EU Rules on Resale of Downloaded Software

[Yoshi]

Once you've played a Steam game, you cannot sell, gift or trade it. GMG allows you to trade it. I've never tried it so I don't know the restrictions.

OMFG. I'm talking about a pilot that I believe is now over. I know good and God damned well how live, in production Steam works.

[Yoshi]

There's a million ways this has the potential to drive an insane amount of traffic to The Pirate Bay. Every single one of them involve publishers going DRM-retarded and trying their utmost to limit what the EU says their citizens have the right to do.

The EU is a cluster. I'm with cka that I hope this blows up in their faces.

[epmode]

I mean, it's nice to see a shift in power to the consumers but I can only see this backfiring. Whether it only screws the EU or everyone is still up in the air.

[Fe 26]

I hope it works out perfectly and eventually comes to the US, so I can get DLC on the cheap like I get used hard copies of games.


LOL at all you bitter angry shitheads wishing ill on the EU for siding with buyers. You'd think more of you would be for this. The ability to resell content has been one of the big counter points for the digital future. This could lead to one more negative being removed.

[epmode]

You're not thinking it through. If digital games have to be transferable, the publishers will put all sorts of shit in place to ensure that a game that has been removed from your account will not work again. In other words, awful, online-only DRM.

And then there's the bit how this ruling only affects games with an "indefinite" license termination date.

The lawyer battalions will surely find a way to make this miserable for the end-user.

I hope it works out perfectly and eventually comes to the US, so I can get DLC on the cheap like I get used hard copies of games.

See: Every Steam sale for the last few years.

[gameoverDude]

If this ruling does affect the way things are now, we're going to see a LOT more Diablo 3-style internet requirements. Sigh.

If this ruling does affect the way things are now, we're going to see a LOT more Diablo 3-style internet requirements. Sigh.

Surely Steam could handle this by just requiring you to revoke the game's activation before you put the license up for any transfer. StarFarce, SuckuROM, and "Daddy, can I play?" DRM are not necessary. Steamworks would stop MOST piracy. Still, I am afraid of publishers potentially going batshit with DCIP DRM.

A lot of Steam sales do make this moot, especially when you see stuff like a $40-50 game dropping to $10-$15 for a limited time. That's less than typical "used" prices.

One possible amendment? A clause forbidding "resale" or other license transfer of a DLC game for a set period after its release, like the first 4 months.

[James]

I actually fully support the rights of consumers to re-sell things they own. The user license is a pile of legalese bullshit. When you buy a game, you own it.

James

[bVork]

You're not thinking it through. If digital games have to be transferable, the publishers will put all sorts of shit in place to ensure that a game that has been removed from your account will not work again. In other words, awful, online-only DRM.

And then there's the bit how this ruling only affects games with an "indefinite" license termination date.

The lawyer battalions will surely find a way to make this miserable for the end-user.

European courts are extremely proactive in enforcing the spirit of their rulings. Look at the insane shit they forced MS to do after they decided that MS was abusing its dominant position in the market. MS had to do stuff like present people with a choice of randomly ordered web browsers, and offer a version of Windows without WMP. It was a far cry from the slap-on-the-wrist US antitrust case.

Bundling in DRM that "conveniently" locks out accounts or programs in the event of a license transfer probably wouldn't fly. And Europe is a big enough market, especially when it comes to PC games, that publishers won't be willing to just stop selling games there.

[gameoverDude]

I actually fully support the rights of consumers to re-sell things they own. The user license is a pile of legalese bullshit. When you buy a game, you own it.

James

Same here. I hate how the typical EULA pretty much says you're renting the game. If you bought the game, you shouldn't be just "renting" it. They have the right to say "you agree not to make illegitimate copies, you can make backups for personal use only" and other such things. Saying "This software is licensed, not sold" or "you may run it only one ONE computer" is where they cross the line. You own the game, you should be able to run it on ANY PC in your possession.

Continuous online connection requirements should be legally limited to MP games. Diablo III should have made SP playable offline, even if that would lead to certain features like the auction house being removed from that mode. If the servers suffer an outage... no SP for anyone, and anyone currently in SP gets kicked off the game. Also I think this would leave SP gamers open to griefing in some form.

Ubisoft has been pulling the online-only requirement from a lot of their games. HAWX 2 still has it though. Here's some fairly recent news about them. They're hoping enhanced post-launch and community support could eliminate the need for DRM.