• 67 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by familyphotoshoot (654 posts) -

http://www.managingip.com/Article/3054988/Managing-Copyright-Archive/Oracle-loses-to-UsedSoft-in-software-resale-case.html

"The Court observes in particular that limiting the application of the principle of the exhaustion of the distribution right solely to copies of computer programs that are sold on a material medium would allow the copyright holder to control the resale of copies downloaded from the internet and to demand further remuneration on the occasion of each new sale, even though the first sale of the copy had already enabled the rightholder to obtain appropriate remuneration. Such a restriction of the resale of copies of computer programs downloaded from the internet would go beyond what is necessary to safeguard the specific subject-matter of the intellectual property concerned.

Moreover, the exhaustion of the distribution right extends to the copy of the computer program sold as corrected and updated by the copyright holder. Even if the maintenance agreement is for a limited period, the functionalities corrected, altered or added on the basis of such an agreement form an integral part of the copy originally downloaded and can be used by the customer for an unlimited period."

Essentially, the court said that once a software company sells "a copy of a computer program," its "exclusive right of distribution" is eliminated.

So what does this mean for services like Steam and Origin? Technically under EU law, you now have the right to sell your games.

#2 Posted by iAmJohn (6134 posts) -

I love this and hate the fact that no American court would have the balls to make the same ruling.

#3 Posted by darkdragonmage99 (741 posts) -

Atleast someone somewhere is willing to admit the rights of the consumer needs protected just as much if not more then the corporation.

#4 Posted by mandude (2666 posts) -

Fuck, I'm moving back to Europe.

#6 Posted by Bollard (5844 posts) -

This is fucking terrible for software developers...

#7 Posted by Ravenlight (8011 posts) -

How are they going to enforce this on distribution platforms? I can't imagine this ruling being upheld, particularly regarding Origin.

#8 Posted by Clonedzero (4196 posts) -
#9 Posted by Animasta (14720 posts) -

Isn't there a thing in the EULA of steam somewhere that you cannot sell your games?

#10 Posted by familyphotoshoot (654 posts) -

@Animasta: EULA's cannot supersede national laws.

#11 Posted by kpaadet (413 posts) -

@Animasta said:

Isn't there a thing in the EULA of steam somewhere that you cannot sell your games?

I'm not a lawyer, but I would think a EULA is only viable until a court says its not.

#12 Edited by jozzy (2035 posts) -

I can't believe people think this is great news, shortsighted to the max. Either Steam and Origin will find the loopholes that I am sure there are plenty of, or games are going to turn into even more of a service, instead of a product. Say hi to online only, F2P games with microtransactions. Sure you can your your Team Fortress 2, but not all the stuff you bought on your account because that is not "software", you don't actually "own" that stuff outside the service that is the game. Nobody will make a traditional, single player game anymore.

And forget Steam sales, they would be suicide for Valve.

#13 Posted by Jay444111 (2441 posts) -

@jozzy said:

I can't believe people think this is great news, shortsighted to the max. Either Steam and Origin will find the loopholes that I am sure there are plenty of, or games are going to turn into even more of a service, instead of a product. Say hi to online only, F2P games with microtransactions. Sure you can your your Team Fortress 2, but not all the stuff you bought on your account because that is not "software", you don't actually "own" that stuff outside the service that is the game. Nobody will make a traditional, single player game anymore.

And forget Steam sales, they would be suicide for Valve.

Yeah! Why can't we be able to sell games we bought for instead of license bullcrap that tries to take away our games!

Seriously, anyone that is in support of the license system is in support of anti consumerism. Completely.

#14 Edited by jozzy (2035 posts) -

@Jay444111 said:

@jozzy said:

I can't believe people think this is great news, shortsighted to the max. Either Steam and Origin will find the loopholes that I am sure there are plenty of, or games are going to turn into even more of a service, instead of a product. Say hi to online only, F2P games with microtransactions. Sure you can your your Team Fortress 2, but not all the stuff you bought on your account because that is not "software", you don't actually "own" that stuff outside the service that is the game. Nobody will make a traditional, single player game anymore.

And forget Steam sales, they would be suicide for Valve.

Yeah! Why can't we be able to sell games we bought for instead of license bullcrap that tries to take away our games!

Seriously, anyone that is in support of the license system is in support of anti consumerism. Completely.

Or that person is actually practical instead of living in Lala land with the my little ponies. This will either lead to nothing (most likely), or games will be way more expensive (less likely), or become mostly online only, F2P with microtransactions (already happening). See all those developers and publishers going bankrupt the last few years, this business is extremely tough these days.

This ruling is about one time use licenses without a time limit, they can just sell all games with a fixed expiry date. After 5 or 10 years pay $0,01 to make your license indefinate.

EDIT: this will actually make license bullcrap worse, not better. What do you think this means for the beloved bastion of no DRM, GoG? You think they will be able to survive if things turn out the way you think they will.

#15 Posted by Jay444111 (2441 posts) -

@jozzy said:

@Jay444111 said:

@jozzy said:

I can't believe people think this is great news, shortsighted to the max. Either Steam and Origin will find the loopholes that I am sure there are plenty of, or games are going to turn into even more of a service, instead of a product. Say hi to online only, F2P games with microtransactions. Sure you can your your Team Fortress 2, but not all the stuff you bought on your account because that is not "software", you don't actually "own" that stuff outside the service that is the game. Nobody will make a traditional, single player game anymore.

And forget Steam sales, they would be suicide for Valve.

Yeah! Why can't we be able to sell games we bought for instead of license bullcrap that tries to take away our games!

Seriously, anyone that is in support of the license system is in support of anti consumerism. Completely.

Or that person is actually practical instead of living in Lala land with the my little ponies. This will either lead to nothing (most likely), or games will be way more expensive (less likely), or become mostly online only, F2P with microtransactions (already happening). See all those developers and publishers going bankrupt the last few years, this business is extremely tough these days.

This ruling is about one time use licenses without a time limit, they can just sell all games with a fixed expiry date. After 5 or 10 years pay $0,01 to make your license indefinate.

EDIT: this will actually make license bullcrap worse, not better. What do you think this means for the beloved bastion of no DRM, GoG? You think they will be able to survive if things turn out the way you think they will.

So actually owning games=BAD NEWS, END TIMES!?

Seriously, we SHOULD be treated like customers and people who deny us this fact have never lived hungry before. Trust me when I say this, License bullshit is going to MURDER gaming. This idea of trading games online or for money is a far FAR greater way of doing things than what they have been doing now! Besides, video games have existed BEFORE the internet was a thing. They survived! Devs that are good are the ones which will survive and the ones who are shit will die like always. Fact of life. Saying that this is trouble for GoG because of such a ruling is one of the dumbest things I have ever read online. Literally the dumbest and I have read Sonic Hedgehogs posts before!

#16 Posted by MrAriscottle (262 posts) -

@Chavtheworld said:

This is fucking terrible for software developers...

This.

#17 Posted by iAmJohn (6134 posts) -

@MrAriscottle said:

@Chavtheworld said:

This is fucking terrible for software developers...

This.

How is it any more terrible for them than used books are for book publishers, or used cars are for car manufacturers, or used records are for the recording industry, or...

#18 Posted by Kidavenger (3628 posts) -

@iAmJohn said:

@MrAriscottle said:

@Chavtheworld said:

This is fucking terrible for software developers...

This.

How is it any more terrible for them than used books are for book publishers, or used cars are for car manufacturers, or used records are for the recording industry, or...

The prices of all those things have all been steadily rising while game prices have stayed the same (Nintendo prices have even gone down).

Digital goods don't degrade over time, a used digital game can be sold an infinite number of times and it never gets broken or lost.

Comparing the used car market to the used game market is the most idiotic comparison the internet ever came up with and it needs to stop.

#19 Posted by jozzy (2035 posts) -

@Jay444111 said:

So actually owning games=BAD NEWS, END TIMES!?

Seriously, we SHOULD be treated like customers and people who deny us this fact have never lived hungry before. Trust me when I say this, License bullshit is going to MURDER gaming. This idea of trading games online or for money is a far FAR greater way of doing things than what they have been doing now! Besides, video games have existed BEFORE the internet was a thing. They survived! Devs that are good are the ones which will survive and the ones who are shit will die like always. Fact of life. Saying that this is trouble for GoG because of such a ruling is one of the dumbest things I have ever read online. Literally the dumbest and I have read Sonic Hedgehogs posts before!

Wrote a couple of replies, but since you are clearly on some ideological rampage instead of actually providing arguments why you think this ruling will improve consumer rights, I'll just say: The future will prove who is right. I say this will either change nothing or for the worse for consumers.

I am however curious why you think my GoG comment was so extremely dumb.

#20 Posted by jozzy (2035 posts) -

@iAmJohn said:

@MrAriscottle said:

@Chavtheworld said:

This is fucking terrible for software developers...

This.

How is it any more terrible for them than used books are for book publishers, or used cars are for car manufacturers, or used records are for the recording industry, or...

Because you can resell your kindle books? Your Itunes music? That's the discussion here.

Not even factoring the difference in cost between writing a book or making game, or how the music industry makes most of it's money from concerts and merchandise.

#21 Posted by Brodehouse (10129 posts) -

Video games are actually way ahead of other industries in terms of digital goods. We truly buy licenses, as long as we can prove we're us, we have the rights to those licenses. I bought a Matt Good album on iTunes, had a hard drive fail and that's it for my ownership of that album. Haven't bought a single album from iTunes since (I've been torrenting and buying merch of the music I like instead).

There is a dangerous part to this, though. If your licenses can be sold or traded, you have to be incredibly vigilant on protecting your account. If you have 1000 Steam games, and someone cracks your password, you can come back to having 0 Steam games.

#22 Posted by Ares42 (2796 posts) -

@Kidavenger said:

@iAmJohn said:

The prices of all those things have all been steadily rising while game prices have stayed the same (Nintendo prices have even gone down).

Digital goods don't degrade over time, a used digital game can be sold an infinite number of times and it never gets broken or lost.

It's called market forces. Videogame prices has stayed the same for ages because they are highly overpriced and the industry has been doing everything they can to keep them that way (by doing things like fighting resale). People can talk all they want about rising production costs etc, but the influx of mobile gaming and f2p has shown very clearly that the high price has been a very limiting factor in reaching out to new markets. This won't in any way "ruin game development" or anything like that, all it will do is force game companies to make more enticing deals. This is free market at it's best, allowing competition forcing producers to improve their products.

Hell, we have already seen the market react to the rise of Gamestop with DLC and online passes etc etc. While you could argue about wether these things are good or bad, I think most people will agree that it's generally better for consumers when companies has to rethink and make more of an effort to attract costumers rather than just being protected and being able to churn out the same shit over and over.

#23 Posted by N7 (3667 posts) -

So the idea is: Wait for a Steam sale, buy multiple copies of a game, wait for the sale to end, and sell it a couple dollars cheaper than it's available for. Then, save that money up for the next sale.

#24 Posted by mandude (2666 posts) -

@Ares42: This makes a lot of sense to me. There are certain games I would never sell, simply because they are worth keeping. If this forces developers to up the quality of their games rather than churning out the same old stuff on a yearly basis, I'm all for it.

#25 Posted by MideonNViscera (2252 posts) -

I'd love to sell my shitty DLC to old games or whatever, but even if they made it legal, who's gonna give me the means to do so?

#26 Edited by iAmJohn (6134 posts) -

@Kidavenger said:

@iAmJohn said:

@MrAriscottle said:

@Chavtheworld said:

This is fucking terrible for software developers...

This.

How is it any more terrible for them than used books are for book publishers, or used cars are for car manufacturers, or used records are for the recording industry, or...

The prices of all those things have all been steadily rising while game prices have stayed the same (Nintendo prices have even gone down).

Digital goods don't degrade over time, a used digital game can be sold an infinite number of times and it never gets broken or lost.

Comparing the used car market to the used game market is the most idiotic comparison the internet ever came up with and it needs to stop.

  1. Game prices have stayed the same because they're already an expensive thing that was being sold at a way larger premium because of manufacturing hurdles (read: carts are fucking expensive to produce whereas printing DVDs and Blurays costs next to nothing). Additionally, the number of people playing games since the days of super expensive carts has grown exponentially, meaning a wider audience of people willing to pay those pretty significant prices; and that's not even counting the added revenue streams of subscription services and DLC. Saying that prices haven't increased suggests that the market conditions have stayed exactly the same for gaming and its audience; that's simply bullshit.
  2. What does degradation have to do with anything? You're talking like a businessman; your average consumer doesn't think in those terms. If I wanted to sell the copy of Pokemon Sapphire sitting on my coffee table, do you think I or anyone who was buying it would be thinking about the possibility of cartridge rot or the idea that one day this thing I own might not work? You might as well be making that really stupid anti-used game argument that you shouldn't be allowed to sell a physical copy of anything because there's no stopping whoever buys it used from reselling it.
  3. Would you care to justify how the used car and used game markets are so different or are you just going to be content with saying that it's wrong and I'm an idiot for making that comparison? If anything, I think my first point pretty clearly shows that the market for games is in a lot stronger position than the car market in general.

@jozzy said:

Because you can resell your kindle books? Your Itunes music? That's the discussion here.

Not even factoring the difference in cost between writing a book or making game, or how the music industry makes most of it's money from concerts and merchandise.

What's your point, that because I can't resell my rights to an eBook or an iTunes album that I shouldn't be allowed to? A law like this passing makes that possible and I'm all for it - why shouldn't I be allowed to sell something I bought and don't want anymore? It's mine, not theirs. Also, saying "the music industry makes most of its money from concerts and merchandise" is categorically wrong. Most artists do, that's correct, but the music industry, which is very much run by the record labels, still makes most of its money through - you guessed it! - selling albums and songs.

#27 Posted by tourgen (4542 posts) -

I believe the ruling allows for resale of software but does not compel a publisher to make the means of resale available. So yes, the law has changed but it's going to be business as usual. For example the law does not compel Valve to set up a used game marketplace on Steam or to even provide the means for transferring a game license between two people.

#28 Edited by Sooty (8082 posts) -

@Kidavenger said:

@iAmJohn said:

@MrAriscottle said:

@Chavtheworld said:

This is fucking terrible for software developers...

This.

How is it any more terrible for them than used books are for book publishers, or used cars are for car manufacturers, or used records are for the recording industry, or...

Digital goods don't degrade over time, a used digital game can be sold an infinite number of times and it never gets broken or lost.

Stupid argument considering it would take an extremely long time for a physical game to degrade to the point of it being unusable, at least in the era of discs.

and if you're banking your success on the hope that people are going to buy extra copies of products in case they lose, or break them, then your product is probably not worth buying to begin with.

Are you people stupid? Good grief, I've heard 3 people say they are against this (or insinuate it) so that's reason enough for me to not want to hear further. What a stupid stand to take.

#29 Posted by Karkarov (3275 posts) -

You guys are funny. This will not hold up long term and if it did it would actually be bad for consumers for a large number of reasons. Also when you buy a game on steam you don't own the game, you own the right to play it and or a "product key". So no, you can't sell the game because you don't have it, and Steam or any other service is still perfectly within their rights to do any number of fun things to combat this. For example monthly fees to use their service at all, increase price in the "license" itself, limited time "licenses" that expire, and a host of other great things.

So no, this is not a good thing. If it isn't broke don't fix it. I don't like steam all that much personally, but I can see it works fine as it is now.

#30 Posted by iAmJohn (6134 posts) -

@Karkarov said:

You guys are funny. This will not hold up long term and if it did it would actually be bad for consumers for a large number of reasons. Also when you buy a game on steam you don't own the game, you own the right to play it and or a "product key". So no, you can't sell the game because you don't have it, and Steam or any other service is still perfectly within their rights to do any number of fun things to combat this. For example monthly fees to use their service at all, increase price in the "license" itself, limited time "licenses" that expire, and a host of other great things.

So no, this is not a good thing. If it isn't broke don't fix it. I don't like steam all that much personally, but I can see it works fine as it is now.

Pretty sure the entire point of this ruling is that no, companies cannot take the stance that you're only buying a license to use it and they cannot stop you from transferring those rights to someone else. Also, let's count the number of businesses that have gone from being a free service to "for paying members only" that have succeeded if you're really interested in making that strawman argument. Don't worry, you'll only need one hand.

#31 Posted by jozzy (2035 posts) -

@iAmJohn: Ah, I thought you were talking about physical used books because you also mentioned used cars. You can sell your physical box of a game too, not that it's much use with a lot of games (like diablo 3). If this means you can resell e-books too then yeah, that would be as bad as reselling digitally bought games for that industry, and they will find alternative (probably more annoying) ways to make us consumers pay.

#32 Posted by jozzy (2035 posts) -

@Sooty said:

@Kidavenger said:

@iAmJohn said:

@MrAriscottle said:

@Chavtheworld said:

This is fucking terrible for software developers...

This.

How is it any more terrible for them than used books are for book publishers, or used cars are for car manufacturers, or used records are for the recording industry, or...

Digital goods don't degrade over time, a used digital game can be sold an infinite number of times and it never gets broken or lost.

Stupid argument considering it would take an extremely long time for a physical game to degrade to the point of it being unusable, at least in the era of discs.

and if you're banking your success on the hope that people are going to buy extra copies of products in case they lose, or break them, then your product is probably not worth buying to begin with.

Are you people stupid? Good grief, I've heard 3 people say they are against this (or insinuate it) so that's reason enough for me to not want to hear further. What a stupid stand to take.

He was comparing a car to a game. A car degrades over time. A digitally downloaded game doesn't.

#33 Edited by iAmJohn (6134 posts) -

@jozzy said:

@iAmJohn: Ah, I thought you were talking about physical used books because you also mentioned used cars. You can sell your physical box of a game too, not that it's much use with a lot of games (like diablo 3). If this means you can resell e-books too then yeah, that would be as bad as reselling digitally bought games for that industry, and they will find alternative (probably more annoying) ways to make us consumers pay.

They're already doing that. You really think that a used market is going to change anything?

@jozzy said:

He was comparing a car to a game. A car degrades over time. A digitally downloaded game doesn't.

If anything, I think the used car market works exactly like the used game one - at first you have a bunch of people who want something new but don't want to pay as much money for it, and that market is slowly replaced by collectors who just want to own the thing no matter the cost or amount of work needed to fix it up.

#34 Posted by PixelPrinny (1050 posts) -

@iAmJohn said:

@Kidavenger said:

@iAmJohn said:

@MrAriscottle said:

@Chavtheworld said:

This is fucking terrible for software developers...

This.

How is it any more terrible for them than used books are for book publishers, or used cars are for car manufacturers, or used records are for the recording industry, or...

The prices of all those things have all been steadily rising while game prices have stayed the same (Nintendo prices have even gone down).

Digital goods don't degrade over time, a used digital game can be sold an infinite number of times and it never gets broken or lost.

Comparing the used car market to the used game market is the most idiotic comparison the internet ever came up with and it needs to stop.

  1. Game prices have stayed the same because they're already an expensive thing that was being sold at a way larger premium because of manufacturing hurdles (read: carts are fucking expensive to produce whereas printing DVDs and Blurays costs next to nothing). Additionally, the number of people playing games since the days of super expensive carts has grown exponentially, meaning a wider audience of people willing to pay those pretty significant prices; and that's not even counting the added revenue streams of subscription services and DLC. Saying that prices haven't increased suggests that the market conditions have stayed exactly the same for gaming and its audience; that's simply bullshit.
  2. What does degradation have to do with anything? You're talking like a businessman; your average consumer doesn't think in those terms. If I wanted to sell the copy of Pokemon Sapphire sitting on my coffee table, do you think I or anyone who was buying it would be thinking about the possibility of cartridge rot or the idea that one day this thing I own might not work? You might as well be making that really stupid anti-used game argument that you shouldn't be allowed to sell a physical copy of anything because there's no stopping whoever buys it used from reselling it.
  3. Would you care to justify how the used car and used game markets are so different or are you just going to be content with saying that it's wrong and I'm an idiot for making that comparison? If anything, I think my first point pretty clearly shows that the market for games is in a lot stronger position than the car market in general.

@jozzy said:

Because you can resell your kindle books? Your Itunes music? That's the discussion here.

Not even factoring the difference in cost between writing a book or making game, or how the music industry makes most of it's money from concerts and merchandise.

What's your point, that because I can't resell my rights to an eBook or an iTunes album that I shouldn't be allowed to? A law like this passing makes that possible and I'm all for it - why shouldn't I be allowed to sell something I bought and don't want anymore? It's mine, not theirs. Also, saying "the music industry makes most of its money from concerts and merchandise" is categorically wrong. Most artists do, that's correct, but the music industry, which is very much run by the record labels, still makes most of its money through - you guessed it! - selling albums and songs.

Well said stuff, iAmJohn.

Just to add a bit o the whole "used car analogy is bad, stop using it" point: It's not bad, in fact it's a business model that publishers should be -using-. Consider this -- Most used car sales come from lots owned by the companies that sell the -new- cars. For example, you can buy plenty of used cars at your local Honda dealership of all sorts of makes and models. They offer trade in deals to make the new cars more appealing to consumers, and then they get to make some more money reselling the used cars that were traded in (regardless of it was once a new car originally sold by them or not). You can trade in a Mercedes to that same Honda dealership, just fine, for example.

Now what if a publishing company ran with this sort of model -- accepting and reselling trade-ins like Gamestop, but essentially cutting out that middleman (or having a licensed middleman under their thumb, at the very least). They would have customers coming specifically for their new products as well as making money back reselling the trade-ins.

Perhaps they see this as too late in the game to invest in, but really, they should have been doing it to begin with. It's not the consumer's fault that they lacked the foresight or planning to incorporate a system that car companies have been using for decades, nor is it the consumer's fault that companies like Gamestop saw that opportunity and ran with it.

So yeah, the car analogy is kind of perfect in that it's the way that things -should- be handled by the publishers but hasn't been.

#35 Posted by thatlad (77 posts) -

@Chavtheworld said:

This is fucking terrible for software developers...

No it is not, competition is not bad for software developers in any way. In the same way people say Steam's crazy sales are bad for software developers.

#36 Posted by jozzy (2035 posts) -

@iAmJohn said:

@jozzy said:

@iAmJohn: Ah, I thought you were talking about physical used books because you also mentioned used cars. You can sell your physical box of a game too, not that it's much use with a lot of games (like diablo 3). If this means you can resell e-books too then yeah, that would be as bad as reselling digitally bought games for that industry, and they will find alternative (probably more annoying) ways to make us consumers pay.

They're already doing that. You really think that a used market is going to change anything?

Companies want money, they either adapt to changes or they go under. So yeah, I think it will get worse if they will als start losing money on used sales. If you agree with me, why are we discussing this?

#37 Posted by Ares42 (2796 posts) -

@Karkarov said:

You guys are funny. This will not hold up long term and if it did it would actually be bad for consumers for a large number of reasons. Also when you buy a game on steam you don't own the game, you own the right to play it and or a "product key".

The ruling is specifically about the legality of selling that right and if companies are allowed to deny buyers of resold rights the same service.

#38 Posted by Karkarov (3275 posts) -

@iAmJohn said:

@Karkarov said:

You guys are funny. This will not hold up long term and if it did it would actually be bad for consumers for a large number of reasons. Also when you buy a game on steam you don't own the game, you own the right to play it and or a "product key". So no, you can't sell the game because you don't have it, and Steam or any other service is still perfectly within their rights to do any number of fun things to combat this. For example monthly fees to use their service at all, increase price in the "license" itself, limited time "licenses" that expire, and a host of other great things.

So no, this is not a good thing. If it isn't broke don't fix it. I don't like steam all that much personally, but I can see it works fine as it is now.

Pretty sure the entire point of this ruling is that no, companies cannot take the stance that you're only buying a license to use it and they cannot stop you from transferring those rights to someone else. Also, let's count the number of businesses that have gone from being a free service to "for paying members only" that have succeeded if you're really interested in making that strawman argument. Don't worry, you'll only need one hand.

Hey do you own a cell phone? I am just curious. I know those monthly pay services are all shit and fail utterly. What's that? Unfair comparison? You mean like comparing selling a used car to the right to play Diablo 3 digitally?

#39 Posted by iAmJohn (6134 posts) -

@jozzy said:

@iAmJohn said:

@jozzy said:

@iAmJohn: Ah, I thought you were talking about physical used books because you also mentioned used cars. You can sell your physical box of a game too, not that it's much use with a lot of games (like diablo 3). If this means you can resell e-books too then yeah, that would be as bad as reselling digitally bought games for that industry, and they will find alternative (probably more annoying) ways to make us consumers pay.

They're already doing that. You really think that a used market is going to change anything?

Companies want money, they either adapt to changes or they go under. So yeah, I think it will get worse if they will als start losing money on used sales. If you agree with me, why are we discussing this?

Because I don't give a fuck what they think? They've spent so many years trying to stop me from being able to do whatever the fuck I want with the thing I bought and try to demonize me for having the audacity to buy something used while continuing to completely fleece their customers every chance they get. If your used market is really a problem, that probably means no one wants the thing you're selling unless they can get it at a rock-bottom price. Let them raise prices and try and fuck consumers more if they want; there's no way it'll end up like the music industry ten years ago where piracy destroyed them and forced them to not sell a fucking DRM-laden CD for $20. Adapt or die.

@Karkarov said:

Hey do you own a cell phone? I am just curious. I know those monthly pay services are all shit and fail utterly. What's that? Unfair comparison? You mean like comparing selling a used car to the right to play Diablo 3 digitally?

Not unfair, just wrong. There's never been a single time in which I haven't had to pay someone for phone service, be it a landline or a cell phone. Great argument, broski.

#40 Posted by jozzy (2035 posts) -

@PixelPrinny said:

So yeah, the car analogy is kind of perfect in that it's the way that things -should- be handled by the publishers but hasn't been.

You are forgetting a couple of things:

* People buy new cars because older cars are of less quality then a new one. With games there is no difference between used and new (maybe a tiny bit with a disc, but not at all digital). This is why gamestop can sell a used game for only $5 off, while with a car that would be insane.

* Most of the money earned in the dealership business is in the repairs of the cars, the parts and labour. Precisely because a car is an actual thing with parts that can break down, a game is not

* In the same line: a game costs next to nothing to copy, all the costs are development not each individual game. Each individual car costs money to make. That industry loses no money to piracy, while the game industry does

#41 Posted by jozzy (2035 posts) -

@iAmJohn said:

@jozzy said:

@iAmJohn said:

@jozzy said:

@iAmJohn: Ah, I thought you were talking about physical used books because you also mentioned used cars. You can sell your physical box of a game too, not that it's much use with a lot of games (like diablo 3). If this means you can resell e-books too then yeah, that would be as bad as reselling digitally bought games for that industry, and they will find alternative (probably more annoying) ways to make us consumers pay.

They're already doing that. You really think that a used market is going to change anything?

Companies want money, they either adapt to changes or they go under. So yeah, I think it will get worse if they will als start losing money on used sales. If you agree with me, why are we discussing this?

Because I don't give a fuck what they think? They've spent so many years trying to stop me from being able to do whatever the fuck I want with the thing I bought and try to demonize me for having the audacity to buy something used while continuing to completely fleece their customers every chance they get. If your used market is really a problem, that probably means no one wants the thing you're selling unless they can get it at a rock-bottom price. Let them raise prices and try and fuck consumers more if they want; there's no way it'll end up like the music industry ten years ago where piracy destroyed them and forced them to not sell a fucking DRM-laden CD for $20. Adapt or die.

Hey, I am just arguing the people that think this will change things for the better, not if the current model is perfect.

But I don't agree with you about " If your used market is really a problem, that probably means no one wants the thing you're selling unless they can get it at a rock-bottom price". The concept of "used" on a digital thing that can be infinitely copied for almost free, and that doesn't degrade by time or use is something that can be very dangerous. I think that the license model makes a lot of sense for these types of products/services. You buy the right to use it, not the right of ownership. I do think that this concept means that a license should be cheaper than actual ownership, while that is currently not really the case in the game industry.

#42 Posted by Karkarov (3275 posts) -

I am probably the only person posting in this thread who once worked at a car dealership so let me let you guys in on a secret.... the user car analogy is god awful laughably bad. For every "classic" that matures with age, there are thousands upon thousands of pos cars no one would give you 50 bucks for 20 years after they left the dealership. Those classics also mature in cost too sure, but because of rarity and crafstmanship. You forget the vintage Corvette has an engine car manufacturers are no longer allowed to build, a body style and type made of materials no one uses anymore, and a classic look no modern car looks like today that can't be replicated again because of no longer in use manufacturing processes, materials, and new safety standards. You literally can't build that vintage Corvette anymore.

Digital Diablo 3 is not rare and it wont be 40 years from now either and unlike a vintage Corvette no one wants to play a game that was good 40 years ago they want to play a game that is good today. Because Diablo 3 won't be rare, it won't use a manufacturing process you can't replicate, it isn't made of no longer usable materials, and it will have been cloned into pointlessness by then. It doesn't even have age or sentimental value backing it because digital data doesn't age and doesn't physically exist so it is hard to be "sentimental" about it. Used Carts may become valuable because they are physical objects no longer available, used digital will never become more valuable and in fact will only ever become less valuable with age. There is no digital Corvette hence the comparison is moronic at best.

#43 Posted by Brodehouse (10129 posts) -

@iAmJohn: I guess hopefully they die, right? That gets rid of those assholes offering you products.

#44 Posted by Arker101 (1472 posts) -

News Headline "EA prevents EU consumers from buying any of their games."

#45 Posted by 2HeadedNinja (1770 posts) -

Steam is heading in that direction anyways ... within 2 years they will allow you to sell your games to other steam users, mark my words. And the whole notion of "used sales are bad" is something we have been force-fed by publishers for the last 5 years. Gamers are a weird bunch. We have a connection to the devs that is unheard of in any other business, hell even I bought several games I never intended to play just to support some developers. But being able to sell something we own is a basic right consumers have. I will for the live of me never understand why people give up on right so easily ... no offence (and I really mean that), but thats a very US thing to do.

If I buy a game on steam I buy exactly one copy of the game that can be played by one person. If I sell that game there is still exactly one person that is allowed to play the game. The publishers and deverlopers have been payed for one person to play the game and one person plays it. Period. Would it be good if devs got a cut out of uses sales? Sure, but thats just not the reality of things. If steam does crazy sales that does not hurt the devs, it benefits them ... if steam allows to sell games that might not benefit the devs but it sure as hell won't be the end of the world people here make it out to be.

#46 Edited by jozzy (2035 posts) -

@2HeadedNinja said:

Steam is heading in that direction anyways ... within 2 years they will allow you to sell your games to other steam users, mark my words. And the whole notion of "used sales are bad" is something we have been force-fed by publishers for the last 5 years. Gamers are a weird bunch. We have a connection to the devs that is unheard of in any other business, hell even I bought several games I never intended to play just to support some developers. But being able to sell something we own is a basic right consumers have. I will for the live of me never understand why people give up on right so easily ... no offence (and I really mean that), but thats a very US thing to do.

If I buy a game on steam I buy exactly one copy of the game that can be played by one person. If I sell that game there is still exactly one person that is allowed to play the game. The publishers and deverlopers have been payed for one person to play the game and one person plays it. Period. Would it be good if devs got a cut out of uses sales? Sure, but thats just not the reality of things. If steam does crazy sales that does not hurt the devs, it benefits them ... if steam allows to sell games that might not benefit the devs but it sure as hell won't be the end of the world people here make it out to be.

Ok, I will mark your words, I don't think Valve will ever voluntarely allow to sell used games. They might be forced by this ruling, but otherwise no. It just doesn't make any business sense, the publishers allow for the crazy sales (not always enthusiastically too) because apparently afterwards the games still sell at the regular price. When this feature is implemented every gamer will think themselves a games-trader come sales time. People will buy the cheap games and sell them after the sale. If someone wants to buy the game on steam, do you think they will get a new one, or the exact same one much cheaper, but "used".

#47 Posted by Drebin_893 (2933 posts) -

I fucking hate these EU Courts.

#48 Posted by kgb0515 (405 posts) -

Ehh...I had an explanation of the used car/used games analogy all typed up and ready to go, but then I decided to say screw it and gave up. The real question is whether or not games will eventually go the same route as most other consumer software? Will we all eventually buy product keys to access virtual products that we will never physically possess? Will console games be relegated to purchases whereby consumers may still purchase the media on a physical disk that simply used for installation purposes? Time will tell.

#49 Posted by Oldirtybearon (4883 posts) -

@jozzy said:

@2HeadedNinja said:

Steam is heading in that direction anyways ... within 2 years they will allow you to sell your games to other steam users, mark my words. And the whole notion of "used sales are bad" is something we have been force-fed by publishers for the last 5 years. Gamers are a weird bunch. We have a connection to the devs that is unheard of in any other business, hell even I bought several games I never intended to play just to support some developers. But being able to sell something we own is a basic right consumers have. I will for the live of me never understand why people give up on right so easily ... no offence (and I really mean that), but thats a very US thing to do.

If I buy a game on steam I buy exactly one copy of the game that can be played by one person. If I sell that game there is still exactly one person that is allowed to play the game. The publishers and deverlopers have been payed for one person to play the game and one person plays it. Period. Would it be good if devs got a cut out of uses sales? Sure, but thats just not the reality of things. If steam does crazy sales that does not hurt the devs, it benefits them ... if steam allows to sell games that might not benefit the devs but it sure as hell won't be the end of the world people here make it out to be.

Ok, I will mark your words, I don't think Valve will ever voluntarely allow to sell used games. They might be forced by this ruling, but otherwise no. It just doesn't make any business sense, the publishers allow for the crazy sales (not always enthusiastically too) because apparently afterwards the games still sell at the regular price. When this feature is implemented every gamer will think themselves a games-trader come sales time. People will buy the cheap games and sell them after the sale. If someone wants to buy the game on steam, do you think they will get a new one, or the exact same one much cheaper, but "used".

Valve have been looking into customers selling their collections to other customers for awhile now. They haven't nailed down exactly what they want to do yet, but they're working on it.

So uh, try again.

#50 Posted by jozzy (2035 posts) -

Selling your entire library is different then selling individual games though. Or is that not what you mean by collection.