While the UK High Court is busy banning piracy sites, the French High Court has just finished up another battle within the gaming industry. The French High Court has just ruled that Valve must make some drastic changes to their digital games storefront, Steam, stating that all French users must be allowed to resell their digital games. The legal dispute was led by the French consumer rights association, the UFC Que Choisir, who initially filed the lawsuit against Valve back in 2015. As it stands currently, purchases made on Steam are tied to your account, and once redeemed, cannot be resold--only refunded under certain circumstances.

The court ruled that not allowing for consumers to resell their digital library goes against European law, and that Valve has 30 days to comply, or will risk a daily fine of 3,000 Euros for up to six months, until a change is made. Valve, not pleased with the ruling, has decided to appeal the decision, with a representative claiming, "We disagree with the decision of the Paris Court of First Instance, and will appeal it. The decision will have no effect on Steam while the case is on appeal".

Previously, Valve dealt with an Australian legal battle, in which the courts ruled that Valve must implement a refund policy, which it appealed, and then lost against. A year after, Steam added a refund policy for games purchased on the storefront. Should Valve's appeal be dismissed, it could also open the gates to other digital storefronts being investigated, fined, and forced to add a method of reselling their digital titles.

Source

 

[Xzi]

Oh, poor little Valve, I feel so very sad for you *Sarcasm*

This isn't limited to Valve. If it's ruled that the ability to resell digital items is mandatory, every storefront-launcher on PC, as well as all console digital storefronts will be affected. Not to mention digital music and digital movie storefronts. Apple, Google, Amazon, basically every tech company has a vested interest here.

 

[MohammedQ8]

I never laught so hard hehe.

 

[Xzi]

If these courts keep this up, next thing you know, they will require downloads with cloud services.

Now that would be a move I'd definitely support, but OTOH I could see it causing the price of Xbox Game Pass, Netflix, and etc to skyrocket.

 

[Foxi4]

Sure, it "makes sense" to allow people to buy things on Steam with stolen money then sell the games effectively using Steam to launder their illegal cash like they do with G2A or for people to pay 1€ for a bundle then sell the games at their normal price making 100€ in return /s

That sounds like a Valve problem, not a me problem. Digital rights supersede minor inconvenience, the onus is on Valve to ensure that the transactions on their marketplace are legitimate. When you purchase a video game, physical or otherwise, what you're actually paying for is a license to use software. It stands to reason that you should be able to resell this license if that is your fancy - you paid for it, it belongs to you.

 

[MasterJ360]

oof! I think Steam will throw a punch back to punish us somehow.

 

[Bladexdsl]

how are you supposed to resell your digital games than...just through steam? and how will you be paid...with cards and gems? yeah fuck that

 

[PrincessLillie]

So does this mean we'll eventually be able to resell "used" games from our library? Interesting. I see several ways this could be abused, but interesting nonetheless.

 

[erikas]

Prices wouldn't necessarily rise, but at the very least, digital games would be discounted at a much slower rate. Sites like GreenManGaming and Humble Bundle would be hit hardest, probably shut down altogether, and we definitely wouldn't see any type of launch discounts happening any more.

While there is a possibility that discounts would not happen as often, I do think this is the right decision, because all my digital games now have resale value. If i cannot sell it then i do not own it. This was the reason i do not ever buy digital games on consoles. And its not like this isn't happening to some extent already. Sites like g2a and kinguin exist, and you can sell steam gifts on those. Companies have been pretending for years that digital goods are real in places where it suits them, but not where it suits the consumer.

 

[Foxi4]

This isn't limited to Valve. If it's ruled that the ability to resell digital items is mandatory, every storefront-launcher on PC, as well as all console digital storefronts will be affected. Not to mention digital music and digital movie storefronts. Apple, Google, Amazon, basically every tech company has a vested interest here.

Anyone in their right mind should hope to God that it does stand then, and becomes a global standard. It's a travesty that this isn't the status quo as is - since the dawn of digital storefronts people have always complained that they don't "truly own" their digital copies. Well, time to own them, boys and girls. To me this is a basic digital rights issue - if you pay for something, you own it and you get to do whatever you want with it, which includes the right to resell. Any deviation from that ideal is an infringenent of self-evident rights of the user that must be corrected.

 

[MasterJ360]

Anyone in their right mind should hope to God that it does stand then, and becomes a global standard. It's a travesty that this isn't the status quo as is - since the beginning of digital downloads people have always complained that they don't "truly own" their digital copies. Well, time to own them, boys and girls. To me this is a basic digital rights issue - if you pay for something, you own it and you get to do whatever you want with it, which includes the right to resell. Any deviation from that ideal is an infringenent of self-evident rights of the user.

Pretty much, we have to resort to 3rd party tools/files just to play our games offline as a bypass from Steam.

 

[Costello]

Anyone in their right mind should hope to God that it does stand then, and becomes a global standard. It's a travesty that this isn't the status quo as is - since the dawn of digital storefronts people have always complained that they don't "truly own" their digital copies. Well, time to own them, boys and girls. To me this is a basic digital rights issue - if you pay for something, you own it and you get to do whatever you want with it, which includes the right to resell. Any deviation from that ideal is an infringenent of self-evident rights of the user that must be corrected.

spoken like a true libertarian! lol

But yeah, I couldn't agree more. It's not because the physical storage medium is different that you should have less rights over your purchase.
Go french courts! hope Valve loses the appeal. Power to the consumers

 

[Foxi4]

Pretty much, we have to resort to 3rd party tools/files just to play our games offline as a bypass from Steam.

That in itself is egregious, Steam API integration should be an entirely optional element of software that can be disabled at will. Launchers are getting more and more embedded and the amount of resources they hog only ever goes up. I truly miss the days of just double-clicking on an executable and getting straight into the game, I really don't need a zillion mandatory launchers to complicate a process that used to be so simple.

 

[Randy95354]

So is it possible to create a french account even though im not in france just incase i want to sell my games?

 

[Ev1lbl0w]

Honestly I'm not sure if this is good or not, but I believe this is opening a big can of worms.

Like, what is the market of "used" digital games? Can they be resold for full price, or they count as "used" and less valuable? What about games that became free, for example? (CS:GO, on the top of my head) And what about other resellers who already sell these games for lower prices?

This is such a gray area, I don't understand how things will evolve if this law passes.

 

[ThoD]

That sounds like a Valve problem, not a me problem. Digital rights supercede minor inconvenience, the onus is on Valve to ensure that the transactions on their marketplace are legitimate. When you purchase a video game, physical or otherwise, what you're actually paying for is a license to use software. It stands to reason that you should be able to resell this license if that is your fancy - you paid for it, it belongs to you.

The license you pay for is basically a permission to use something, it's non-transferable for many reasons. It's like saying that because you bought an album on iTunes you are allowed to resell it to someone else, basically a roundabout way of paid piracy if you think about it, since the creator of the item in question doesn't make anything from said resale. Physical products are different because you pay for the product directly, not a license, so people need to stop confusing the two.

As for the "it's on Valve to regulate" BS, no it's not, you can't expect them to regulate every single transaction among the largest playerbase in the world just because you say so, it's not their responsibility. Also, if this actually becomes a thing, you can kiss discounts goodbye forever, almost all games will be full priced at 60€ and there won't be ANY free giveaways anymore, which will pretty much kill anything relating to selling media licenses online, be it for games, movies, music, anime, books, etc. and will affect EVEN storefronts like GOG despite it selling games directly instead of just a license. If you think selling the stuff in your library is worth never having any discounts again and all storefronts eventually shutting down because people will stop paying for games and just pirate everything (which means less money goes to devs and less games are made on top of that), then go ahead and support this nonsense.

 

[Xzi]

Anyone in their right mind should hope to God that it does stand then, and becomes a global standard. It's a travesty that this isn't the status quo as is - since the dawn of digital storefronts people have always complained that they don't "truly own" their digital copies. Well, time to own them, boys and girls. To me this is a basic digital rights issue - if you pay for something, you own it and you get to do whatever you want with it, which includes the right to resell. Any deviation from that ideal is an infringenent of self-evident rights of the user.

The problem being that this is just as likely to result in less individual ownership and a faster push toward streaming services so that publishers/developers retain more control over distribution. Existing digital games will quickly be devalued because there are millions of perfect copies in circulation at any given moment; digital licenses don't degrade as physical items do, and thus don't maintain the necessary balance of supply and demand.

 

[Deleted User]

Well, this court decision may look silly, but the full digital market is completly dumb to begin with.

We are dealing here with gaming digital data, sure, but it has always been provided with physical supports simply protected with encryption systems and serial keys.
It makes NO SENSE AT ALL to sell something purely virtual, stored in SOMEONE ELSE'S SERVER. Everyone working in the market of precious metals will tell you that: ETF are for suckers, always buy physical.
Why ? Because the real physical owner of the product, the seller, has no obligation to give you access to the vault where are your belongings.

Every virtual purchase on steam should be logically accompanied with a physical copy, sent at home, without any internet connection necessary for installation. End of controversy.
Carry on "UFC que choisir" !

Being able to resell virtual stuff is a small compensation, but every private company knows how to profit of this situation (creation of a new market, its control, credit card registration becomes mandatory, which will make easier next transactions for impulsive buyers etc...).

What about piracy then ?
History showed us that its impact on industry is more a myth than something determinant.
On the other hand, Indie games would need physical copies, which is more difficult for them...Disks including several small studios works would be an elegant solution.

 

[Youkai]

Wouldn't hurt Multiplayer games much (like shooter that most people only play online) but for single player Story based games ... you play it, finish it within a week and resell it again ...
Guess this would finaly kill most single player / story based games as it would probably be much less of a hassle to sell trough steam than the find someone who trusts you pays and then having to send the game over by post.

 

[Foxi4]

The license you pay for is basically a permission to use something, it's non-transferable for many reasons. It's like saying that because you bought an album on iTunes you are allowed to resell it to someone else, basically a roundabout way of paid piracy if you think about it, since the creator of the item in question doesn't make anything from said resale. Physical products are different because you pay for the product directly, not a license, so people need to stop confusing the two.

As for the "it's on Valve to regulate" BS, no it's not, you can't expect them to regulate every single transaction among the largest playerbase in the world just because you say so, it's not their responsibility. Also, if this actually becomes a thing, you can kiss discounts goodbye forever, almost all games will be full priced at 60€ and there won't be ANY free giveaways anymore, which will pretty much kill anything relating to selling media licenses online, be it for games, movies, music, anime, books, etc. and will affect EVEN storefronts like GOG despite it selling games directly instead of just a license. If you think selling the stuff in your library is worth never having any discounts again and all storefronts eventually shutting down because people will stop paying for games and just pirate everything (which means less money goes to devs and less games are made on top of that), then go ahead and support this nonsense.

Absolute nonsense and poppycock. The author of the music album, film or video game *already got paid*, they got paid the first time the copy was sold. There is absolutely no reason why ownership of digital items should not be transferable or should operate in any way differently from the ownership of physical copies - it's the same license, only the storage medium and method of delivery is different. It is *absolutely* up to Valve to ensure that transactions on their platform are legal - it's their platform. I'm sorry that you're afraid of people breaking the law, but that's no reason to curtail basic consumer rights. If they do not wish to be responsible for reselling digital copies, they have the option to allow users to convert their copies into Steam keys that they can resell themselves via different means, but they *should* provide some method of selling them.

The problem being that this is just as likely to result in less individual ownership and a faster push toward streaming services so that publishers/developers retain more control over distribution. Existing digital games will quickly be devalued because there are millions of perfect copies in circulation at any given moment; digital licenses don't degrade as physical items do, and thus don't maintain the necessary balance of supply and demand.

Then don't do business with companies that infringe upon your consumer rights or offer you goods in a format you don't like. I don't understand why you people are so desperate not to rock the boat, we've been waiting for an opportunity to push something like this through for years.

 

[KleinesSinchen]

The license you pay for is basically a permission to use something, it's non-transferable for many reasons. It's like saying that because you bought an album on iTunes you are allowed to resell it to someone else, basically a roundabout way of paid piracy if you think about it, since the creator of the item in question doesn't make anything from said resale. Physical products are different because you pay for the product directly, not a license, so people need to stop confusing the two.
[…]

I do not see a difference between a license with a physical medium (cartridige, disc) and purely immaterial license:

Customer A buys a license with physical medium → number of sold valid licenses increases by 1 and the creator gets money.
Customer A sells their license with physical medium to Customer B → number of valid licenses stays the same and creator gets nothing.

Customer A buys a license without physical medium → number of sold valid licenses increases by 1 and the creator gets money.
Customer A sells their license without physical medium to Customer B → number of valid licenses stays the same and creator gets nothing.

In both cases the customers don't own the game but a license to use it. In the first case there is a storage medium involved in the second not. I fail seeing "paid piracy" in either case. If reselling immaterial licenses is paid piracy, this is also true for licenses with physical token.