. As long as there is no actual periodical payment no one has right to call their stuff subscription. So game like Destiny 2 is not subscribtion based game.

So the only way for industry to "fix" it would be to crate periodical payment for games.
Now imagine you have library of 100 games each requiring let us say 1$ or 2$ monthly. Those costs add up so quickly that no one will be willing to buy those "subscription games"

And again console business is triving and yet you can easily buy used copies everywhere. Which means whole subject makes no sense.

 

[jshackles]

Now imagine you have library of 100 games each requiring let us say 1$ or 2$ monthly. Those costs add up so quickly that no one will be willing to buy those "subscription games"

I've got nearly 4,000 games on Steam. RIP my wallet.

 

[Dontero]

There is no degradation in 1's and 0's, if someone is reselling a game then it will be cheaper and you might as well buy cheaper version which isn't being sold by the publisher. If this ever became a thing it will negatively affect publishers and indie devs, unless they can also get a cut, and it will probably be more than Steams 30%...

Buy a game for $60; resell for $59; make $20 after Steam and publisher cuts.

They can't get a cut if they will be not the one selling it. They can't tax you on things YOU own.
I imagine on other hand trade service which will cut few % anything more and people will not use it.

 

[synchronicity]

This is kind of a tricky issue because of the fact that there is no physical representation of ownership.

Personally, it would be nice to be able to resell digital content, but it's not a big deal to me. I know going in that if I've bought it, it's money not coming back. Of course if this changes things, I might take advantage at some point.

 

[jshackles]

Valve being the facilitators of the license transfer seems like corporate suicide. Think of how much the game companies hate Game Stop and how they've been trying for decades to shut it down which has led to the point we're at now where they're starving the beast by promoting digital ownership and subscription services. Do you think Ubisoft, 2K Games, Rockstar, and others are going to keep selling their digital games on Steam if Valve becomes the new Game Stop?

Another poster had the right idea - just have a button that turns a game in your library into an unused activation code and removes the license from your account. Then you're free to do with it as you please and Valve isn't really involved in the transaction part of the sale. You increase the struggle factor (you now have to sell the code on eBay or Craigslist, among your friends, etc) which prevents people from just buying a game, playing it, then immediately selling it every time they launch a game. Shift the blame onto sites like G2A. Granted, doing so means they also wouldn't get a cut of the second hand sale, but it might be enough to keep them in the publisher's good graces.

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

This is a good thing for gamers. Unless you are a corporate shill or a dev I don't see why this is a bad thing.

 

[Mistershine.]

Court ruling also handles this side of things. As long as there is no actual periodical payment no one has right to call their stuff subscription. So game like Destiny 2 is not subscribtion based game.

So the only way for industry to "fix" it would be to crate periodical payment for games.
Now imagine you have library of 100 games each requiring let us say 1$ or 2$ monthly. Those costs add up so quickly that no one will be willing to buy those "subscription games"

And again console business is triving and yet you can easily buy used copies everywhere. Which means whole subject makes no sense.

What period is legally acceptable for recurring payments? Like I said earlier in the thread, could it be set at £60 per 100 years, or could Valve add a £500 "transaction fee" to each used sale?

 

[Ballthyrm]

If used sales were going to kill the market, there wouldn't be a market today because used game shops would have killed it long ago.

It's not about killing the market, it's about restricting what can make money.
Entire segment of games have disappeared because they couldn't make money under this environment.

The medium is the message. If people don't respect a value chain, a new one will be created that keep the balance.
Publishers aren't just going to take the financial hit and move on, they will find new ways to extract money (this is going to get ugly).
This new balance point is NOT going to be the same as it was.

There is drawbacks to both approach, let's not forget that.
Adding a new way of acquiring games (used) may unwittingly do harm.

It doesn't matter what people think, only the consequences in their full extent should be weighed upon.

 

[Zog]

It's not about killing the market, it's about restricting what can make money.
Entire segment of games have disappeared because they couldn't make money under this environment.

The medium is the message. If people don't respect a value chain, a new one will be created that keep the balance.
This new balance point is NOT going to be the same as it was.

There is drawbacks to both approach, let's not forget that.
Adding a new way of acquiring games (used) may unwittingly do harm.

It doesn't matter what people think, only the consequences in their full extent should be weighed upon.

There are pro's and cons to everything but consumers need to worry about consumer needs. There is no balance when consumers care more about corporate needs than their own.

 

[Ballthyrm]

There are pro's and cons to everything but consumers need to worry about consumer needs. There is no balance when consumers care more about corporate needs than their own.

Doing what's best for you while disregarding the other side isn't always the best option.

Nash equilibrium - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Spukc]

hahaha wtf
see me selling my whole steam library haha

 

[synchronicity]

I haven't finished fully marinating on this, but my instinct after chewing on this a bit is that it may ultimately harm more than benefit us gamers/consumers.

 

[lukilladog]

Yep. Game consumers are so used to getting shit on that they now think that if they aren't shit on, the market will collapse. They say things like: 'but how will Valve be able to program their system to transfer a license from one account to the other and how will they ensure the seller can't still play it.' They are just looking for excuses, any excuse.

I am sure Valve can work this out. Maybe uninstall the sellers copy before finalizing the sale. It really isn't as hard as some people are pretending it is. If used sales were going to kill the market, there wouldn't be a market today because used game shops would have killed it long ago.

They act like enforcing consumer friendly rules against their drug dealer will hurt them worse than letting the drug dealer continue with the status quo

The consumer version of the Stockholm syndrome, corporations are not kidding around when they talk about consumer captivity.

 

[Zog]

Doing what's best for you while disregarding the other side isn't always the best option.

Nash equilibrium - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That advice should be given to the corporate shills.

 

[John Day]

People are asuming too much shit out of this. Let it develop further.

 

[Mihos]

Today is a bad day to be an indie

 

[Fuz]

Well piracy is illegal in some places, this wouldn't.
Some people might have ethical issues with piracy and would be fine with this.

This is EXACTLY piracy. Buying a game, make another copy and selling it while keepign the backup copy. Textbook piracy.

 

[Woo-Fu]

hahaha wtf
see me selling my whole steam library haha

It won't be worth anything since the market will be flooded. Have to remember that when licenses can be transferred indefinitely that supply is effectively infinite. What is the value of something with infinite supply?

 

[Kadayi]

Valve being the facilitators of the license transfer seems like corporate suicide. Think of how much the game companies hate Game Stop and how they've been trying for decades to shut it down which has led to the point we're at now where they're starving the beast by promoting digital ownership and subscription services. Do you think Ubisoft, 2K Games, Rockstar, and others are going to keep selling their digital games on Steam if Valve becomes the new Game Stop?

Another poster had the right idea - just have a button that turns a game in your library into an unused activation code and removes the license from your account. Then you're free to do with it as you please and Valve isn't really involved in the transaction part of the sale. You increase the struggle factor (you now have to sell the code on eBay or Craigslist, among your friends, etc) which prevents people from just buying a game, playing it, then immediately selling it every time they launch a game. Shift the blame onto sites like G2A. Granted, doing so means they also wouldn't get a cut of the second hand sale, but it might be enough to keep them in the publisher's good graces.

Shackles, this is equally applicable as a ruling for all digital stores that sell games (or anything digital really). Ubisoft, EA, Epic, Activision would all be subject to this, as would Amazon and Apple. It's a nonsense.. Jeff Bezos isn't going to let me sell my read Kindle books, or my Audible purchases.

This is a good thing for gamers. Unless you are a corporate shill or a dev I don't see why this is a bad thing.

You need to think hard on the bold part there bud.

 

[prag16]

People often laughed at the French....

Yea....who's laughing now?

I am laughing. Because this is ridiculous. And people in here praising/celebrating this are being shortsighted. jshackles and Ballthyrm had the best posts I saw while skimming through explaining why this is a problem.

Basically devs would get revenue from the first couple weeks of sales, and it would drop on a logarithmic curve to approach zero. The next step is that, knowing that the pricing of the used copies would be a race to the bottom, less and less people would be willing to spend anything close to full price for a 'new' copy in a market where there is no advantage to buying new like there usually is with physical goods.

The endgame is indies are dead and everything becomes subscription / GaaS based.

But no, rabble rabble consumer rights! Uh, good job?

I totally get the knee jerk reaction, and I myself like to feel like I 'own' something so I usually go physical when I can. But digital is a totally different market with totally different dynamics. If we try to impose a framework reliant on finite supply of goods/services onto a market with effectively infinite supply, the system breaks down.

 

[Kadayi]

I am laughing. Because this is ridiculous. And people in here praising/celebrating this are being shortsighted. jshackles and Ballthyrm had the best posts I saw while skimming through explaining why this is a problem.

Basically devs would get revenue from the first couple weeks of sales, and it would drop on a logarithmic curve to approach zero. The next step is that, knowing that the pricing of the used copies would be a race to the bottom, less and less people would be willing to spend anything close to full price for a 'new' copy in a market where there is no advantage to buying new like there usually is with physical goods.

The endgame is indies are dead and everything becomes subscription / GaaS based.

But no, rabble rabble consumer rights! Uh, good job?

I totally get the knee jerk reaction, and I myself like to feel like I 'own' something so I usually go physical when I can. But digital is a totally different market with totally different dynamics. If we try to impose a framework reliant on finite supply of goods/services onto a market with effectively infinite supply, the system breaks down.

Yeah, it effectively destroys the long tale on AAA game sales, and it would absolutely destroy the indie market because more often than not they're reliant on positive word of mouth from early adopters to bring their game to peoples attention and generate a steady stream of sales. Anyway, I would imagine this will get quashed on appeal because it's simply unfeasible and any ruling would have to be applied across all forms of digital sale, not just Valve (sorry EGS fanboys, this is equally bad for uncle Tim). They've argued from the perspective of you should be able to sell/transfer licensed owned software such as an application like MS Office or some such, but games aren't a tool like Word, they're an (interactive) experience. like film or a TV show.

 

[Spukc]

It won't be worth anything since the market will be flooded. Have to remember that when licenses can be transferred indefinitely that supply is effectively infinite. What is the value of something with infinite supply?

stop being smart idiot i hate you

 

[Chandler55]

There are pro's and cons to everything but consumers need to worry about consumer needs. There is no balance when consumers care more about corporate needs than their own.

ultimately this restricts a channel of profit for game devs, and most importantly, indie game devs. the big boys wont get hurt because they will keep progressing towards service-based games. Consumers will get more rights but in the end its a net negative for consumers when everything is now nba 2k. we should look at laws carefully and not simplify it and "let the free market sort it out" when we've seen time and time again that free reign of the market doesn't always solve things. And we have SO MUCH evidence of whats going to happen because we've seen it with the introduction of gamestop and the ease of selling/buying used copies leading to the current landscape of gaas. This is a complex issue with a unique entertainment mechanism that shouldnt be swept along with books and cds and dvds under one swooping blanket law

 

[Zog]

Yeah, it effectively destroys the long tale on AAA game sales, and it would absolutely destroy the indie market because more often than not they're reliant on positive word of mouth from early adopters to bring their game to peoples attention and generate a steady stream of sales. Anyway, I would imagine this will get quashed on appeal because it's simply unfeasible and any ruling would have to be applied across all forms of digital sale, not just Valve (sorry EGS fanboys, this is equally bad for uncle Tim). They've argued from the perspective of you should be able to sell/transfer licensed owned software such as an application like MS Office or some such, but games aren't a tool like Word, they're an (interactive) experience. like film or a TV show.

It's like you believe that physical console games are killing the industry because they can be resold. You sound like you believe games shouldn't be resold because they are an interactive experience but used sales hasn't hurt them yet. I would say used sales has helped them.

How many game franchises have you been introduced to because you bought a used game for less than full price and loved it?

This issue was always going to come up the closer we got to an all-digital future. Consumers should have rights too.

 

[ipukespiders]

Today is a bad day to be an indie

Not for those that make compelling content that people want to keep.

 

[Zog]

ultimately this restricts a channel of profit for game devs, and most importantly, indie game devs. the big boys wont get hurt because they will keep progressing towards service-based games. Consumers will get more rights but in the end its a net negative for consumers when everything is now nba 2k. we should look at laws carefully and not simplify it and "let the free market sort it out" when we've seen time and time again that free reign of the market doesn't always solve things. And we have SO MUCH evidence of whats going to happen because we've seen it with the introduction of gamestop and the ease of selling/buying used copies leading to the current landscape of gaas. This is a complex issue with a unique entertainment mechanism that shouldnt be swept along with books and cds and dvds under one swooping blanket law

As a consumer your choice is clear, don't buy Games as a Service games. Game companies are moving toward Games as a Service now, without this ruling so you are going to have to stand up for yourself sooner or later anyway.

 

[Jigsaah]

I am laughing. Because this is ridiculous. And people in here praising/celebrating this are being shortsighted. jshackles and Ballthyrm had the best posts I saw while skimming through explaining why this is a problem.

Basically devs would get revenue from the first couple weeks of sales, and it would drop on a logarithmic curve to approach zero. The next step is that, knowing that the pricing of the used copies would be a race to the bottom, less and less people would be willing to spend anything close to full price for a 'new' copy in a market where there is no advantage to buying new like there usually is with physical goods.

The endgame is indies are dead and everything becomes subscription / GaaS based.

But no, rabble rabble consumer rights! Uh, good job?

I totally get the knee jerk reaction, and I myself like to feel like I 'own' something so I usually go physical when I can. But digital is a totally different market with totally different dynamics. If we try to impose a framework reliant on finite supply of goods/services onto a market with effectively infinite supply, the system breaks down.

Jesus fuck dude, it was a joke.

 

[Griffon]

People, you don't need to project into the future to know what this sort of law brings.
Just look into the ruling for Business Software, forcing their licenses to be transferable across all EU.

Can you buy Photoshop? Maya? Any autodesk product? No, you can't anymore, they all changed to subscriptions models. Subscriptions that costs a hell of a lot more over time.

I expect every game to use limited time subscription fees. Almost like arcades, buying a few hours of play at a time. This is so much worse, but I don't see any other alternative for small story games.

 

[Zog]

People, you don't need to project into the future to know what this sort of law brings.
Just look into the ruling for Business Software, forcing their licenses to be transferable across all EU.

Can you buy Photoshop? Maya? Any autodesk product? No, you can't anymore, they all changed to subscriptions models. Subscriptions that costs a hell of a lot more over time.

I expect every game to use limited time subscription fees. Almost like arcades, buying a few hours of play at a time. This is so much worse, but I don't see any other alternative for small story games.

...and when the subscription model doesn't work they will either go out of business or go back to treating games as a product and not a service.

 

[prag16]

Jesus fuck dude, it was a joke.

Hey, with the amount of people in this thread SERIOUSLY supporting this, it wasn't easy to be sure what's a joke or not.

 

[Kadayi]

It's like you believe that physical console games are killing the industry because they can be resold. You sound like you believe games shouldn't be resold because they are an interactive experience but used sales hasn't hurt them yet. I would say used sales has helped them.

WTF are you on about? I haven't even mentioned physical games? Every game I own is digital. I can't even remember the last game I bought from an actual game store. (maybe ME3 for the collector's edition or possibly Dark Souls: Prepare to Die Edition......both of which where basically little more drinks coasters after I installed the game and activated the keys ) . Ostensively this matter is a digital one., and relates to digital licences in the PC space, Trying to make comparisons to second-hand physical sales of console games is kind of laughable tbh.

...and when the subscription model doesn't work they will either go out of business or go back to treating games as a product and not a service.

But the law won't allow them to do that you see because they have to ensure those licences can be traded

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

Yeah, it effectively destroys the long tale on AAA game sales, and it would absolutely destroy the indie market because more often than not they're reliant on positive word of mouth from early adopters to bring their game to peoples attention and generate a steady stream of sales. Anyway, I would imagine this will get quashed on appeal because it's simply unfeasible and any ruling would have to be applied across all forms of digital sale, not just Valve (sorry EGS fanboys, this is equally bad for uncle Tim). They've argued from the perspective of you should be able to sell/transfer licensed owned software such as an application like MS Office or some such, but games aren't a tool like Word, they're an (interactive) experience. like film or a TV show.

Good

 

[Kadayi]

Good

Because? Indies developers murdered your parents? Or you just hate games? Or simply you want to watch the world burn?

So many questions...

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

Because? Indies developers murdered your parents? Or you just hate games? Or simply you want to watch the world burn?

So many questions...

Dude would you fuck Daria's friend?

 

[Kadayi]

Dude would you fuck Daria's friend?

Hard to fuck a cartoon

 

[Kadayi]

Dude goes into a breakdown here as well as the implications: -

 

[Zog]

But the law won't allow them to do that you see because they have to ensure those licences can be traded

Needing a client to transfer a license doesn't mean all the games are a service.

 

[Jigsaah]

Hey, with the amount of people in this thread SERIOUSLY supporting this, it wasn't easy to be sure what's a joke or not.

All good. Although I was amongst the first. Personally I don't see how this could work longterm. They may have won the case, but lets look at this from a cause and effect stand point.

French win case to have gamers resale games --> Gamers begin reselling games all the while being monitored by Steam --> Steam predicts and subsequently realizes this cuts deeply into their profits, all whilst devs are pissed because they are also missing out on revenue --> Steam decides to stop offering their service to the French --> The French caves to pressure from their citizens to get Steam back --> French government scratches their head, say fuck it (in French) and we are back to square one, realizing that this was a dumb argument to begin with.