Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mono124]

Question: Why can't steam and other such digital distributors make it so you can sell it back.. but only to them? They aren't prohibiting the reselling, because you CAN resell the game. That way they could sell you the game, then buy it back much cheaper. Just because you can't sell it to your buddies doesn't mean you can't resell the game at all, so you aren't being kept from reselling, you can just only resell to the company you bought it from.

[palsch]

Question: Why can't steam and other such digital distributors make it so you can sell it back.. but only to them? They aren't prohibiting the reselling, because you CAN resell the game. That way they could sell you the game, then buy it back much cheaper. Just because you can't sell it to your buddies doesn't mean you can't resell the game at all, so you aren't being kept from reselling, you can just only resell to the company you bought it from.

That wouldn't appear to satisfy this ruling.

This was specifically about the doctrine of first sale.

If I sell you an object, making you the new owner, I can't restrict who you sell that object to in the future. Even if I hold copyright over the object, stopping you making more of it, I can't stop you selling that copy. One I make that first sale I no longer have legal control over the copy and can't add extra restrictions on your use of it. [I'm sure there are exceptions to this but can't be bothered to dig just now.]

This ruling defined a set of digital goods (specifically those where the license grants the buyer the rights usually associated with ownership) where the first sale doctrine applies.

Putting restrictions on who you could sell objects back to would be a violation of the first sale doctrine as I understand it. It would be a like a bookstore saying you could sell back any books you bought there, but couldn't sell them to another bookstore or a friend, lend them out or give them as a gift.

[Mono124]

I understand that they can't restrict whom you sell it to, but if they simply don't add the ability for you to sell it to other people, and only add the ability for it to be sold back to them...

[majikero]

I'm not sure if this is asked before but will anyone even bother with buying used digital copies from strangers? Is it worth the time, effort and risk? In the end, it's a service quality issue.

[Mono124]

I'm not sure if this is asked before but will anyone even bother with buying used digital copies from strangers? Is it worth the time, effort and risk? In the end, it's a service quality issue.

If I'm wrong, and you have to be allowed to sell to anyone, then I'm fairly sure that someone, somewhere, will create a way to sell and buy used digital copies from a website or such. If it gets big enough and enough people use it, and it's safe and secure, then yeah.

[palsch]

I understand that they can't restrict whom you sell it to, but if they simply don't add the ability for you to sell it to other people, and only add the ability for it to be sold back to them...

Well, that's the question. The ruling isn't especially clear on what is requred to be in line with it. I'm fairly certain another ruling or some other form of binding legal guidance is going to be required for comapnies like Valve to know exactly what this means for them.

I went into what the ruling said a little more in my first post, but if they were the direct copyright holders and only selling effective ownership rights (hidden behind a license agreement) then they would appear to be forced to offer some accomodation of resale. But for a service like Valve everything is just very hazy right now.

I'm not sure if this is asked before but will anyone even bother with buying used digital copies from strangers? Is it worth the time, effort and risk? In the end, it's a service quality issue.

Creating a quality resale environment would be trivial if it were integrated into a service like Steam. That's why I think how the next few cases/whatever turn out is more important than the initial ruling. This could very easily be completely irrelevant with some changes to licenses and careful definitions.

[majikero]

I think Steam will have the most success from this. If the can use their own distribution system for trading used games sold on steam, they can profit from it as a service provider. Kinda like the Diablo 3 auction house thing.

[sneakey pete]

There's a glaring issue with that. And that most people seem to be ignoring. The fact that there is no way to stop people from keeping a copy. A lot of steam games have no DLC, meaning that there is nothing meaning you need to run steam to play the actual game once you have it installed on your PC.
Hopefully this doesn't mean everyone starts putting DLC onto their games, to prevent them from being used after they have been sold.

[freeformschooler]

There's a glaring issue with that. And that most people seem to be ignoring. The fact that there is no way to stop people from keeping a copy. A lot of steam games have no DLC, meaning that there is nothing meaning you need to run steam to play the actual game once you have it installed on your PC.

What are you talking about? Almost EVERY game in my Steam games list requires me to be running Steam to play, at least in offline mode. The executables, even without DLC (do you mean DRM?) flat-out don't work without launching them from Steam, or at least with Steam running.

[sneakey pete]

Whoops, meant DRM.

All paradox games that i have had (well, i haven't tested it with CK2) have allowed me to boot them without running steam, for example.
Paradox is not to happy about this ruling, as an aside.

[freeformschooler]

Yeah, I've mostly only noticed that with older games. I will admit for those games it would be an impairment. And for services without DRM... who knows?

[alexandertnt]

I agree.
AAA market tends to see rapid iterations of games.
Indie market less so.
I believe many people have a poor belief that replayability and replayability alone makes for a good game. I love The Walking Dead- yet I will never play it a second time, ever. I WILL buy another Telltale Games game, though (assuming they release more- and even then I may buy some of their existing titles).
Sure, replayability contributes to the 'goodness' of a game, but that is not the sole factor.
Kings Quest series was great, yet I've only played through most of them once. But I bought the next game, and the next, and the next... Sierra only benefited when I bought a game, not when I replayed the first game over and over (which I didn't).

I dont see how this would be signifantly impacted by resellable downloads, if you enjoyed the first, what is stopping you from buying the second when it comes out? Wouldn't you still buy it regardless of this ruling? If enough people want a sequal, then there is potential sales there. For there to be copies in the second hand market, they need to be purchased first hand first, so the second hand market wont stop that.


I agree with the statement that it will encourage game companies to act differently. The constant stream of Modern Warefare's, for example would be less viable and they would have to come up with something worth while to actually encourage people to purchase the new game instead of a second hand copy of the old, virtually identical game. Also if you are someone who thinks the newer MW's are good, then there is nothing stopping you from purchasing them, and if enough people think the same ways, then people will continue to buy them.

This doesn't change people's desire for games, only the method that money can change hands. This allows more freedom for the market. If there is no money going into EA/Activision etc, then no one wants their games. They should make better games. Games which are actually better then the older ones.

[Goron]

I agree.
AAA market tends to see rapid iterations of games.
Indie market less so.
I believe many people have a poor belief that replayability and replayability alone makes for a good game. I love The Walking Dead- yet I will never play it a second time, ever. I WILL buy another Telltale Games game, though (assuming they release more- and even then I may buy some of their existing titles).
Sure, replayability contributes to the 'goodness' of a game, but that is not the sole factor.
Kings Quest series was great, yet I've only played through most of them once. But I bought the next game, and the next, and the next... Sierra only benefited when I bought a game, not when I replayed the first game over and over (which I didn't).

I dont see how this would be signifantly impacted by resellable downloads

And considering my quoted post made not one mention of an impact by resellable downloads I am not sure what you point is... :-)

[fenrif]

There's a glaring issue with that. And that most people seem to be ignoring. The fact that there is no way to stop people from keeping a copy. A lot of steam games have no DLC, meaning that there is nothing meaning you need to run steam to play the actual game once you have it installed on your PC.
Hopefully this doesn't mean everyone starts putting DLC onto their games, to prevent them from being used after they have been sold.

So we're in exactly the same situation we're in now, where anyone can get a copy of any game for free if they have the inclination. It's kind of a moot point at this stage that you can copy games, the entire concept of piracy is based on it.

Re: fenrif
Ah, I see. You seem to have missed some of my point. When I say 'initial sale' I do not mean 'first week of release', I mean 'the point of sale when a customer buys it from a distributor in such a way that the developer makes money'.
So my argument that a game that people want to continue playing for a long time that sells 100 copies makes the developer the EXACT SAME amount of money as a game that people play for ten minutes then drop but still sold 100 copies stands true. The fact that arma2 is selling top on steam furthers my point, those steam sales are INITIAL SALES. They are making money off of them, and they will benefit when arma3 comes out because many of those customers will then buy arma 3. BI cannot just sit on arma2 forever. Initial sales are ONE TIME money generating events. They do not benefit from how long someone plays the game, just as long as it sells.
Please note that I NEVER wrote that companies benefit from making bad games. I only wrote that companies can only benefit past first sale by making MORE games, to generate more first sales. That is not to say a company can make a shitty game then benefi
T by releasing a sequel because no one will buy the sequel. All I say is that a company has incentive to make many GOOD games, because each new game can be a sale to repeat customers. If you only make one game you will (almost) never see a repeat customer.

But your original post said that developers have no monetary incentive to make good games with depth and replayability... Which ignores hugely important factors in the entertainment buisness like brand loyalty, word of mouth advertising, the massive competition within the industry, etc. If your point was "developers should, after making a game, start working on another game." Then I hope you can see why I'm confused, because noone at any point suggested otherwise. This is because it'd be the equivalent of saying "water is not wet." :S

[Goron]

But your original post said that developers have no monetary incentive to make good games with depth and replayability... Which ignores hugely important factors in the entertainment buisness like brand loyalty, word of mouth advertising, the massive competition within the industry, etc. If your point was "developers should, after making a game, start working on another game." Then I hope you can see why I'm confused, because noone at any point suggested otherwise. This is because it'd be the equivalent of saying "water is not wet." :S

Well, my intent was to dispute the claim that devs now have the more incentive to make games that people want to keep and play more. I do not believe I ever indicated I thought devs had no incentive, monetary or not, to make good games... Simply that they have incentive to make games that entice the user to buy more of; and that length of play has absolutely no effect on a dev's gain. Since I do not believe that replayability and quality are synonyms that means a dev would benefit from making many more shorter lifespan games (good games, still, just less replayability) than fewer longer (good) lifespan games. Everyone wins my way, too. Users have a larger saturated used market to feed off of AND more games to play. Devs have a larger new market, too. And since EA is evidence that people will still buy games even with short lifespans (even to the point of forced game over due to server shutdown) I believe I can even claim that devs have incentive to skirt on replayability in general...