Valve Sued In Germany Over Right To Resell Games

Like one poster said, things wont turn out the way you wanted. People are selfish and never think about how things will really pan out, when the government gets involved and tries to force a business model to change, well it will change.

I felt I have really got some great prices and deals because of the way steam works. Multipacks to load up the family, ridiculously low prices etc... All I sacrifice to get that is the ability to sell used games. Personally I am getting better prices on new games than I ever did no used games so the system was working fine for me and I voted with my wallet. Then again i dont buy titles at release for $60. I also appreciate that with steam money goes to the publishers so they can actually give us new good games. Used games benifit none of us who game, its just money in the pocket of some flipper so he can go buy something else with it.

As others have said all companies will do is force more and more server side content, move away from local single player etc... Companies will find the way to make money in the system thats it. More DLC, more servers for old games shutting down earlier etc.. That is all its going to do.
 
GaryJohnson said:
dgz said:
the button clearly says Buy, not rent or anything else./QUOTE]

You can "buy" non-transferable services just like you can "buy" transferable goods so I don't see how that's misleading if they're selling software as a service.
Click to expand...

Well, apparently games on Steam are not considered non-transferable services by German law.
Click to expand...
 
Skripka said:
OTOH...There's that EULA you get fed and never read when you buy/install a game that pretty explicitly tells you that you can fck off if you don't like the rental non-ownership terms.
Click to expand...

EULA's arent binding in all countries, and indeed, even the US... 'you agree as user to pay EA $100 + 25% of taxable income per week for life', or 'you agree to give up your second born' wouldnt hold up well... let alone first sale rights
 
is it pretty sad that I purchase the game over steam and I am not allowed to sell it. I would SUE VALUE as well.
 
Another obvious issue is buying a game in a retail store then activating it on steam. Now it's tied to your account and can't be resold, violating your rights to the first sale doctrine. It would be nice to be able to gift the games that I don't play anymore. However, I am happy with the reduced digital prices instead. The problem is certain companies like EA that charge full price year round for a digital game that is permanently tied to your account. Or what I often see with Kindle, it'd be great for textbooks if you don't mind paying the full price of a brand new textbook for an ebook. There's no way an ebook should ever cost $200, but hey at least you can gift the ebook at the end of the semester.
 
BloodDonor said:
EULA's arent binding in all countries, and indeed, even the US... 'you agree as user to pay EA $100 + 25% of taxable income per week for life', or 'you agree to give up your second born' wouldnt hold up well... let alone first sale rights
Click to expand...

There is an easy way to make the EULA 100% binding in all countries, even the EU ... all they need to do is get rid of the physical copy completely (only sell digital) and make you sign and date the EULA prior to purchase (establishing a contract with the user) ... if you don't sign then you can't purchase the software ... if they did that then the EULA would be granted all the protections of contract law ... if people push too aggressively for the resale doctrine they could implement that and the formal subscription model (initial purchase with annual renewal fee)
 
I've always thought the fact that people couldn't resell was a reason developers liked Steam, and for the most part, offer reasonable prices or sales.
Of course I never factor resale value into my decisions as I base a game off its price at the time and decide it to be worth the cost. (I only buy $1-$10 games. I don't believe any games are worth $60 personally.)
 
LastQuestion said:
Steam sales are so successful in large part due to the overall business model. I'd wager any country where you gain to right to resell your Steam library would eventually find themselves without Steam sales. HF with that.
Click to expand...

Most people are missing this obvious point. Being able to move massive amounts of volume is one of the key reasons Steam can have its insane sales. You make up the relatively low cost per unit by just selling large numbers of units. If Steam is forced to allow resale, it will directly compete with new units being sold therefore changing the business model. You might win the right to sell used copies but you could also end up paying a higher up front price because of it.
 
One more thought to consider. Valve may permit you to resell the license, but the service of downloading the game into the steam client is separate from the license to use the software. Aka, they can't stop you from transferring the license, they can't stop the new owner from activating the license. But they do no have to allow the new owner to download the software as the download portion is a service and not part of first sale doctrine. Having to copy the data from your pc to whoever you sold the game to might be enough barrier to make this irrelevant.
 
If I remember right they just have to allow resale, they don't have to provide the avenues to which the software can be sold/traded.
 
I love how people want the customer to win but it will only be a small victory.

The restrictions are in place not because of Valve but because of the publishers. If you want ease of access and fair DRM you have to forgo some features.

If you are allowed to resell digital downloads you get from Steam I can see less and less publishers selling their games on the service. It is the same thing with Valve allowing publishers to stack their own DRM on top of Steam DRM. Valve hates it but if they did not allow it the publishers would just go elsewhere.
 
The Steam ToS clearly states that all purchases are subscriptions. If people don't like it, then they shouldn't use the service.

While it's true the legality of ToSs haven't been tested fully (even in the US) it's right there in writing. A quick 1-minute skim of the ToS is all it takes.
 
What I never understood about steam is when you buy a bundle but lets say you already own one of the games in that bundle, you don't get said game again... yet the price stays the same ! Riddle me that one .
 
iTYPE said:
What I never understood about steam is when you buy a bundle but lets say you already own one of the games in that bundle, you don't get said game again... yet the price stays the same ! Riddle me that one .
Click to expand...
That one is in the ToS also. All bundles are essentially 1 item, so extra copies can't go into your Steam Inventory.
 
pantsburgh said:
The Steam ToS clearly states that all purchases are subscriptions.
Click to expand...

But ToS cannot overwrite laws, as their scope is seen as below that of actual laws and legality, more a "gentleman's agreement" with no actual basis. As these new laws obviously overrule all of that, it doesn't matter what it says (or what it said).

If you signed a license that it would be ok for them to blow up your house, they'd still get in trouble with the law for doing so, as it's illegal.
 
>Consumer advocates win
>Valve makes it to where you can gift any game
>Game publishers migrate their games to Origin
 
...but isn't that how the ToS works for ANY and ALL forms of media, though? As far as I know, consumers don't actually "own" any movie, TV show, video game, production software, OS, music album/track or ANY entertainment media that they have purchased, and we never have, ever, at all, in any shape or form. All we purchase is the right to use the media as specifically intended by the copyright holder/product owner/bla bla bla. Never have we purchased the right to own media and "do with it what [we] want".

I guess Valve just happened to be the poor company who's ToS turned out to be the first ToS that anyone in Germany has ever read before?

:confused:
 
stop!theradio said:
I guess Valve just happened to be the poor company who's ToS turned out to be the first ToS that anyone in Germany has ever read before?

:confused:
Click to expand...

The EU law was recently changed to specifically say that digitally software was able to be resold. So these people are just trying to enforce their legally held consumer rights according to this new law, which Valve are apparently in breach of (they did release a new EULA a few days after it came out that you were forced to sign...which might have been related). Why them is probably because they are (probably) the biggest/best known digital distributor. :p
 
DeathPrincess said:
The EU law was recently changed to specifically say that digitally software was able to be resold. So these people are just trying to enforce their legally held consumer rights according to this new law, which Valve are apparently in breach of (they did release a new EULA a few days after it came out that you were forced to sign...which might have been related). Why them is probably because they are (probably) the biggest/best known digital distributor. :p
Click to expand...

They should go after Apple then (if they have the balls to do that ;)). They are the biggest digital music distributor, with more customers than the entire PC gaming community combined.

Video game is just the easy scapegoat for everything these days.
 
DeathPrincess said:
But ToS cannot overwrite laws, as their scope is seen as below that of actual laws and legality, more a "gentleman's agreement" with no actual basis. As these new laws obviously overrule all of that, it doesn't matter what it says (or what it said).

If you signed a license that it would be ok for them to blow up your house, they'd still get in trouble with the law for doing so, as it's illegal.
Click to expand...

If they establish an actual contract with the user they should be protected under contract law ... the first sale doctrine doesn't apply if you don't own the media in question (at least in the USA) ... so if they eliminate the physical copy (only sell digital) and make you accept the license indicating you have a perpetual lease prior to purchase then they should be okay since the user is no longer buying the software but only licensing it (and if you fail to accept the license agreement then you can't purchase the software)

It would only be where you have Steamworks titles that sell a physical disc but then convert you to a Steam license afterwards that there might still be issues ... although even that is workable if they stop supporting brick and mortar stores and direct sell the physical media (at which point they could give you the same license agreement prior to purchase indicating that you are not purchasing the actual software only a lease on it that is non-transferable) ... that would certainly meet the requirements of the law in the USA (not sure in the EU though ... they have a much more convoluted legal system than the USA)
 
necrosis said:
I love how people want the customer to win but it will only be a small victory.

The restrictions are in place not because of Valve but because of the publishers. If you want ease of access and fair DRM you have to forgo some features.

If you are allowed to resell digital downloads you get from Steam I can see less and less publishers selling their games on the service. It is the same thing with Valve allowing publishers to stack their own DRM on top of Steam DRM. Valve hates it but if they did not allow it the publishers would just go elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Unless it happens in both the US (doubtful) and Europe, I doubt anyone will be pulling their games from it. But yeah, less sales in the regions where this happens.
 
jpm100 said:
Well if they win, kiss -75% sales goodbye.
Click to expand...

I'm hoping Valve wins this.

It's the best digital distribution system out there.

Often has sales which are so cheap no one really has a right to bitch.

Those bringing the law suit think they own the games, they do not.

If Valve should lose this suit, the cheaper games, and quantity will likely drop drastically.

EU tries to stick up for the consumer, which is good in many cases, but in this case they got it wrong. EU historically has been a bunch of theieves when it comes to software, so much so that many previous platforms were killed by the sheer volume of piracy there. (see Amiga).

This guy can stick it up his cornhole and actually pay like he is supposed to.
 
jpm100 said:
Well if they win, kiss -75% sales goodbye.
Click to expand...

Its going to be a bad day for indie dev too. They do not have the selling power like AAA titles do that make people want to buy them day 1. At least right now, even if people waited for sales, the dev still gets a little something out of it.

With re-sale, the dev is not going to see those money as people passes the game from hand to hand, and this is something I strongly disagree with.
 
kbrickley said:
If they establish an actual contract with the user they should be protected under contract law ... the first sale doctrine doesn't apply if you don't own the media in question (at least in the USA) ... so if they eliminate the physical copy (only sell digital) and make you accept the license indicating you have a perpetual lease prior to purchase then they should be okay since the user is no longer buying the software but only licensing it (and if you fail to accept the license agreement then you can't purchase the software)

It would only be where you have Steamworks titles that sell a physical disc but then convert you to a Steam license afterwards that there might still be issues ... although even that is workable if they stop supporting brick and mortar stores and direct sell the physical media (at which point they could give you the same license agreement prior to purchase indicating that you are not purchasing the actual software only a lease on it that is non-transferable) ... that would certainly meet the requirements of the law in the USA (not sure in the EU though ... they have a much more convoluted legal system than the USA)
Click to expand...

And why don't you understand that a contract between two parties, can't break a law. The EU has recently made it law, that you own the things you purchase. They're basically saying 'fuck off' to the notion that you don't own the software you purchase. I agree wholeheartedly. What makes software so much more special then anything else that I purchase and can resell? Why do I have to pay upwards of 4k for graphics software, and am not allowed to own it? It's just ridiculous. Just because I agree to their terms, doesn't make it right.
 
I'd accept some form of Steam store credit to just respend at steam. I'm terrible at selling off old hardware and games and other crap. I don't really care about selling off my steam library, I bought 90% of it during the sales. I would like the ability to loan games out, like you can do now with books you buy for a Kindle.
 
percydaman said:
And why don't you understand that a contract between two parties, can't break a law. The EU has recently made it law, that you own the things you purchase. They're basically saying 'fuck off' to the notion that you don't own the software you purchase. I agree wholeheartedly. What makes software so much more special then anything else that I purchase and can resell? Why do I have to pay upwards of 4k for graphics software, and am not allowed to own it? It's just ridiculous. Just because I agree to their terms, doesn't make it right.
Click to expand...
They're saying 'fuck off' to something this in the majority of cases dollarwise is an import. Aside from games, most purchased software comes out of North America. And even a lot of games made in Europe are under US or other based Publisher houses.

This is about money and the fact Europe pays big money to places to Redmond. If its the law going forward, fine with them. If they made it retroactive, they are stealing.

Personally I believe that software licensing is a system that should be legal. However, I disagree with the whole EULA click here model of informing a consumer. The consumer should know the bullshit before they leave the store, so you don't have to wade through a bunch of BS with a lawyer and go through the bs of taking software back.

But if someone put money down on a licensing system, they have only themselves to blame.
 
percydaman said:
And why don't you understand that a contract between two parties, can't break a law. The EU has recently made it law, that you own the things you purchase. They're basically saying 'fuck off' to the notion that you don't own the software you purchase. I agree wholeheartedly. What makes software so much more special then anything else that I purchase and can resell? Why do I have to pay upwards of 4k for graphics software, and am not allowed to own it? It's just ridiculous. Just because I agree to their terms, doesn't make it right.
Click to expand...

So just be ready for the other way game companies can fix this ... everything will become an MMO style model (online only games even for single player, like Diablo 3) ... since the EU ruling requires the original owner to completely uninstall the software to comply with their resale allowance this would be the only way games could guarantee that ... they will also switch to account based purchases (maps, weapons, features, etc) that aren't transferable (since they are tied to the account which you can't sell) ... as others have noted this might very well be the death of most independent software (or we will get an iTunes style arrangement where they tie games to an account rather than a standalone purchase or they also switch to the non-transferable in app purchase model) ... I can understand that there is a group of people that want this resale change but I think they aren't really interested in gaming since getting this would be very bad for the industry ;)
 
kbrickley said:
So just be ready for the other way game companies can fix this ... everything will become an MMO style model (online only games even for single player, like Diablo 3) ... since the EU ruling requires the original owner to completely uninstall the software to comply with their resale allowance this would be the only way games could guarantee that ... they will also switch to account based purchases (maps, weapons, features, etc) that aren't transferable (since they are tied to the account which you can't sell) ... as others have noted this might very well be the death of most independent software (or we will get an iTunes style arrangement where they tie games to an account rather than a standalone purchase or they also switch to the non-transferable in app purchase model) ... I can understand that there is a group of people that want this resale change but I think they aren't really interested in gaming since getting this would be very bad for the industry ;)
Click to expand...

Except the thing you're talking about is exactly what the VZVB is opposing. We already have games tied to accounts that we can't transfer (Steam, Origin, Ubisoft accounts). We already have publishers requiring single player games to be online (online activation, Ubisoft and it's games that require you to be online, Steam and it's offline mode that you first have to be online to enable).

That's what the VZVB is opposing. The ability of publishers to lock down licences so you can't sell them. They've already said "the trading of used licences is legal", now they're trying to take the next step of "you must allow an avenue for the trading of used licences".

As I've said in the past I'm undecided on the ability to resell game licences.

On the one hand, I understand that the publisher might be crying over it and certain games it'd affect far more than others (if a game only has a 5-10 hour single player component, the 2nd hand market will be huge, if a game has a multiplayer component or is like Skyrim where the single player component is massive, the 2nd hand market would be much smaller).

On the other hand, I actually don't think it'd affect most publishers' sales massively. Most games make the most money in the first week or two off the "must have it now" gamers when used sales aren't as significant and prices are higher, and this is true of both PC games and console games. Then as time goes on, the used market for a game might swell, but over this period the "new" price for the game typically falls massively anyway.

That's just my thoughts on it, that might not be the case, who knows. Games still sell massive amounts despite piracy, I think they'll still sell massive amounts with a 2nd hand market just as console games do now.

What I care far more about is whether or not the gamer has any rights to their games. EULA clauses like "we reserve the right to terminate this service whenever we please" are absolute bullshit and should not exist. The fact EA can take away the games you paid for because of something you did in a beta or on the forum of a completely unrelated game is something that should not exist.

That's why I think EULAs should be standardised, it's more than just resale of games, it's the fact gamers don't know where they stand at the moment and the fact that where they stand varies from game to game. Something like "we are allowed to end service as we desire" should be standardised to "we may only end service to online components after X amount of time and only to this game (not all your games) and only for Y reasons", where X and Y must be clearly stated at the START of the EULA and are limited to specific reasons ("coz we feel like" or "because you did something in an unrelated product" being 2 disallowed reasons for terminating service, "coz you hacked" being one of the allowed reasons).

As software becomes more "point and click to buy" and over the course of a day you might buy several pieces of software, consumers need to be able to buy software with confidence in their rights and limitations and that those rights and limitations are consistent with other software rather than just being a one off for each individual piece of software which requires hours of reading a EULA to decipher.
 
I hope they win this case and make it a trend across the EU, hopefully making its way down here somehow. The consumer rights down here, and in this case the first sale doctrine, is frankly in tatters, something pro-consumer would be a nice change.
 
kbrickley said:
So just be ready for the other way game companies can fix this ... everything will become an MMO style model (online only games even for single player, like Diablo 3) ... since the EU ruling requires the original owner to completely uninstall the software to comply with their resale allowance this would be the only way games could guarantee that ... they will also switch to account based purchases (maps, weapons, features, etc) that aren't transferable (since they are tied to the account which you can't sell) ... as others have noted this might very well be the death of most independent software (or we will get an iTunes style arrangement where they tie games to an account rather than a standalone purchase or they also switch to the non-transferable in app purchase model) ... I can understand that there is a group of people that want this resale change but I think they aren't really interested in gaming since getting this would be very bad for the industry ;)
Click to expand...

As far as I'm concerned, this is nothing more then a technical problem. I'm not without the ability to compromise. Say, make it possible to resell a game from steam or some other online portal. Require a small fee (a couple bucks) for transfer of the game, or something along those lines. Those fees go to the developer etc etc. Customers get to resell their games, developers get an added revenue stream. It's not impossible to create a compromise, while not perfect, is at least something that doesn't involve bending over, whenever I pay the same price for a game online, that I would at the store.

Indie developers should thank their lucky stars, they even have a vehicle for getting their games sold. If they had to compete for shelf space in a brick and mortar with a AAA game, then they lose.
 
I suppose I am fine with transferring licenses. I supported it for fully for hard copy games. And only really balked at the used market for DD games based on the continuing cost to the service provider for maintaining game and download server. Now, if for purely digital games, either the person selling the game has to make back up media to give to the used buyer, or Origin, GOG, Steam, etc, get to charge the new owner for the download service, I can get behind it. I still think it will result in, at the very least, a limited publisher pull out of DD title availability in the affected regions.
 
Well, if it was me, i'd like to be able to sell a DD game.
BUT i think one of the few ways to do it that after the payment was made and the game sent to the buyer, it would be my guess is that the service would flag your account and automatically delete if from your library/files unless you brought it again. So, there wouldn't be any chance of people selling games, ect and still keeping it.
(Which would be a worry as some people would end up selling the same game numerous times if it wasn't deleted or made to not work outside of it's native files..lol)
:p
 
I rarely want to sell a game I bought on Steam. I'd love to be able to give away games I longer play to other people. How about they come to a happy medium where I get to buy new games at a lower price if I relinquish my right to re-sell or pay a normal price and keep my right to sell? If someone buys one of my Steam games there will be a small transaction fee. Downloads may be cheap, but it's not free.
 
I hope that they will send $team packing. It is worst parasite of PC game market.Lately Newell said something about Apple. How bad they are when compared to PC. Well simply put, Steam/Valve is Apple of PC world.

User has no freedom at all. Starting with trivial things like choosing you own place to install different programs, requirement to run 3rd party parasite that monitors user every move (even when in so-called 'off-line mode'). I have nothing against DRM, but that should be one-off and goodbye (not to mention DRM-free productions like fab GalCiv2). No need to use some intrusive, cumbersome pseudo-keylogger. And never ever I will buy single player game, purely off-line title which requires on-line activation or perma-on-line - no matter who sells it [like X-3 Albion Prelude or incoming X-Rebirth - Egosoft can choke it as far I'm concerned:mad:]..

Good luck to that German bloke/group. He/they has/have my full support. I used $team twice and never again. If game requires $teamworks I simply forget about any given title. And games which have CD/DVD version but are tied to and require $team-only account is just outrageous way of cheating the customer. If they ban $team across EU I will be first to drink for that! :thumbs up: :bringiton:
 
kbrickley said:
There is an easy way to make the EULA 100% binding in all countries, even the EU ... all they need to do is get rid of the physical copy completely (only sell digital) and make you sign and date the EULA prior to purchase (establishing a contract with the user) ... if you don't sign then you can't purchase the software ... if they did that then the EULA would be granted all the protections of contract law ... if people push too aggressively for the resale doctrine they could implement that and the formal subscription model (initial purchase with annual renewal fee)
Click to expand...


Still wouldn't hold water in NZ... you cannot contract out of your rights/responsibilities under the Consumer Guarantees Act here... i could sign 10000 page contract saying i do, and its worthless in that regard, I still have my rights
 
I would like to sue them as well. Good luck Germany. They can't just do whatever they want.

I bought Homefront at a garage sale for cheap. It had the original CD in perfect condition, the manual (with the activation key), and the original case in perfect condition. I tried using the activation key, and I knew it wasn't going to work. It's already been activated. So, I opened a support ticket, and they wouldn't give it to me. I even took pictures of the case, manual, and CD. They said, once a game has been activated, it can't be transfered. I OWN THE RETAIL PHYSICAL copy though. I should be able to play it. Whatever, I hear it's not a great game anyways.

Hope they lose and get owned. I hate Steam. I only use it to play games online with friends. DRM garbage for the games you own.
 
BloodDonor said:
Still wouldn't hold water in NZ... you cannot contract out of your rights/responsibilities under the Consumer Guarantees Act here... i could sign 10000 page contract saying i do, and its worthless in that regard, I still have my rights
Click to expand...

I just don't get how idiots refuse to believe that contracts made under the auspices of an EULA are some sort of binding, unbreakable contract, if said EULA breaks the laws of a given country. It's like they refuse to listen. The only reason we have the current status quo, is that these software companies haven't been truly tested in court yet. Not every country has the same laws, they WILL be deemed illegal in some countries.
 
Be careful what you wish for guys.....

Steam is about the only thing keeping the PC market alive. PC Gaming has seen a huge resurgence with the rise of Steam. Publishers see it as a great way to distribute for the platform.

You might win the ability to resell games and lose the releases you want to sell. Publishers are just not coming back to PC, creating top end PC games after years of just shitty ports. This could flip that all back around and push it back to consoles. No matter what emotions you put into this, gaming is a business, and if publishers don't see money on the PC, they will abandon it again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top