Anyway, I will believe it when I see it. If they do this and not put some serious restrictions on it... just doesn't make business sense to me.
EU court rules that software licenses can be resold by users
I don't think this is bad for software developers. Maybe it would be if it was the mid 90s, but now? The cat is out of the bag. There is a thing called piracy. This provides an alternative to piracy, and is good for consumers. I don't really see it being good or bad for developers. I mean, hasn't Valve been talking about selling and trading "used" digital copies for awhile now? It hardly seems like Valve would be behind something that is bad for developers, and god knows they have the numbers and economists to make educated decisions about such things.
I haven't read the leaglese, so I don't know what developers can and can't do, but I wouldn't be surprised if we see them adapting to this by putting restrictions on secondhand digital copies in a way similar to how manufacturers refuse warranty support and customer service past the initial owner. Messages popping up on second hand copies like, "Pay more to access this DLC," or, "restricted maps," or, "extra content unavailable," might be the future.
@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.
...or game companies can start spending less on making games because they are bloating the budgets to ridiculous proportions for games that honestly don't need that much budget to make them. We've seen this become true with the world of independent game development. This use to be an industry that cared about the games it was putting it out, but we've now been stuck in a rut for ten years where every other week has a new shooting game that wants a piece of the Call of Duty pie being released.
If games become more expensive, that's at the fault of the publisher themselves, and they'll see what happens when they raise the prices of their games. People won't pay it at some point, and then they will have a REAL problem.
As for this whole "licensing" ordeal, I'm okay with it. Hell, I only buy DRM-free games, and yes, I do share them with my friends. You know why? Because that's the point! Back in the day, we had this thing called "shareware", and it worked great for everyone.
@FengShuiGod said:
I don't think this is bad for software developers. Maybe it would be if it was the mid 90s, but now? The cat is out of the bag. There is a thing called piracy. This provides an alternative to piracy, and is good for consumers. I don't really see it being good or bad for developers. I mean, hasn't Valve been talking about selling and trading "used" digital copies for awhile now? It hardly seems like Valve would be behind something that is bad for developers, and god knows they have the numbers and economists to make educated decisions about such things.
I have never heard this before and I'd to see your source. Of course this is good for consumers, but it's not really good for developers; you can say piracy all you want, but you know what? pirating a game is hard for many people. Torrents can be tracked, downloading through single links of rapidshare or whatever takes a long time, and games are so big that it either makes people say fuck it and wait or just buy it then.
This will very likely hurt both developers and consumers, but only time will tell. EULAs will certainly gain several paragraphs.
@jakob187 said:
As for this whole "licensing" ordeal, I'm okay with it. Hell, I only buy DRM-free games, and yes, I do share them with my friends. You know why? Because that's the point! Back in the day, we had this thing called "shareware", and it worked great for everyone.
Making it easy to distribute games illegally is not the point of DRM-free releases. DRM is left out of digital releases to make it easier for the purchaser. The shareware model is distribution of a free, unlimited-use, portion of a complete product. Freely distributing the entire product, whether among friends or across the world, is stealing. And since it discourages companies from releasing games without DRM, and removes potential money from resellers like GOG.com, you're directly hurting my experience.
@mlarrabee said:
This will very likely hurt both developers and consumers, but only time will tell. EULAs will certainly gain several paragraphs.
"The ruling 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.
The ruling continues: "Therefore, even if the licence agreement prohibits a further transfer, the rightholder can no longer oppose the resale of that copy.""
Don't have any other examples, but I'm fairly sure this is far from the first time EULAs has been ruled to be quite pointless outside of US.
@Ares42: Just recently, in the US, both Microsoft and Sony updated their system EULAs to require users to refrain from engaging in class action lawsuits against them, under any condition. The ability to bring or pursue class action suits is fairly fundamental in legal recourse against corporations, but an accepted EULA nullifies it before the courts.
It's amazing, and pretty disturbing, at least to me, that consumers are allowed to relinquish their access to legal action recourse, but producers aren't allowed to forbid digital product resale. Neither is good for the consumer, but releasing legal rights is by far the worse of the two.
@mlarrabee said:
@Ares42: Just recently, in the US, both Microsoft and Sony updated their system EULAs to require users to refrain from engaging in class action lawsuits against them, under any condition. The ability to bring or pursue class action suits is fairly fundamental in legal recourse against corporations, but an accepted EULA nullifies it before the courts.
That's disturbing. Are you sure it actually holds up like that in the US, though? I know that when Apple's EULA made users promise not to jailbreak their iPod, the European courts declared it void.
@Animasta said:
@FengShuiGod said:
I don't think this is bad for software developers. Maybe it would be if it was the mid 90s, but now? The cat is out of the bag. There is a thing called piracy. This provides an alternative to piracy, and is good for consumers. I don't really see it being good or bad for developers. I mean, hasn't Valve been talking about selling and trading "used" digital copies for awhile now? It hardly seems like Valve would be behind something that is bad for developers, and god knows they have the numbers and economists to make educated decisions about such things.
I have never heard this before and I'd to see your source. Of course this is good for consumers, but it's not really good for developers; you can say piracy all you want, but you know what? pirating a game is hard for many people. Torrents can be tracked, downloading through single links of rapidshare or whatever takes a long time, and games are so big that it either makes people say fuck it and wait or just buy it then.
My source for what? My post was mostly conjecture. And if this is bad for developers, can it be good for consumers? You have created a dichotomy I don't really understand.
Games are big, but torrents download as fast as Steam does. If people want to get games for cheap or free, they already can. People are already selling accounts. People are already trading games. You can already buy used games from a store. People are already selling second hand, tangible copies. Valve was beta testing a trading system. Like I said, the cat is out of the bag. This law in no way states that companies must provide an avenue to sell games, it simply says selling them is legal. If you think people paypal-ing money to someone over the internet in the hopes that they will send you a game is going to be bad for devs and is going to occur on a scale big enough to be harmful, you are wrong. I just don't see this hurting anything because all these activities already take place. This law highlights some problems developers are already having with DRM/used games/piracy, but it doesn't really change anything. The only way this will be bad is if studio heads in suits decide it is bad, and then attempt to do something that mucks the situation up. But really it probably won't do anything, because this ruling does not give the EU power to regulate businesses which do not have a physical location in the EU. " it must be pointed out that the E-Commerce Directive applies only to traders established in an EU Member State The Directive does not apply to companies established in a third country. Furthermore, the lawfulness of the pre-contractual information in question is not a matter regulated by the Directive.It is rather subject to the national rules of the Member State where the company is established....The Services Directive contains a provision – Article 20 (2) – which specifically aims at stopping traders discriminating against consumers on the ground of their nationality or place of residence of the consumers and is therefore particularly relevant regarding your concerns. Moreover, as in the case of the E-commerce Directive, the Services Directive will apply to this specific case only insofar as it could be demonstrated that Valve has an establishment in an EU Member State and that the on-line services are provided from there, which does not appear to be the case according to the information received." So if companies have a problem, they can leave the EU. Even if this law had worldwide efficacy it really just grants downloadable copies the same rights as physical copies, allows you to own a license instead of "rent," and doesn't let companies charge you for multi-player if you bought it used. This also seems to protect against reactionary DRMs, or at least sets a little precedent for EU courts to rule against dystopian DRM scenarios. Perhaps the most interesting question is what it would mean for something like VAC bans.
So any negativity would manifest itself in the form of lost revenues for game studios, but I really don't see that happening. If that was the case digital distribution coupled with the used games market would have killed the industry long ago.
Ultimately we will have to wait and see, but as far as I can tell this really this doesn't seem to change much. What matters is the reactionary legislation instigated by large companies who are unjustly paranoid, but that isn't anything new either (MPAA, SOPA, ect.)
@mandude said:
@mlarrabee said:
@Ares42: Just recently, in the US, both Microsoft and Sony updated their system EULAs to require users to refrain from engaging in class action lawsuits against them, under any condition. The ability to bring or pursue class action suits is fairly fundamental in legal recourse against corporations, but an accepted EULA nullifies it before the courts.
That's disturbing. Are you sure it actually holds up like that in the US, though? I know that when Apple's EULA made users promise not to jailbreak their iPod, the European courts declared it void.
I'm not aware of the specific instance, but when an EULA violates your legal rights the law does not simply acquiesce. Sounds like that is merely a deterrent to frivolous suits that wouldn't hold up in court.
@mandude: @FengShuiGod:
In 2011, the US Supreme Court's ruling set a precedent for confirmed contracts' ability to annul class action suit recourse.
I don't know if Sony and Microsoft changed their EULAs in other regions, nor if it would be allowed by the legal systems in those regions.
@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.
Considering how most people treat discs, that's utter BS. Your second point isn't even relevant, because that's not what we're talking about. And everyone who doesn't see how this could be bad doesn't understand how the software industry works. This legislation says I can buy something like photoshop and just hand the fucking license to my friends when they need to use it. That kind of shit will lead to huge losses in sales, and when software development is so damn expensive, and suddenly they are losing tons of sales to people tossing their licenses around then guess what? They're gunna stop making that software.
@mlarrabee: I can't imagine that particular clause would hold up in courts outside of the US.
@mandude said:
Fuck, I'm moving back to Europe.
I'm not a software developer, i'm a consumer and i love that some court actually wants to help me or empower my rights
@Chavtheworld said:
@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.
Considering how most people treat discs, that's utter BS. Your second point isn't even relevant, because that's not what we're talking about. And everyone who doesn't see how this could be bad doesn't understand how the software industry works. This legislation says I can buy something like photoshop and just hand the fucking license to my friends when they need to use it. That kind of shit will lead to huge losses in sales, and when software development is so damn expensive, and suddenly they are losing tons of sales to people tossing their licenses around then guess what? They're gunna stop making that software.
Hmm, maybe developers should learn to not waste money. A novel concept , if I do say so myself. Besides, companies that make yearly editions rarely make drastic or big changes yet charge a lot and make plenty of money. I don't think someone borrowing a license or selling their license is going to kill them. Besides, if life has taught me anything is that, if you get too greedy, it's going to kick you in the butt if your wrong.
@Chroma_Auron said:
@Chavtheworld said:
@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.
Considering how most people treat discs, that's utter BS. Your second point isn't even relevant, because that's not what we're talking about. And everyone who doesn't see how this could be bad doesn't understand how the software industry works. This legislation says I can buy something like photoshop and just hand the fucking license to my friends when they need to use it. That kind of shit will lead to huge losses in sales, and when software development is so damn expensive, and suddenly they are losing tons of sales to people tossing their licenses around then guess what? They're gunna stop making that software.
Hmm, maybe developers should learn to not waste money. A novel concept , if I do say so myself. Besides, companies that make yearly editions rarely make drastic or big changes yet charge a lot and make plenty of money. I don't think someone borrowing a license or selling their license is going to kill them. Besides, if life has taught me anything is that, if you get too greedy, it's going to kick you in the butt if your wrong.
You really think developers "waste money"? Do you have any idea how many people, and how many sheer man hours it takes to make a game?
Let's take 100 people, working for 3 years. Assume they earn about £30,000 average each. That's £9 000 000 IN SALARY ALONE. This is ignoring renting office space, paying for electricity and development software, hardware to develop and test on, testers to check it isn't buggy as shit. The list goes on a lot further than this, and nowadays it's not even just one studio that will spend time on a game.
Have you ever actually thought about how much content we expect to be in games today as standard? And how they still only sell for like £40 on average? Those are tiny margins.
Call Of Duty and shit like that are outliers, and even so they do a lot more than you actually think to turn around a whole new game in a year. Plus the marketing is insane, and people are dumb enough to pay extra (compared to standard prices) just because it's COD. Software developers (because remember this doesn't just affect games) are by no means any more greedy than any other business out there.
@Brodehouse said:
@iAmJohn: I guess hopefully they die, right? That gets rid of those assholes offering you products.
If allowing people who purchase digital products the right to first-sale doctrine is enough to kill them off, it's proof positive that the industry is fucking broken. Yes they deserve to die, and I hope they burn in hell.
Let me put it another way: Atlus made a significant profit off of selling 500,000 copies of Catherine, a game that is as big budget and AAA as anything they are going to make with the exception of Persona 5. For most companies based in America, 500,000 units sold would be a complete fucking failure. If they're spending so much money that they need to sell gangbusters every single time to succeed and allowing used digital games would risk that, they have subscribed to a bad business model. It is that simple. Smart companies like an Atlus or a Valve or what have you would be able to adapt; those that can't, well, that's unfortunate, but they got what they deserved for being so financially stupid. If anything, the Activisions and EAs of the world dying off might actually be a good thing, since it would give more exposure to these small studios who know what the hell they're doing but are often drowned out by being unable to afford serious advertising bank.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment