EU rules publishers cannot stop you reselling your downloaded games

gizmo

The **** hath hiteth the fan...

EU rules publishers cannot stop you reselling your downloaded games

Not really sure what to make of this. Technically speaking, I'd imagine it's going to be a nightmare to implement and impossible to reasonably police if abused. I'd like to say it's good for the consumer in the long run but it will entirely depend on the reaction of the publishers. Should be interesting to see how they react either way...

super_furry

Was reading through the report myself and just wondering what are the pratical implications are. You can sell your Steam/Origin/WoW accounts? I can't see there ever being a mechanism for people to sell individual games from master accounts.

I don't think it'll ever be a big deal to be honest.

Dapics

Interesting Developments.

Steam wont be happy about this.

Nody

All it appears to be is the possibility to "unregister" your game from your profile and resell the code to the game for someone else to activate it and download it again. This would by definition basically work like steam trading and the game would be removed from your steam/origin/what ever system by you choosing to do so and you'll get a code that you can give to someone else for them to download it instead.

To be honest I think the impact will be relatively small over all; possibly (yet again) another increase in game costs to compensate for lack of resells but that would be it. The question would be around DLCs and other ingame benefits/uniques (beta access bonuses and what not).

Varik

There is one condition, however. If you resell a license to a game you have to make your copy "unusable at the time of resale". Now you will do that, won't you?

Because they're going to be allowed to make sure.

87 Moreover, a copyright holder such as Oracle is entitled, in the event of the resale of a user licence entailing the resale of a copy of a computer program downloaded from his website, to ensure by all technical means at his disposal that the copy is made unusable.

All technical at his disposal.

Well Mr. Gizmo, you'd like to sell you copy of <insert name of game here>

When shall we schedule the polygraph test, or if you'd prefer we can completely search every computer you've ever used the game on.

"all technical means" should not be left that vague ( not that the ruling would be expected to do more)

SeantheMan

If STEAM somehow implemented this I'd be a happy man, and so would some of you, I've about 150 games on STEAM I've never played that I'd have no problem passing on for little or nothing

Retr0gamer

Was looking up some research about copyright law and there's a lot of legal papers that suggest that if it was ever brought up in court more than likely the judge would rule in favour of you being legally able to sell the rights you have to your digital copy of the game. However your rights to sell access to the download service is another matter, although blocking access might be seen as a violation of these rights.

Nody

SeantheMan wrote: »

If STEAM somehow implemented this I'd be a happy man, and so would some of you, I've about 150 games on STEAM I've never played that I'd have no problem passing on for little or nothing

And to be honest I think Steam is a very likely candidate to implement this properly (unlike lets say Origin and the like) were they simply remove the game from your account, give you a code and tada, your now free to trade/sell it at will.

gizmo

Varik wrote: »

Because they're going to be allowed to make sure.

All technical at his disposal.

Well Mr. Gizmo, you'd like to sell you copy of <insert name of game here>

When shall we schedule the polygraph test, or if you'd prefer we can completely search every computer you've ever used the game on.

"all technical means" should not be left that vague ( not that the ruling would be expected to do more)

Well in the case of Steam, they kind of do this already. If you do happen to get a refund on a game they simply remove it from your account. This works fine for Steam but what about GoG or other client-less platforms?

Nody

gizmo wrote: »

Well in the case of Steam, they kind of do this already. If you do happen to get a refund on a game they simply remove it from your account. This works fine for Steam but what about GoG or other client-less platforms?

GoG games are so cheap I can't see there being much of a second hand market but there are a few bigger once I can see having problems with it / ignoring it / making you raise a seperate ticket or similar for it.

gizmo

Nody wrote: »

GoG games are so cheap I can't see there being much of a second hand market but there are a few bigger once I can see having problems with it / ignoring it / making you raise a seperate ticket or similar for it.

GoG have already said they intend to start offering new games though, perhaps not all AAA releases given their lack of DRM but certainly ones which are more expensive than the usual $6-10.

ShadowHearth

super_furry wrote: »

Was reading through the report myself and just wondering what are the pratical implications are. You can sell your Steam/Origin/WoW accounts? I can't see there ever being a mechanism for people to sell individual games from master accounts.

I don't think it'll ever be a big deal to be honest.

I don't know about steam and origin, but you won't and can't sell wow accounts.

If you read all terms and conditions it actually says that you rent/borrowing it from blizzard, not owning the account. So if they want they can just take it away at any time.

I would love to see this steam trading system to be honest.

Varik

gizmo wrote: »

Well in the case of Steam, they kind of do this already. If you do happen to get a refund on a game they simply remove it from your account. This works fine for Steam but what about GoG or other client-less platforms?

I mean about publishers adding obstacles that you'd rather not do.

hooradiation

gizmo wrote: »

The **** hath hiteth the fan...

EU rules publishers cannot stop you reselling your downloaded games

Not really sure what to make of this. Technically speaking, I'd imagine it's going to be a nightmare to implement and impossible to reasonably police if abused. I'd like to say it's good for the consumer in the long run but it will entirely depend on the reaction of the publishers. Should be interesting to see how they react either way...

The can't stop you, but does it then follow that they must facilitate the transfer of the license?
Not sure if it does.

also

ECJ wrote:

Where the copyright holder makes available to his customer a copy – tangible or intangible – and at the same time concludes, in return form payment of a fee, a licence agreement granting the customer the right to use that copy for an unlimited period, that rightholder sells the copy to the customer and thus exhausts his exclusive distribution right. Such a transaction involves a transfer of the right of ownership of the copy

It seems to be on the basis that you're being sold a infinitely lasting licence when you buy a game, so I guess a quick fix is now that all game licences last 50 years or something.

gizmo

Varik wrote: »

I mean about publishers adding obstacles that you'd rather not do.

Ah! Simples so, all Steam trade-ins must be accompanied by a written request to the Valve Corporation offices. Your steam code will be released for trading within 6-8 weeks. :pac:

hooradiation wrote: »

The can't stop you, but does it then follow that they must facilitate the transfer of the license?
Not sure if it does.

All they'd technically need to do is unlink the steam key from your account and give it back to you. Once the customer has it they can do whatever they want with it. In fact, it would be in Valve's best interest not to facilitate the transfer outside of this step.

Personally I think the introduction of this to Steam would be ****ing catastrophic. Why would you ever need to buy a new full priced game when there's a near permanent supply of below cost games being resold online with no hassle involved?

Varik

hooradiation wrote: »

The can't stop you, but does it then follow that they must facilitate the transfer of the license?
Not sure if it does.

If it was just a serial key to enter when installing then they couldn't stop it , maybe requirements would be added to make sure it wasn't reproducing
as the ruling said but when it's your steam account it may be an all or nothing thing.

aN.Droid

This will end up in higher RRP's. Meaning games will be more expensive at launch and you will have to wait for people to finish / get sick of the game to get it cheaper.

titan18

I dont see how this could be good, will likely drive game prices higher starting off, and probably end the likes of Steam Sales etc

Retr0gamer

Finally got to read the article, it was blocked in work. It's a massive step forward for consumers against ridiculous EULA's. Not sure how it could be implemented though or who it affects publishers rights over the distribution service they provide. I'm not sure I'd like to see second hand digital distribution but it's a good move forward in giving consumers the rights that they should have over the digital goods they purchase and a blow against the ridiculous terms that are added to EULA's which really should be only granting the user a license and not adding anything extra.

Maximilian

It's a welcome and fairly seismic ruling but I wonder what the long term effects will be. The first thing big corporations do when confronted with restrictions is to try and get around the restrictions.

So would a ruling like this affect cloud streaming services where for example, you're not actually buying any individual game but rather a service to play any game from their library.

It might end up pushing the industry in a direction we might not like. Still early days. I've closed the protective plastic cover over my giant red panic button.

calex71

Hmmmm how will this go down with Microsoft and Sony I wonder?

At present they are not really stopping you selling the downloaded games just have no way in place for you to do so other and selling the account, they could hardly be forced to provide one could they ?

Even if they were forced to do so, it could be years by the time it happened and they were done fighting it .

Nollog

Does this mean that if I sold my Steam account and steam said "hey you o allow sells!!!" and banned the account, I could bring them to court and get the 1,700 or whatever euro my account is worth?

Nody

/\/ollog wrote: »

Does this mean that if I sold my Steam account and steam said "hey you o allow sells!!!" and banned the account, I could bring them to court and get the 1,700 or whatever euro my account is worth?

No, the ruling don't say you have the right to sell your Steam account, only that you should get a possibility to sell your games attached to your account.

Which gave me another thought; what about games were you've been banned? What would stop you from "selling" it to yourself to create a new account for free to get around a ban?

_vti

I just hope it spurs better games *cough* MW3 *cough*

Everytime I see that 60e on Steam I laugh so much I choke

Varik

_vti wrote: »

I just hope it spurs better games *cough* MW3 *cough*

Everytime I see that 60e on Steam I laugh so much I choke

COD is the kind of game it will encourage, where there is a mp mode that will keep people online for months without even thinking of selling it. People bitched about mp in mass effect but with this i can see every game needing it to get anywhere with a publisher.

Nody wrote: »

No, the ruling don't say you have the right to sell your Steam account, only that you should get a possibility to sell your games attached to your account.

Neither does it say they need to separate the games out or refer anything similar to the assigned games we have.

I think selling the whole account is more likely than them allowing individual games to be sold.

Nody wrote: »

Which gave me another thought; what about games were you've been banned? What would stop you from "selling" it to yourself to create a new account for free to get around a ban?

The game (key or account) would already be banned and likely stay that way, i can see people doing as they do with the 360 and ps3 when they trade them in when they're on their last legs. It's buyer beware with used products if you got a game that was banned then tough luck.

Retr0gamer

Varik wrote: »

COD is the kind of game it will encourage, where there is a mp mode that will keep people online for months without even thinking of selling it. People bitched about mp in mass effect but with this i can see every game needing it to get anywhere with a publisher.

More than likely. You can buy the game second hand but you'll be paying us extra for access to our multiplayer servers.

johnny_ultimate

I'd agree this poses more of a threat to the indie developers who deserve each of their sales. People 'swapping' games nonchalantly could pose a slight risk to them. Bigger games don't currently rely on the PC or download market, so they'll feel the hit less.

Still, I can't forsee Valve just opening the floodgates and letting anarchy ensue. If someone does act upon these findings, I'd be surprised if it isn't without a complication to limit abuse.

oxo_

Steam trading would be fantastic for the consumer, not so much for games companies or Steam though possibly - consumers could drives down prices of games while Steam still sells them at full whack. Or you buy games from Russia or whatever for a tenner, then sell on for 40 euro, stuff like that. Some of which you can actually already do.

I wonder could this ruling be applied also to MMO's like Wow ?
Wouldn't mind being able to legally sell that and a bunch of other games without having to resort to somewhat dodgy ways to do so.

humanji

Without putting too much thought into it (so I could be wrong) but the 3 main loopholes that I'd see are:

1) companies like Steam are based in the US, so may try to claim that US law supersedes EU law.
2) they can't stop you from selling a game you bought on their service, but they don't have to provide the facility for you to do it.
3) Steam doesn't let you sell your account and this ruling deals with games, not accounts.

As I said, I haven't put too much thought into these, they're just off the top of my head. But if I can come up with 3 possible excuses almost instantly, I'd say their lawyers will come up with more rock solid excuses over the coming weeks and months.

As Johnny_Ultimate says, this will hurt independent developers a hell of a lot more than the bigger companies, who will just increase their dependence on the already abused DLC systems and/or subscription based services.

I really don't see this as a good thing for gamers (but I'm pessimistic like that).

Retr0gamer

humanji wrote: »

1) companies like Steam are based in the US, so may try to claim that US law supersedes EU law.
2) they can't stop you from selling a game you bought on their service, but they don't have to provide the facility for you to do it.
3) Steam doesn't let you sell your account and this ruling deals with games, not accounts.

1) When you sell something in the EU you are bound by EU law. There's no loophole there.
2) I think the ruling said that they have to provide a means to sell your digital content.
3) Yup

I can see a lot of digital services dealing with this by rebranding themselves as a service like netflix where they rent the game to you but you don't own it. It might even be in the EULA agreements already, although that opens a can of worms were a seperate rental license should be provided and not a software EULA.

Also I can see a way that steam and the likes can put a positive spin on it by charging a service charge to sell the content that sneakily goes to the publisher.

Retr0gamer

oxo_ wrote: »

I wonder could this ruling be applied also to MMO's like Wow ?
Wouldn't mind being able to legally sell that and a bunch of other games without having to resort to somewhat dodgy ways to do so.

You can sell WOW. However access to the servers is a service blizzard provide and they don't have to let the person buying it use them.

johnny_ultimate

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Also I can see a way that steam and the likes can put a positive spin on it by charging a service charge to sell the content that sneakily goes to the publisher.

That's how I see it playing out if anyone acts upon this (although I'm unconvinced the bigger ones will, since ultimately they'll lose out on huge amounts of revenue too). Pay two or three euro service charge - a euro for Steam, a euro for the publisher, a euro for developer. Or something along those lines.

But waiting to see how it plays out. I'm not confident it makes business sense for anyone involved. Worst case scenario some cynical upstart shows up to challenge Steam and the ilk.

humanji

Retr0gamer wrote: »

2) I think the ruling said that they have to provide a means to sell your digital content.

Hmm, it seems to say that the publisher has to provide a means to download, so Steam and the like may not have to do anything. They could possibly then stop users from being able to add games that weren't bought on their system to their games list. All speculation, or course, based on a press release I don't fully understand. Time will tell, I guess.

stevenmu

Limericks wrote: »

This will end up in higher RRP's. Meaning games will be more expensive at launch and you will have to wait for people to finish / get sick of the game to get it cheaper.

titan18 wrote: »

I dont see how this could be good, will likely drive game prices higher starting off, and probably end the likes of Steam Sales etc

No it won't. If this was a factor then digital downloads, where 2nd hand sales haven't been a factor, would already be significantly cheaper than physical copies where it is a factor. Games are sold at the highest price people are willing to pay. If anything this could lead to cheaper games because they now have to compete with 2nd hand prices.

Retr0gamer

humanji wrote: »

Hmm, it seems to say that the publisher has to provide a means to download, so Steam and the like may not have to do anything. They could possibly then stop users from being able to add games that weren't bought on their system to their games list. All speculation, or course, based on a press release I don't fully understand. Time will tell, I guess.

It will need to be tested in court as well. Some one will have to bring one of the distribution services to court over this and get a ruling. At the moment there's no incentive to do it because there's no reprecussions.

Varik

Retr0gamer wrote: »

2) I think the ruling said that they have to provide a means to sell your digital content.

There was only mention of allowing the new owner to download not making any means to sell the program that i can see in any case.

In the oracle case they are the retailers and developer, they also made the downloads available themselves.

Steam has it's own EULA that it separate to the software you bought and for the steam service, you may be able to transfer the licence but would steam be require to do anything about it.

Retr0gamer

It would need to be tested in court first but this is a very strong legal argument in favour of it.

Varik

Retr0gamer wrote: »

It would need to be tested in court first but this is a very strong legal argument in favour of it.

From what, every other possession that i own would not require the manufacturers help to sell or for any older serial key software & disc.

There is a section that does not allow a person to divide a multi user (multi program could be included) license to sell, dependant on steams and origins own licence and any current/future licences it could be worded to be a part of this.

blaa85

There won't be anymore massive steam sales if this is implemented. Buy low, sell high problems would ruin them.

Retr0gamer

Varik wrote: »

From what, every other possession that i own would not require the manufacturers help to sell or for any older serial key software & disc.

There is a section that does not allow a person to divide a multi user (multi program could be included) license to sell, dependant on steams and origins own licence and any current/future licences it could be worded to be a part of this.

I think a lot of this has to do with the fact that EULA terms and conditions don't hold any legal weight in Europe. It's meant to grant a license and that's it. Even the service charge thing I mentioned i a bit dodgy because the copyright holder has no right to profit from a private sale of a copyrighted work they have already sold. The multi user license might be a way around it but then again there's nothing stopping the user from selling all licenses at the same time without dividing them.

blaa85 wrote: »

There won't be anymore massive steam sales if this is implemented. Buy low, sell high problems would ruin them.

Rubbish. We're not all going to be millionaires buy low and selling high either.

Beefy78

Will this not just lead to an increase of things like online passes?

hooradiation

Beefy78 wrote: »

Will this not just lead to an increase of things like online passes?

I'm looking forward to how that in order to make it feasible the level of invasiveness of DRM will have to increase greatly.
Remember, this selling of licences comes with the caveat that you don't just keep a working copy for yourself.

Which should cause most of the people celebrating this to explode in confused rage.

TheDoc

Just as digital downloads were becoming more managable, cheaper and better then their bricks n mortar alternative, this ruling comes along which will probably stiffle the whole developement

le sigh

Kiith

Good interview with the head of Green Man Gaming on PcGamer now.

PcGamer wrote:

Yesterday the European Court of Justice ruled that consumers had the right to sell digital their digital games. This is something that could potentially change digital distribution forever, but how exactly? Eurogamer have been speaking to Paul Sulyok, CEO of Green Man Gaming, about what all this could mean.

The ruling states that you can sell your digital games onward, but that you must disable your own copy to do so. Currently most digital retailers have no way to do this beyond selling your entire account. Sulyok believes that companies will be forced to provide this, but only after a test case has gone to court. “There will be a first case against one of the platform holders.” He says. “The result of that is a foregone conclusion. So they will have to facilitate that.”

There’s a few potential impacts this could have on the market. With Sulyok pointing out that the current trend for short term, high discount sales is vulnerable to the emergence of a used market. A third party could buy keys in bulk during a sale, and then sell them on at a mark up once the sale has ended, undercutting the original distributor. “The classic technique of deep discount, short time limited discounts, all of that will be slightly skewed now.” he says “Because you don’t want to have a deep discounted game that can then be sold on elsewhere.”

Green Man Gaming currently allows gamers to trade in their downloaded games to get discounts on future purposes. But Sulyok points out that if Steam or Origin were to enact the same practice it would have a serious impact on his business. Again this allows third parties to game the system by taking advantage of a short term sales, then trading them in.

Gamers have grown accustomed to big Steam sales and Humble Bundles giving them cheap games in a short term window, but this ruling could threaten that practice. If putting your game in the Humble Bundle just once will grant third party distributors an infinite number of one penny copies, people might not be willing to take the risk.

http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/07/04/green-man-gaming-ceo-speaks-out-on-eu-digital-sales-ruling/

Raises an interesting point in that companies could buy keys in bulk during sales, and then sell them on at a profit.

Varik

One of the particulars of this was that the court decided to treat the download and the licence as one, as the program could be downloaded without the licence but not used. This was was of Oracles defences as to why first sale did not apply, but as the program was useless without the licence the court disregarded this and that the maintenance licence they sold was not a separate service but part of the product.

If the there was a free feature restricted version with the option of an maintenance/upgrade fee then it would have been different. How this could be applied to games is debatable but as with diablo 3 which will allow act 1 to be played free some (now if you get a code off someone), most things we buy are a mix of service and product so if the developers can push it to move more towards a service which would avoid first sale doctrine.

Blowfish

Dapics wrote: »

Interesting Developments.

Steam wont be happy about this.

On the contrary, I think they'll love it, the only reason they don't do this now, is because publishers are opposed to it.

Think about it, this allows Steam to create the equivalent of ebay for digital games. You put up your game for sale on their system for say €12, Steam will take €2 and give you the €10, then directly transfer the game from your account to the other persons.

It gives them a whole new revenue stream. €2 per game may not seem like much, but if that game just continuously keeps getting resold, it's revenue with little effort on Steam's part.

titan18

Blowfish wrote: »

On the contrary, I think they'll love it, the only reason they don't do this now, is because publishers are opposed to it.

Think about it, this allows Steam to create the equivalent of ebay for digital games. You put up your game for sale on their system for say €12, Steam will take €2 and give you the €10, then directly transfer the game from your account to the other persons.

It gives them a whole new revenue stream. €2 per game may not seem like much, but if that game just continuously keeps getting resold, it's revenue with little effort on Steam's part.

And, it would lower sales of new games, and make the big sales redundant

Retr0gamer

Kiith wrote: »

Raises an interesting point in that companies could buy keys in bulk during sales, and then sell them on at a profit.

They're already doing that with CD-keys from the likes of Russia. It won't change anything.

gizmo

Retr0gamer wrote: »

They're already doing that with CD-keys from the likes of Russia. It won't change anything.

Except they've always been counter balanced by the higher western sale prices which, under this new system, could be drastically reduced.

AlmightyCushion

I'm pretty sure you can take advantage of the big sales right now. Can't you just buy a game as a gift on steam and send it to yourself and then sell it on once the sale is over. If you can this ruling doesn't really change that. It would probably be easier to do it the gifting way because you just need an email address and not an account. It's much easier to create 1,000 email accounts (you could probably gift all the codes to the one email address) than 1,000 steam accounts. I've never bought a gift on steam so I could be way off though.

Varik

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

I'm pretty sure you can take advantage of the big sales right now. Can't you just buy a game as a gift on steam and send it to yourself and then sell it on once the sale is over. If you can this ruling doesn't really change that. It would probably be easier to do it the gifting way because you just need an email address and not an account. It's much easier to create 1,000 email accounts (you could probably gift all the codes to the one email address) than 1,000 steam accounts. I've never bought a gift on steam so I could be way off though.

You could gift it to an email you own and then later sell it on after the sale is over at a higher price but if it's redeemed for you to play then it's tied to your account