German Consumer Group Sues Valve

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Falterfire:

Dr. Mongo:
Snip

Snap

True, but that is what I mean. While I think that it should be right to be able to sell your used games I am almost certain that there will be a backlash for us gamers.
When big companies lose money they start flailing their arms in a violent manner. It is hard to predict what they will hit when they do it.

Falterfire:

RedDeadFred:
The amount of people on these forums blinded by their love of Valve is astounding sometimes. Not that I think they're evil, they're a company just like any other. Just better at manipulating their consumers.

Ultimately it comes down to a fundamental difference: Valve is selling single-user nontransferable licenses, which in the PC world is the accepted method of selling pretty much all non-game software, so applying it to games isn't much of a stretch. Therefore accepting what Valve does and how they handle things is easy. EA tends to do limited single-user nontransferable licenses in a bid to further limit the existing system, which is the source of most of the anger.

Aside from the criticism to EA (which I think is just the same as valve when it comes to this specific matter), the statement in bold is exactly what I feel.
You know, we've had most software available to general public in the form of nontransferable licenses ever since the invention of the personal computer. How come this only became a problem after digital distribution came by?

Bostur:

albino boo:

If you read the steam Eula, it says all sales in the european union take place under UK law. This term was introduced to get round the German courts.

Just because someone writes something doesn't make it true. I doubt Valve can bypass national laws like that, but I'm no lawyer so I may be mistaken.

I think it's great if this area will get some attention. When buying games most of my consumer rights is being bypassed and I doubt that everything that EULAs claim are actually enforcable. It seems like a bit of a loophole that copyright laws can be bypassed like this by claiming that games are not actually sold.

It's tricky when a whole industry decides to change how the business works. What if car manufacturers decides not to sell cars anymore but only offer rentals? Or selling a license to use the car without actually transfering ownership. I think similar business practices could be used for physical products, it's not really something that is unique for intellectual property.

The EULA was written by someone who charges 700-1000 an hour and they more about EU law than you do. They are not bypassing national law so much as using the single market rules and the internationally accepted principal that parties to a contract can choose what jurisdiction they use.

why the fuck do you need used digital games it make's no sence and if it goes forward all the steam sales will stop

As worried as I am that this sort of case could bring the whole cheap PC gaming bubble crashing down, I want to see them at least make a little headway.

Zeckt:

This, this, this. The blind loyalty of Steam fans (under the thin justification "no we trusssttt them") never ceases to amuse me. if Activision start charging $1 for every round you play in the next CoD the rage would shake the foundations of the internet, Vale does just that and the reaction is "omg we love you Gabe imma spend $100 on hats to celebrate".

The MVM thing isn't a problem for a few main reasons

- All that $1 gets you is a shiny badge that says you did it and a chance at a unique cosmetic
- You only have to spend that $1 the first time you do that mission, then it's free
- It's trivially easy to start your own server with those missions, you just don't get the tick on your badge or your cosmetics

All you lose out on by not paying is cosmetics, what's the problem?

mateushac:
Licenses ARE valid legal instruments, at least everywhere I know.

With Valve (and everyone else should do it too) you are made aware of what you're buying (a personal, intransferable license) before the trade is made.

Before every purchase is made through Steam, you are required to read and agree to the Terms of Service (which are a contract specifying the terms under which Valve shall offer you the service you're about to acquire). I don't really know what country you live in, but a contract (which EULA and Terms of Service are) should always be valid, except when it goes against the law.

In most of the world, not surprisingly, there is no law that states that the provision of entertainment or intelectual property can't be offered as a service or under a license (or else we'd be in quite a lot of trouble for going to the movies), therefore there isn't any doubt a company CAN offer a business model in which it charges you for YOUR PERSONAL USE of their property, and nobody else's.
(That's also the reason they can forbid you from tampering with their code, which also helps them prevent other companies from stealing their hard work)

I reckon that Europe has a bit of a different stance on this, based on that court ruling from last year. I also agree that being able to trade their used software licenses is a right of all those legally bound by said ruling (which should only be "everyone" if the ruling has "erga omnes" effectivenes, btw)even though that would cause a few problems when it comes to laws defining whether or not there can even be personal and intransferable services (such as plane tickets, newspaper subscriptions, digital distribution of media, etc) in the first place.

What makes me nervous, though, is all the people here in this thread who do not realize the HAVE NOT BOUGHT THE GAME. They have purchased a license, which can be traded in a few places (such as Europe), but not everywhere else (unless they have laws about it, of course).

EULAs aren't necessarily legally binding documents. In the US they have often been upheld, but also denied in courts. In large parts of Europe EULAs can outright be deemed void if they aren't presented to a buyer before the purchase or if any part of them goes against applicable law. Following any rules written down in them as long as it isn't legally required isn't mandatory. For instance an EULA could contain that you are only allowed to play the game while standing on one leg in upright position.

Personally I created my Steam Account back in 2006 or so having bought a Retail copy of Counter Strike: Source and being forced to use it to be able to play the game. Some of the next few products were also Retail copies of Left4Dead and The Orange Box and only started buying any "Digital Products" from them after 2010. And even then I've also proceeded to continue buying games from other Retailers and increasingly also different Digital Distribution services other than Steam, most of it for games that (only) unlock on Steam nowadays. I don't really ackowledge the validity or legal applicability of their EULA till it is tested in court and local or EU courts uphold their rights and deprive every customer of their rights of ownership, but I don't see that happening seeing as they often strengthen those rights.

The only things that aren't contestable are terms based on general Copyright laws that, as I said, would be valid without any EULA or ToS trying to enforce them anyway. You won't be allowed to duplicate and resell a product without authorization. You won't be allowed to hack, change code and give it off as your own, you won't be allowed to download a game from infringing sites for free and play it etc.

For that matter even in the US it's being acknowledged that there might be a problem with boilerplate contract terms being presented to you often custom-designed to not be readable where the only choice is often to click an "OK", one of the Chief Justices of the Supreme Court for instance admitted that he doesn't read EULAs, but he "doesn't have a solution to offer": http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101021/02145811519/supreme-court-chief-justice-admits-he-doesn-t-read-online-eulas-or-other-fine-print.shtml

Answering a student question, Roberts admitted he doesn't usually read the computer jargon that is a condition of accessing websites, and gave another example of fine print: the literature that accompanies medications.... It has "the smallest type you can imagine and you unfold it like a map," he said. "It is a problem," he added, "because the legal system obviously is to blame for that." Providing too much information defeats the purpose of disclosure, since no one reads it, he said. "What the answer is," he said, "I don't know."

What a lot of companies are doing based on these type of contracts is potentially illegal in a lot of countries/jurisdictions since it is a breach of the purchasing contract/agreement which IS legally binding or might contain a lot of paragraphs which aren't legally viable or generally have no legal grounds (seriously, companies can write ANYTHING THEY LIKE in there, and they often do and hope it sticks and nobody notices), there's a very recent example: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/121785-Crytek-Promises-No-Bug-Bans-in-Crysis-3-Beta ).
And notice how they often backpedal when being put on the spot about it: http://kotaku.com/5978108/ea-banning-players-for-not-reporting-bugs-is-not-something-we-would-ever-do

We have never taken away access to a player's games for not reporting a bug, and quite simply it's not something we would ever do. Players don't have anything to be concerned about there-just some language that was far too broad in the original agreement, and is being updated now.

Unfortunately a lot of customers usually don't have the necessary finances or the incentive ($50 game) to open up lawsuits against these big companies and defend themselves over retarded/illegal parts of their EULAs, so they usually get away with it.

Most of the lawsuits brought against these terms related to games unfortunately come from botting companies and the likes, which are set to abuse them like: http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/1062229-Bot-company-sues-Blizzard and not the customers that are abused by them, although every now and then some consumer protection agency will do just that.

mateushac:
You know, we've had most software available to general public in the form of nontransferable licenses ever since the invention of the personal computer. How come this only became a problem after digital distribution came by?

As you said, they have been trying to argue that "nontransferable license" thing for a very long time in the software business, and yet you can still legally resell your software almost all around the world.

The latest ECJ ruling that the VZBV is basing this new lawsuit on was also exactly about this, and simply stated: http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-07/cp120094en.pdf

An author of software cannot oppose the resale of his 'used' licences allowing the use of his programs downloaded from the internet

The VZBV also managed to force EA to change some of the most egregious terms in their Origin-related EULA back in 2011.

Personally, I don't even much care for the "Resale" of games as I wouldn't do that and haven't really done in the past. But the ownership issues over "Digital Products" at play are a very important issue that needs to be adressed, hopefully in favor of consumers.

Falterfire:

Hitchmeister:
I think the obvious solution is that people should be allowed to do whatever they want with their Steam games including selling them.

'Anything they want'? Okay, here goes: I copy it. Then I 'sell' it to a friend for $0.01. Then I make another copy. And I sell that to another friend for $0.01. In fact, while I'm at it, why not just throw it up on my website and offer a 'donate what you want' system.

Is that okay? I mean, it's MY game! I paid for it! I should be allowed to do whatever I want for it.

The given law only applies to original copies.

As much as we all love the functionality of Steam and all the things Valve does, VZVB winning this can only do good.

Braedan:

Skeleon:

Braedan:
If you don't agree with this, which is understandable, don't use Steam, go buy it from a store.

Do we need to repeat the point about store-bought games requiring Steam?

I get that. I think that practice is pretty shitty, but doesn't it say that it requires Steam to play? Also, this is quite clearly a reason to get mad at the company that makes the game, not the company that distributes the game.

Why not? Isn't the company that distributes it limiting your sales?

There is an actual company that allows you to trade in game, though that still is not transferring the license, it at least shows that some companies already allow at least a trade in for a lower value. It is still not perfect forcing a consumer to have only one choice in who to sell it but again the retailer is the one selling you the game.

If you buy a washing machine for example and it breaks the retailer is responsible for the warranty, it has to deal with the shipping, giving you a replacement, etc. for a period of time.

When we get into the License bullshit it gets even more illogical. So we are buying a License to use the game, why can I not sell this license to someone else? Because it is non-transferable, why not? Because we say so. But the license is nothing more than a CD key tied to my account that you CAN revoke whenever you want to, so that already shows the ability to take away license keys, so they are capable of being transferred they just don't allow us.

Now we have a Supreme court judgement that they should be transferable so Steam should do one of two things, pack up and fuck off out of Europe or adjust the services they offer by allowing license transferals. The publishers are not the ones operating as retailers in this case so they have nothing to do with it. The retailer is forced to offer certain services and the publishers have to abide by those services if they wish to sell on a certain market.

I doubt publishers are going to stop selling their games in Europe seeing as that is a good third of all videogame sales worldwide.

On top of that games are not advertised as licenses but as games "Add this game to your cart, buy this game, get this game now!" Do you see "License to this game" anywhere, no that stuff is tucked away in the EULA so that it doesn't scare off new customers?

"Buy a license to this movie, buy a license to this car, buy a license to this piece of chicken." Doesn't sound quite right don't you say?

Zeckt:

Nimzabaat:
I love this thread!

EA uses DRM to slightly penalize used game sales = EA is the devil and is destroying video games
Valve uses DRM to completely negate used games sales = Rally the troops to Valve's defense!!!

That's just too funny.

It's amazing how consumer loyalty works for companies that actually deserve trust. And if Germany wants to sell downloadable games and sell multiple copies of them for a penny and call that legal, then steam has no reason to sell to them at all.

Infact, why not open a site and sell full price games on your own website after buying them from steam for a 1$ for your own profit? it would happen, and giving in to these people would cause a snowball effect that would cannibalize online gaming. If I were Gabe I would cut off the German's entirely to prevent that. And I admit, I would like them to give this group a kick in the balls for potentially ruining digital downloads.

Thank you for your soul. We here at Valve corp. value these very much as they allow us to sustain the God-Emperor Newel.

Seriously? RUIN digital downloads? Bit dramatic there. Greenman gaming already has a sort of used digital download market and it hasn't ruined anything has it? They even pull the same shit as you are afraid of. They buy back a digital key and then sell it for full price again.

OH DOOM DEATH AND DESTRUCTION!!!

Please, drama queen much?

More consumer rights and less License bullshit is all the better in my eyes.

I doubt God-Emperor Newel will cut of Germany as it is one of the largest gaming markets of Europe. I think God-Emperor Newel will take the used game trading hit and keep selling his other games to the German masses.

Though seriously thanks for that delicious soul.

R.Nevermore:
If you don't like what steam has to offer....

SUE THEM!

I mean seriously, if you want a hard copy to do with it as you please, don't buy a licence, buy a hard copy from a brick and mortar shop.

EDIT: but even then, you'll have to deal with some even more draconian DRM...

So did you just talk yourself out of your own argument?

OT: Good. Consumer rights have taken a major hit in the ditigal era.

albino boo:

Bostur:

albino boo:

If you read the steam Eula, it says all sales in the european union take place under UK law. This term was introduced to get round the German courts.

Just because someone writes something doesn't make it true. I doubt Valve can bypass national laws like that, but I'm no lawyer so I may be mistaken.

I think it's great if this area will get some attention. When buying games most of my consumer rights is being bypassed and I doubt that everything that EULAs claim are actually enforcable. It seems like a bit of a loophole that copyright laws can be bypassed like this by claiming that games are not actually sold.

It's tricky when a whole industry decides to change how the business works. What if car manufacturers decides not to sell cars anymore but only offer rentals? Or selling a license to use the car without actually transfering ownership. I think similar business practices could be used for physical products, it's not really something that is unique for intellectual property.

The EULA was written by someone who charges 700-1000 an hour and they more about EU law than you do. They are not bypassing national law so much as using the single market rules and the internationally accepted principal that parties to a contract can choose what jurisdiction they use.

I'm certainly no expert in international law, or EU law for that matter. But for other products I know there are certain rights that I can't sign away. What international trade is concerned I had the impression that it is the laws of the country where the product is marketed that applies. So a US company selling something in Italy would have to comply with Italian law for instance.

Of course if nothing is sold - as EULAs tend to claim, then that may be the technicality that makes the difference.

But whatever the case. This is a political topic for me, more than a legal one. And I hope the German case will add some publicity to what I believe is a murky area for consumers. I'm certainly not happy about Valve or Microsoft making up their own rules. And signing a complicated contract for buying a product worth 40 Euro or less is just ridiculous.

Zeckt:

It's amazing how consumer loyalty works for companies that actually deserve trust. And if Germany wants to sell downloadable games and sell multiple copies of them for a penny and call that legal, then steam has no reason to sell to them at all.

Infact, why not open a site and sell full price games on your own website after buying them from steam for a 1$ for your own profit? it would happen, and giving in to these people would cause a snowball effect that would cannibalize online gaming. If I were Gabe I would cut off the German's entirely to prevent that. And I admit, I would like them to give this group a kick in the balls for potentially ruining digital downloads.

I love how you preach deserved loyalty and then promote totalitarian action.

I get why Valve doesn't have resale yet. It's not like most of the pubishers whose software is sold through Steam were weting themselves with glee about the prospect of used game sales.

But the software licensing model of game distrubution is hardly a flawless edifice worthy of our eternal gratitude. Actually, it's kind of bullshit. Especially given that any book, movie, or CD I purchase, which are also creative products with a market value that tends to drop off after its initial release period, can be resold. The digital versions of these things cannot, granted, but that's why I don't buy the digital versions.

One could make a decent case for the license model of game distribution being a bad thing. Being able to sell one's old games allows people to purchase new games at a lower effective price while still giving the publisher full price for the new game. Price of game for the user becoming stickerprice - resale price.

I thought the ruling stated that resale of digital good was allowed in Germany but Valve and others don't have to provide any utility to do so.

Meaning you could sell your entire profile (which is against the TOS) and be allowed to do it. I would be okay with that.

Falterfire:

RedDeadFred:
The amount of people on these forums blinded by their love of Valve is astounding sometimes. Not that I think they're evil, they're a company just like any other. Just better at manipulating their consumers.

Ultimately it comes down to a fundamental difference: Valve is selling single-user nontransferable licenses, which in the PC world is the accepted method of selling pretty much all non-game software, so applying it to games isn't much of a stretch. Therefore accepting what Valve does and how they handle things is easy. EA tends to do limited single-user nontransferable licenses in a bid to further limit the existing system, which is the source of most of the anger.

I dunno, I think the main reason people accept what Valve is doing is because there's not really any good alternative. You can buy the hard copy but that's getting harder and harder to do. I don't really need to state why Origin isn't a good alternative.

For me, it boils down to: if I buy a game on my PS3 or 360, once I'm done with it, I can sell it or give it to a friend. You can't do that with Steam even though you are paying the same price (usually). I have no idea how they could make this work so that you can give/sell your used games to you friends but I'm sure they could figure it out if they wanted to and if enough of their users bothered to ask. This won't happen though because nobody seems to think there should be an alternative. This is what happens when Valve gets to have a monopoly over the digital retail of video games for such a long time. Even though Origin isn't all that great right now, I still think it's a good thing because it introduces more competition. Valve needs more competition or else they have no reason to change.

It would be handy is if Steam would allow reselling games on Steam itself: Valve could still get a percentage of the transaction, DRM wouldn't be a problem given it's still all on Steam and people may be more likely to spend 60$ on a pre-order if they knew they can get some back when they resell it.

I can imagine editors wouldn't be too fond of that however.

Zachary Amaranth:

Zeckt:

It's amazing how consumer loyalty works for companies that actually deserve trust. And if Germany wants to sell downloadable games and sell multiple copies of them for a penny and call that legal, then steam has no reason to sell to them at all.

Infact, why not open a site and sell full price games on your own website after buying them from steam for a 1$ for your own profit? it would happen, and giving in to these people would cause a snowball effect that would cannibalize online gaming. If I were Gabe I would cut off the German's entirely to prevent that. And I admit, I would like them to give this group a kick in the balls for potentially ruining digital downloads.

I love how you preach deserved loyalty and then promote totalitarian action.

I don't care. They would ruin digital downloads for everyone with their greed and then constant reselling of more then one copy and it has to be stopped. If they want their games for free then they can make their own. And if you think you can tell me they would not abuse it like that then that's bullshit, because that's the way consumerism works. If it can potentially be abused it WILL to the absolute worst way possible. Losers making profit by selling it for a $, or giving it away for a penny THOUSANDS OF TIMES.

Good. Anything that gives more rights to customers is A-OK in my book.

Ah! And already the corporate apologists run to the defence of the people who've been screwing them over for years.

To sell a game digitally all you have to do is have the key that lets you play the game detached from the account service and transferred to another individual. That's not the same as copying software: without the key you can't play the game (unless of course you crack it, but that can be detectable using a client side service.) So yeah, it's possible to resell digital software.

The exception would be completely DRM free games that lack keys, but those are primarily the domain of Good old Games, which are at this point torrented like crazy. It sounds like either I missed something on the story, or people in this thread are making some rather strange assumptions about the claims and how this would actually work...

Geez, I really hope they don't push it too far. I'd hate to loose Steam service in Germany. -.-

Nimzabaat:
I love this thread!

EA uses DRM to slightly penalize used game sales = EA is the devil and is destroying video games
Valve uses DRM to completely negate used games sales = Rally the troops to Valve's defense!!!

That's just too funny.

There's a difference, we like valve's business practice of not ruining franchises...

Colt47:
To sell a game digitally all you have to do is have the key that lets you play the game detached from the account service and transferred to another individual. That's not the same as copying software: without the key you can't play the game (unless of course you crack it, but that can be detectable using a client side service.) So yeah, it's possible to resell digital software.

The exception would be completely DRM free games that lack keys, but those are primarily the domain of Good old Games, which are at this point torrented like crazy. It sounds like either I missed something on the story, or people in this thread are making some rather strange assumptions about the claims and how this would actually work...

I don't understand why people keep missing this point. It's so obvious. There is no difference between digital games and other transferrable real world items like books. If you were to sell your game on steam, then steam would revoke your key and you would not have the game anymore. If you were to crack it, then you might have a playable game, but this would a) only be single player, and b) be no different to what you can already do immorally. You would still be breaking the law, and you would still be immorally playing a cracked game. You also couldn't sell the same game more than once, because you would really be selling the game-key, with the downloads and other services that steam offers with it.

I should preface this that I like what steam has done, with their sales they've introduced competition that has been much needed in the game industry. That said I still disagree with them on this one issue. Really the only even remotely reasonable defense for steam's actions is that it allows for these cheap sales, and they wouldn't be able to sustain them with used game sales. Even so I think this should happen, as consumer's rights are more important than cheaper games (and would probably result in cheaper games anyway).

I think it would be pretty cool if Valve allowed players to sell their used digital games for funds for their Steam Wallets. They already have the marketplace on Steam to sell items. It could work for games too. If Valve is worried about profits they could easily make it so that they get 15% of what the sale makes.

AT least someone is standing up to valve and their bullshit DRM

Question. WHy dont they jsut remove the restriction from their TOS but just not have a feature to enable it? Then say

"Oh its perfectly legal to transfer or sell games to someone else, but sadly we just havent implemented that feature yet"

Seems easy to do..

Nimzabaat:
I love this thread!

EA uses DRM to slightly penalize used game sales = EA is the devil and is destroying video games
Valve uses DRM to completely negate used games sales = Rally the troops to Valve's defense!!!

That's just too funny.

yea when it comes to valve, people here are baised, if this was related to Ea or any other ccompany really there be all for the customer, not the company, but no its valve and there "the best company Eva!"

ugh...

Zeckt:

I don't care. They would ruin digital downloads for everyone with their greed and then constant reselling of more then one copy and it has to be stopped.

Before you edited this, it sounded like you were talking about Valve. XD

If they want their games for free then they can make their own.

Strawman.

And if you think you can tell me they would not abuse it like that then that's bullshit, because that's the way consumerism works. If it can potentially be abused it WILL to the absolute worst way possible. Losers making profit by selling it for a $, or giving it away for a penny THOUSANDS OF TIMES.

Yes. Ignoring the fact it hasn't happened elsewhere in other cases and the model you proposed is completely unsustainable it WILL happen, because...Ponies, I guess.

All of this hyperbole to try and attack people for going after monopolistic and totalitarian behaviour.

Nimzabaat:
I love this thread!

EA uses DRM to slightly penalize used game sales = EA is the devil and is destroying video games
Valve uses DRM to completely negate used games sales = Rally the troops to Valve's defense!!!

That's just too funny.

Two different audiences.

EA was restricting a common - even traditional - action and console gamers were ticked because of it.

Personally, it didn't bother me. If that's what it takes to keep AAA extravaganzas cheap, then so it goes.

Steam, however, is for the PC crowd. We haven't had a used game market for YEARS. The lack thereof doesn't bother me either, partly from "this is how it's been for all of recent memory" and partly from the fact that I don't like selling my things. Combine this with my inherent dislike of suing, and yeah, I feel perfectly justified in siding with Valve. Why poke more holes in their rights management (reselling digital is a hell of a thing to regulate) and risk losing tons of their great deals because a few people (and yes, it IS just a few, or else this would have come up long ago) want to resell their stuff because they couldn't be bothered to adequately research it/manage their spending better?

EDIT: Accounting for people who want it because "I <3 user rights" and such, but don't actually want to sell their games, I guess it is more than a few, but basing off of that, it's not really grounds for suing as far as I'm concerned. It's grounds for not buy Valve-distributed goods.

albino boo:

The EULA was written by someone who charges 700-1000 an hour and they more about EU law than you do. They are not bypassing national law so much as using the single market rules and the internationally accepted principal that parties to a contract can choose what jurisdiction they use.

If you do business in Germany you are bound by German law and German courts. Despite what companies try to tell you there is nothing to circumvent that.

NiceJobBreakingItHero:

albino boo:

The EULA was written by someone who charges 700-1000 an hour and they more about EU law than you do. They are not bypassing national law so much as using the single market rules and the internationally accepted principal that parties to a contract can choose what jurisdiction they use.

If you do business in Germany you are bound by German law and German courts. Despite what companies try to tell you there is nothing to circumvent that.

Apart from the small point the valve Europe in based in the UK. So you might be in Germany but you are doing business in the UK which under the single market rules is perfectly permissible

If the EU legal system is in the business of severing contracts between valve and their customers on judicial whim, I think valve should sever all the contracts with all the EU users, denying them the ability to use their steam accounts from then on. Their sovereign decided to terminate their contracts after all.

You can't do business with people that change the rules on the fly, can you play a game with someone that creates and modifies house rules in mid play?

This is legal plunder. If Valve turns around and burns the German Or EU customers I will continue to support them.

Magikarp:
Do they have any grounds to sue them? Is there any rule that says digital property has to be resellable?

yes, look here:

http://www.joystiq.com/2012/07/03/eu-court-rules-its-legal-to-resell-digital-games-software/
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/173513/Publishers_cannot_oppose_resale_of_digital_products_says_EU_court.php#.UQ8Gth3uCLo

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=481040

europe, strangely the land of the free......

Falterfire:

But seriously? Used digital games still make no !@#$%ing sense. Consumer rights are good and all, but used digital games are still nonsense.

If it was legal to resell a digital game, I could sell the same copy seventy three bajillion times using the magic of Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V.

special deliver of 300 boxes full of vaseline....

also:

The EU today ruled that "an author of software cannot oppose the resale of his 'used' licences allowing the use of his programs downloaded from the internet". The Court said the exclusive right of distribution of a copy of a computer program covered by the license is "exhausted on its first sale".

It means that gamers in European Union member states are free to sell their downloaded games, whether they're from Steam, Origin or another digital platform - no matter what End User License Agreement has been signed.

One important part of the ruling dictates that if you resell a license to a game you have to make your copy "unusable at the time of resale".

The two biggest digital games platforms, Steam and Origin, currently do not facilitate this, and there is no directive in the ruling forcing Valve and EA to do so. But Sulyok believes all it will take is for one consumer to enforce his right to the resale of a game - and thus be required to make his copy unusable - for the two heavyweight companies to be triggered into action.

http://kotaku.com/5923280/european-court-says-you-should-be-able-to-re+sell-your-digital-games
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-07-03-gmg-eu-resale-ruling-will-shake-up-the-digital-distribution-market

image

Here's what Valve should do, in my opinion. Make selling of games work on steam, but only under these terms:
-Price is 90% the full value of the game
-25% of the sale price goes to valve, 25% goes to the game creator/publisher.
-50% goes to the user.

I mean lets face it, you get shit value when you trade in physical media, and this would benefit everyone, while still keeping steam sales valid.

R.Nevermore:
If you don't like what steam has to offer....

SUE THEM!

I mean seriously, if you want a hard copy to do with it as you please, don't buy a licence, buy a hard copy from a brick and mortar shop.

EDIT: but even then, you'll have to deal with some even more draconian DRM...

Are you for real?

Have you ever bought a hard copy disk from a brick and mortar store for a Valve game? Guess what? It needs steam. I have disks for Half Life 2, HL2: Episodes, SiN Episode 1, etcetera and guess what? Do you want to know how how much worth those disk have? Zero. They have as much worth as an AOL 14-day trial CD. They were worthless the day I bought them, they're no less worthless now because they're incomplete products sold at full price.

Steam is as draconian as DRM gets.

And Valve is as bad as every other fricken company out there. They're out there to make money. So please, people, quit defending them.

I'd love an ability to sell digital games, but lets be frank, you buy a ability to play the game, not the game itself, so you dont actually "own" anything.

Falterfire:
But seriously? Used digital games still make no !@#$%ing sense. Consumer rights are good and all, but used digital games are still nonsense.

If it was legal to resell a digital game, I could sell the same copy seventy three bajillion times using the magic of Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V.

No. You would sell your license to play this game, not the actual data, which means that you loose the ability to play it and he gains it.

P.S. god, so many people here dont even understand what the consumer group wants to achieve and imagine that you somehow can sell million of copies. you people dont deserve to pay less for games, because you dont seem to be able to use your brain anymore.

Shikua:
Here's what Valve should do, in my opinion. Make selling of games work on steam, but only under these terms:
-Price is 90% the full value of the game
-25% of the sale price goes to valve, 25% goes to the game creator/publisher.
-50% goes to the user.

I mean lets face it, you get shit value when you trade in physical media, and this would benefit everyone, while still keeping steam sales valid.

I think we should make a law that when you sell a used car, only such terms can be used:
-Price is 90% the full value of the car
-25% of the sale price goes to company that you bought the car from orginally, 25% goes to the car manufacturer.
-50% goes to the person.

Ridiculous proposition is ridiculous.
i udnerstand having a, say, 1dollar charge per transfer for costs of server work to do it and whatnot, but beside that, nope. just like you got charges for formal papers when selling any other object.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here