French courts rule that Steam cannot ban resale of 'dematerialised' games

[Brian9824]

https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/french-courts-rule-that-steam-cannot-ban-resale-of-dematerialised-games/

Likely to be appealed and if not steam can just ignore it and pay the fine which would only be around $600,000. Will be intresting to see if this triggers any changes and how that would work with regions and publishers who are not located in france.

German Courts disagree with French Courts in their rulings here - https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/02/10/german-court-rules-against-rights-to-resell-steam-games/

EU Video Game Trade Body also disagree's with France's stance on it - https://www.pcgamesinsider.biz/news/69716/european-video-games-trade-body-says-frances-steam-ruling-flies-in-face-of-eu-law/

[76561198001062896]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย UnderdogPsychosis:

All I can say to this is if you are against us selling our games, All our games in the future will slowly start to turn into monthly/yearly subscriptions then look who wins again. We should absolutely be able to sell our games. No excuses.

Not necessarily though if ppl have the common sense to stand up against it so thats a really nonsensical argument to hang on


its like saying: "The world will end anyway so why no pollute the air freely since it wont make a difference on the outcome?"

[Horrible Orbit]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Erebus:

With physical there is always motivation for some people to buy new copies. It's that bracket which actually keeps things affloat. With digital a new copy and a used copy have no difference. There would never be any incentive for new (outside of shady game passes and such)... so people would just buy whats cheaper. Since there is no wear and tear a game could pass through dozens of owners eating up dozens of "potential sales" off one initial sale.

It'd erode sales overnight for the entire industry. Plus all the copies dumped at once would push values down to being nearly worthless on the used market itself.

It's an idea that really doesn't work well with how gaming works currently, unless you want everything immediately to move to subs, streaming, and the like.

Edit: a typo

Your argument's not wrong as far as it goes, but it's also missing important context. Put simply, why would this same principle not apply to Bitcoin right now? Or iTunes? I'm sure we'd see a drop in the sales of new PC games if old ones could be resold, but we definitely disagree on the extent of the drop.

[voidCaster]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Erebus:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Gematria:

Yeah. I didn't say YOU THE BUYER could write anything off. I said THE DEV OR WHOEVER SELLS THE GAME CAN WRITE THEIR DISCOUNT AMOUNT OFF.



Right back atcha with a nice lime trollypop.

Read the underlined quote directly from what I copied for you.

Going on about HB being a non-profit getting keys at discounts from Steam and co..... you don't even know how the ♥♥♥♥ they operate in the slightest.

I know what they advertise. I get regular emails from them reminding me how they're a non-profit and every purchase helps charities.

[Kiddiec͕̤̱͋̿͑͠at 🃏]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Zetikla:

Would you love to work for free? No? There ya go, by your definition what makes you less "greedy" than those oh so evil companies?

Not to downplay your point, because it's a very good one but I actually would like to work for free - but I also like having a home, heating, electricity, running water, and food - all the elements of a modest life.

No one is going to give that to me for free so consequently, as much as I'd love to spend my time (really dissecting what makes something fun and) making fun games that will be available to the world to play for free,... I can't.

[76561198001062896]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Horrible Orbit:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Erebus:

With physical there is always motivation for some people to buy new copies. It's that bracket which actually keeps things affloat. With digital a new copy and a used copy have no difference. There would never be any incentive for new (outside of shady game passes and such)... so people would just buy whats cheaper. Since there is no wear and tear a game could pass through dozens of owners eating up dozens of "potential sales" off one initial sale.

It'd erode sales overnight for the entire industry. Plus all the copies dumped at once would push values down to being nearly worthless on the used market itself.

It's an idea that really doesn't work well with how gaming works currently, unless you want everything immediately to move to subs, streaming, and the like.

Edit: a typo

Your argument's not wrong as far as it goes, but it's also missing important context. Put simply, why would this same principle not apply to Bitcoin right now? Or iTunes? I'm sure we'd see a drop in the sales of new PC games if old ones could be resold, but we definitely disagree on the extent of the drop.

it would have a negative effect on what made digital distribution attractive though

companies aint gonna swallow losses endlessly just for the sake of being nice

[h00s]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Zetikla:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย UnderdogPsychosis:

So you are saying what if indie devolepers get hit hard because their game they have just released is being instantly sold and not thriving with players? Well that's becuase they haven't made a good/popular game. That's not my problem nor should it be yours. This should be a basic right to us, like it once was. But then greedy corporations came along and took this right away from us.

Honestly the more you comment the mors it becomes painfully obvious you have zero clue of thr topic beside repeating the usual "greedy business" spiel. Businesses exist to make money, im sure you worked that one out. Would you love to work for free? No? There ya go

Theres nothing wrong not being well informed of a topic but its kinda embarassing when a clueless person wants to pretend this badly to know what theyre talking about.

I see certain irony when ppl love to dictate how businesses should run their businesses since its not their money on the line anyway.

I could of predicted this reply, obviously these companys exist to make money and a hell of a lot of it. But there is a line that needs to be drawn. We should be able to sell our games like we once where able to. And your comment just pretty sums up you're only here to sound like you know what you are talking about. I would say over 90% of gamers would agree they would like to sell there older games. Who gives af about indie game devs and smaller companies they just aren't making games that bang, that's there fault.

[76561198001062896]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Kiddiec͕̤̱͋̿͑͠at:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Zetikla:

Would you love to work for free? No? There ya go, by your definition what makes you less "greedy" than those oh so evil companies?

Not to downplay your point, because it's a very good one but I actually would like to work for free - but I also like having a home, heating, electricity, running water, and food - all the elements of a modest life.

No one is going to give that to me for free so consequently, as much as I'd love to spend my time (really dissecting what makes something fun and) making fun games that will be available to the world to play for free,... I can't. :seewhatyoudid::crying_eye:

it all comes down to each sides wanting to maximise profits/ getting the best deal possible

[Horrible Orbit]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Zetikla:

it would have a negative effect on what made digital distribution attractive though

companies aint gonna swallow losses endlessly just for the sake of being nice

But they don't stick me up at gunpoint, even though they could have more of my money if they did. They don't plant fake homeless people on street corners to collect donations that way, even though it's nicer that they don't. I could go on.

[Erebus]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Horrible Orbit:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Erebus:

With physical there is always motivation for some people to buy new copies. It's that bracket which actually keeps things affloat. With digital a new copy and a used copy have no difference. There would never be any incentive for new (outside of shady game passes and such)... so people would just buy whats cheaper. Since there is no wear and tear a game could pass through dozens of owners eating up dozens of "potential sales" off one initial sale.

It'd erode sales overnight for the entire industry. Plus all the copies dumped at once would push values down to being nearly worthless on the used market itself.

It's an idea that really doesn't work well with how gaming works currently, unless you want everything immediately to move to subs, streaming, and the like.

Edit: a typo

Your argument's not wrong as far as it goes, but it's also missing important context. Put simply, why would this same principle not apply to Bitcoin right now? Or iTunes? I'm sure we'd see a drop in the sales of new PC games if old ones could be resold, but we definitely disagree on the extent of the drop.

It's only going to take a few days for used copies to start infinitely circulating in such a world. Hours in the case of some of the more niche projects and indie titles. And again there would be no incentive to buy new once the used titles started circulating. It's not a stretch to say it could more than halve sales. Because again there is no wear and tear or anything like that. Nothing to keep the market in check. With physical products there are always reasons to buy new, with digital products where there is no difference between new or used the only incentive to ever buy new would be if used wasn't available at the time.

Edit: Bitcoin has a fixed supply does it not? Once <x> coins are out there more will not be made as far as I know.

[76561198001062896]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย UnderdogPsychosis:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Zetikla:

Honestly the more you comment the mors it becomes painfully obvious you have zero clue of thr topic beside repeating the usual "greedy business" spiel. Businesses exist to make money, im sure you worked that one out. Would you love to work for free? No? There ya go

Theres nothing wrong not being well informed of a topic but its kinda embarassing when a clueless person wants to pretend this badly to know what theyre talking about.

I see certain irony when ppl love to dictate how businesses should run their businesses since its not their money on the line anyway.

I could of predicted this reply, obviously these companys exist to make money and a hell of a lot of it. But there is a line that needs to be drawn. We should be able to sell our games like we once where able to. And your comment just pretty sums up you're only here to sound like you know what you are talking about. I would say over 90% of gamers would agree they would like to sell there older games. Who gives af about indie game devs and smaller companies they just aren't making games that bang, that's there fault.

The Terms of Service ever since the dawn of times that most games technically never allowed reselling but they couldnt enforce it.

[Erebus]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Gematria:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Erebus:

Read the underlined quote directly from what I copied for you.

Going on about HB being a non-profit getting keys at discounts from Steam and co..... you don't even know how the ♥♥♥♥ they operate in the slightest.

I know what they advertise. I get regular emails from them reminding me how they're a non-profit and every purchase helps charities.

Go read their website, humblebundle is not a non-profit. Some of it goes to charity, some to humble, and the publishers get paid for their wares. It's a commercial STORE that happens to have charity as it's "thing".

[76561198001062896]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Horrible Orbit:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Zetikla:

it would have a negative effect on what made digital distribution attractive though

companies aint gonna swallow losses endlessly just for the sake of being nice

But they don't stick me up at gunpoint, even though they could have more of my money if they did. They don't plant fake homeless people on street corners to collect donations that way, even though it's nicer that they don't. I could go on.

my point is that you wont get to have your cake: easy acces games, offline mode/ deep sales etc and eat it too "games reselling"

[h00s]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Zetikla:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Horrible Orbit:

Your argument's not wrong as far as it goes, but it's also missing important context. Put simply, why would this same principle not apply to Bitcoin right now? Or iTunes? I'm sure we'd see a drop in the sales of new PC games if old ones could be resold, but we definitely disagree on the extent of the drop.

it would have a negative effect on what made digital distribution attractive though

companies aint gonna swallow losses endlessly just for the sake of being nice

That's the thing, it's not for the sake of being nice. Exactly why it's been brought up by a government body, It's for the sake of being right, and whats ours is ours.

[Horrible Orbit]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Erebus:

It's only going to take a few days for used copies to start infinitely circulating in such a world. Hours in the case of some of the more niche projects and indie titles. And again there would be no incentive to buy new once the used titles started circulating. It's not a stretch to say it could more than halve sales. Because again there is no wear and tear or anything like that. Nothing to keep the market in check. With physical products there are always reasons to buy new, with digital products where there is no difference between new or used the only incentive to ever buy new would be if used wasn't available at the time.

The absence of wear and tear also cuts pertinent liability and maintenance costs completely. Nobody, anywhere, ever, can claim a defect in materials. And money circulates just as freely as the games you're describing, but doesn't collapse in value, in spite of the empty warnings of monetarists.

More importantly, though, this brings us to the only reason DRM software is objectively useful - it attaches unique identifiers to post-scarce items. People wouldn't be selling the same copy of Bioshock 2 over and over, they'd be selling the one they have on their account, once. It wouldn't surprise me all that much if limits were also put in place to prevent any one account or IP address from owning more than N number of copies of any Steam games, in that scenario.

[Kiddiec͕̤̱͋̿͑͠at 🃏]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Zetikla:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Kiddiec͕̤̱͋̿͑͠at:

Not to downplay your point, because it's a very good one but I actually would like to work for free - but I also like having a home, heating, electricity, running water, and food - all the elements of a modest life.

No one is going to give that to me for free so consequently, as much as I'd love to spend my time (really dissecting what makes something fun and) making fun games that will be available to the world to play for free,... I can't.

it all comes down to each sides wanting to maximise profits/ getting the best deal possible

I don't understand how that relates to what I said.