HardOCP News
[H] News
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
You think game publishers are pissed over used game sales now? You just wait until something like this happens. 
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
EU to Allow Digital Software Resales?
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
madmat
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2005
- Messages
- 2,372
That's how it should be. Nice to see lawmakers using their heads for something besides hat racks for a change.
Ashbringer
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2010
- Messages
- 5,522
American F*CK YEA! Wait, this is Europe?
.
.
.
.
European F*CK YEA! Coming to save the motherf*cking day yea!
.
.
.
.
European F*CK YEA! Coming to save the motherf*cking day yea!
Ripperjack
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2010
- Messages
- 299
Well if this were to happen in the USA, just watch ALL PC games turn into MMO's over night. Sure you can resell your digital copy, but without the ability to transfer the account with it, which I am sure will be made a separate entity in the EULA, the copy is useless!
![Zarathustra[H]](https://cdn.hardforum.com/data/avatars/m/9/9298.jpg?1707758471){kind=avatar}
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 38,835
Well this ruling seems to suggest that the company selling the software may not do anything to inhibit the full use of the transferred license, so they'd have to reverse all of this and make it fully tansferrable without restrictions.
This is what we really need to stop the abuse from content owners.
This has the potential to be a terrible thing if the EU courts force the distribution services to facilitate this.
Also, how does a DRM free distribution service like GOG.com deal with this? They're even based in the EU - this is retarded and a terrible precedent for their business model. Furthermore, how do you even begin to enforce something like this to make sure the licenses are actually passed on and not being kept by both parties?
Also, how does a DRM free distribution service like GOG.com deal with this? They're even based in the EU - this is retarded and a terrible precedent for their business model. Furthermore, how do you even begin to enforce something like this to make sure the licenses are actually passed on and not being kept by both parties?
DeathPrincess
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 18,205
Would be pretty easy with something like Steam, just revoke someones licence and remove it from their library and place it in ther inventory as a normal tradable game. Greenman Gaming already have tradeins of some titles (non Steam).
Ashbringer
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2010
- Messages
- 5,522
Maybe this is because people are getting screwed. Going digital does mean you don't have the rights that you did with CDs and DVDs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VEQ78WS5UE&feature=channel_video_title
Its already happening, with or without this ruling. Your single player game will be tied to a MMO like account in the future for all major AAA releases, ME3 and D3 are just the first step.
Thank you, I never understood how it was legal for them to prevent me from reselling something that I bought, paid for, and own. Whether its a CD or a digital download, its mine, and the legaleez trickery of "we're just leasing you access" or whatever is pure nonsense.
Extremely simple, only allow one license to be active at a time. That way you still only have one user logging in per license, whether its shared or sold.
I hate this lack of edit button! Anyway, say for example I have "Civilization V" in my steam library.
I could simply select something like:
1) Delete license from this account.
2) Transfer license to another steam account.
For (1) you get a popup with a license number, and you can then give this away or sell it. For (2) you type in the steam user's account name, and transfer it that way and it shows up in their library. Very efficient.
Finally the EU is thinking about doing something right for a change.
I agree that DD should be just like a physical copy in that I can resell it later on if I decide to (at lest we used to be able to resell them). As long as they can implement this properly I'm all for it.
I agree that DD should be just like a physical copy in that I can resell it later on if I decide to (at lest we used to be able to resell them). As long as they can implement this properly I'm all for it.
LeninGHOLA
Vladimir Hayt
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 18,416
Someone has to buy the game to sell it.
SkribbelKat
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 5,330
Random thought - One of the reasons why digital distribution has become popular is that it effectively kills the secondary market for software (games or otherwise since the EU isn't talking just entertainment). Could this mean that digital distribution might decline or at least become less of a major push for companies if they no longer can say for sure that everyone who wants a copy has to buy it?
Because big budget automatically = better game
Right? Right?
I prefer to play big budget games. My time is incredibly limited, and I'm fine dropping $60 on something that is a ton of fun for 10 hours. I have more money than I have by time by a long shot unfortunately. And that's pretty pathetic since I'm not rich - just work a ton, have family that I pay attention to - wife and kids are important to me. For folks without that, or have lower maintenance, then sweet, good on you.
And yes, so you can try to troll me more, I do own an XBOX.
FoxhoundOp
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2003
- Messages
- 1,129
How is your post at all relevant to the one you quoted?
Stone Cold
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2010
- Messages
- 1,146
The physical medium of such things as books, video disks, and older games slowed the resale rate, and also limited the number of times the product could be re-used before wearing out. Granting unrestricted "resale" to digital downloads will necessarily result in the end of unlimited-time licenses and off-line play. All that's necessary is for licence-peddling websites to spring up (hmmm, some f*g at Apple is probably already running to the patent office with my obvious and trivial idea).
Falling Anvil
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2007
- Messages
- 1,570
But the game selling model in general is already converging on a hybridized MMO model. Is the current trend of DLC really all that different from the old Guild Wars expansion selling model, save for smaller bite sized chunks of content?
aaronspink
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,122
It is incredible that people don't get how bad this ruling will be for the consumer. Right now companies are willing to in effect sell perpetual licenses. This ruling basically makes it so that doing so is no in a publishers best interest.
Given the wording of this ruling, the result isn't going to be a consumer panacea but instead consumer hell. The publishers will most likely move to a model where you license the game for a short period of time (years/months/weeks) and any continual use of the product after that period will require re-upping your license for additional money.
In effect, this ruling will have negative consequences for consumers. It isn't really any better for business either as this ruling effectively will make things like perpetual site licenses a thing of the past as well.
Given the rulings wording, it basically makes it impossible for a copyright holder to sell any permanent license to any copyrighted work.
Though it does open up some interesting areas for already distributed works with effectively perpetual licenses. All someone needs to do now for a low cost pirate site that should be legal is "transfer" your license to someone and then have them "transfer" it back when they are done.
In effect, this is actually a bad ruling that really doesn't take into account enough of the complexities of digital goods.
Given the wording of this ruling, the result isn't going to be a consumer panacea but instead consumer hell. The publishers will most likely move to a model where you license the game for a short period of time (years/months/weeks) and any continual use of the product after that period will require re-upping your license for additional money.
In effect, this ruling will have negative consequences for consumers. It isn't really any better for business either as this ruling effectively will make things like perpetual site licenses a thing of the past as well.
Given the rulings wording, it basically makes it impossible for a copyright holder to sell any permanent license to any copyrighted work.
Though it does open up some interesting areas for already distributed works with effectively perpetual licenses. All someone needs to do now for a low cost pirate site that should be legal is "transfer" your license to someone and then have them "transfer" it back when they are done.
In effect, this is actually a bad ruling that really doesn't take into account enough of the complexities of digital goods.
I don't really see how this is a good thing. From what I read they aren't forcing publishers to provide a means for customers to resell, rather they are saying customers are allowed to resell if they so wish.
So it doesn't mean Valve has to implement a system where you can sell your games to other people, it just means customers are allowed to resell the games (which I believe is currently against the TOS)... however since they're tied to your account, good luck doing that (unless you make a separate account for each and every game).
Also it may just mean publishers make the games less capable of being resold, rather than simply telling you "you aren't allowed to resell this" (which they are already doing by tying games to your accounts rather than the games being stand alone products).
So it doesn't mean Valve has to implement a system where you can sell your games to other people, it just means customers are allowed to resell the games (which I believe is currently against the TOS)... however since they're tied to your account, good luck doing that (unless you make a separate account for each and every game).
Also it may just mean publishers make the games less capable of being resold, rather than simply telling you "you aren't allowed to resell this" (which they are already doing by tying games to your accounts rather than the games being stand alone products).
That could be interesting considering the latest trend to release half-finished bugged games with a big bag of promises at game release that either take too long or never get implemented.
So I would buy a one year license and 3 months after if they don't deliver what was expected, I would resell it.
And many games nowadays don't last years, they release sequels every year, so buying the game for one year wouldn't be that bad anyway.
The way I play games these days it would suck for me. There's plenty of games I've bought and played (either for the first time or a second time over) a year or more later. I'm sure a lot of people would be rethinking their Steam splurging if they knew the games would expire after a year.
Probably 90% of games I actually play I play within the first year and don't touch again, but there's those 10% that I might play beyond a year, and a whole heap that are sitting in my Steam account that I've never played after owning for years.
and you'll probably never will considering you will keep buying new games (and some of them you will never play as well). So lets be realistic, I don't see why expiring games would make a difference for you, in the end you don't end up playing them anyway, so the difference would be just the length of your digital game library. Some say that's just another e-p**** factor
and you'll probably never will considering you will keep buying new games (and some of them you will never play as well). So lets be realistic, I don't see why expiring games would make a difference for you, in the end you don't end up playing them anyway, so the difference would be just the length of your digital game library. Some say that's just another e-p**** factor
I bought them because I intend to play them, not for the sake of epeen
and as the first part of the sentence that you trimmed off alluded to, sometimes I do Hell, I still occasionally whip out and play ReVolt (1999), One Must Fall 2097 (1994), Crysis (2007), GTR2 (2006), I played part of The Witcher 2 when it came out but then put it aside and didn't pick it up again for about 10 months, recently I've been playing Starship troopers (2005) and I'm sure I could come up with lots of others if I thought about it. I started playing SW:TFU when I first bought it but didn't finish playing it until at least a year later. I've played Oblivion years after I bought it. Sometimes I fire up my old Xbox and play Ninja Gaiden. Sometimes I'll play a few rounds of COD4 or CODWAW. The list goes on. There's plenty of games I've bought and then gone back to a year or more (that's the "10%" I was talking about ).I'd be pissed off if I had to go back and re-buy those games.
Because big budget automatically = better game
Right? Right?
I don't remember saying that.
I don't remember saying that.
Oh really? You don't remember saying "I see games getting even crappier" (because developers will get less money)?
Uh uh...
Of course they do but it's not a big of stretch of the imagination to see how this can affect the developer's bottom line.
Steam's model of having sales to sell older games or crappy games is much better business model for consurmers. This force developers to produce better games. Forcing developers to allow resell of games will just keep them from making any games in the first place because there will be no money in it.
Because big budget automatically = better game
Right? Right?
Touche. My point really is that why make games if there is no money in it. Besides, you can't argue that having a bigger budget also correlates to producing good games.
You realize that the same government consumer protection group that can enact the first law can also simply specify that your "worst case scenario" is also illegal.
Businesses will follow whatever is legal, else they get fined or blocked from business in the country which they won't tolerate.
Ashbringer
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2010
- Messages
- 5,522
In effect that's what people do nowadays anyway. The only difference is that I pay for the game first $60 then continue to pay a monthly subscription like Xbox live or WoW. At least this way I wouldn't need to pay the huge $60 up front. When you beat the game you just cancel your subscription and walk away.
If Mario and Sonic flourished in a 90's market that constantly dealt with resale and renting of games, so can current games. With record sales and the video game industry pulling in more profits then Hollywood, the video game industry is just being greedy.
1) People are purchasing those licenses to play in the first place.
2) Don't copy that floppy was supposed to end all game development too... if it didn't, then sure as hell legitimate purchases and resales aren't.
3) This was the norm forever until digital distribution, so this is only continuing a common practice. All but one of my NES games were originally owned by someone else, and I will likely sell them again at some point. Most games depreciate and new games are released, so there is always a new revenue stream.
It's a big step from "consumers are allowed to resell" and "publishers must provide a means for consumers to resell". I just see publishers simply providing less means to resell by forcing games to be linked to users instead of relying on EULA and TOS agreements which say "you can't resell".
those games would be cheat to "rebuy". Also don't forget that games are getting more "online" than ever, and many of them require active internet connection to play. no one knows how long they will keep those servers online for you to be able to play...I bought them because I intend to play them, not for the sake of epeen
I'd be pissed off if I had to go back and re-buy those games.
This was the norm only beause there was no way to distribute games digitally and to protect licensing agrreements. Now that they can why shouldn't they? I dont' recall companies existing to provide free service to people. Besides what was done before doesn't necessary make it ok today. The internet and technolgy has greatly changed since then. You can sit back and pick and chose past scenarios to back up your point.
I dont' know why people are so adamant to resell games to make back a few bucks. I'm from the same generation as you so I can understand the whole reselling and buying used games. I did it myself but I as I got older I like to support the companies that produce good games and the best way to do so is to buy their games!
I don't really care how cheap they are when I've already bought the damned things once before. Renting games for X period of time is really not something that appeals to me in the slightest. I like to be able to play the games I've bought now in the future and sometimes I do play my games in the future, having to buy/rent them again is a giant step backward from where we are now that really gives no benefit to the consumer at all (unless they offered the games cheaper, but they won't, and it'd just give them an excuse to keep the price at it's release value for longer instead of dropping the price like they do now).
I'm really just not seeing the advantage to the gamer.