2y ago

EU court rules people can resell digital games

www.gamingbible.com Steam users free to resell their digital games, court rules

Those who purchase digital games are free to resell them, the Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled.

Finally some good news! I've been waiting for quite a while for such a ruling.

Edit: Seems this cites an article from 2012, I didn't notice that (and it's still news to me). Though there's still hope that it'll happen, EU is slow, but usually eventually gets shit done.

Games @sh.itjust.works

EU court rules people can resell digital games

www.gamingbible.com /news/platform/steam/steam-users-free-resell-digital-games-court-rules-133831-20231204

64 35

Gaming @lemmy.zip

EU court rules people can resell digital games

www.gamingbible.com /news/platform/steam/steam-users-free-resell-digital-games-court-rules-133831-20231204

24 3

You're viewing a single thread.

64 comments

Need someone who knows more about EU law to chime in here: does this mean valve et al will be forced to implement a way for users to resell/transfer games to other users?
- As others have pointed out, the original article is from 2012, and even with similar rulings in EU countries more recently, it will take years before we see any result of this.
  But I think the ultimate answer to your question here is: yes, that would become a thing.
  But there is so much to this that makes it hard to predict how good it would be. Who decides the price? What rules will there be on when and how you can resell?
  
  NFT game licences turn digital game sales into used game trading like you'd find at gamestop - except still being equivalent/identical to brand new purchases
  
  Yep tradable licenses is about the only thing NFTs are actually good for.
  
  Not really, though. NFTs only benefit is to distribute trust/authority. In this case there still needs to be some central authority who will actually honor it and provide the game at the end (either Steam or the game's creator or something else). It is far more energy efficient for that central authority to also track who has what without performing useless work.
  
  Steam or the creator shouldn't be a central authority: If you have a game on steam and want to sell it to someone and they then activate in on epic, that should be possible. There should be zero influence from those parties over what happens with the NFT. It would also be legal, at least over here, to procure an erm backup copy from somewhere if you have such an NFT. And the NFT can live on after the original minter (presumably the publisher) went out of business. Say, GOG or archive.org could offer a service where the gamer pays a small fee and they can download binaries+emulation environment for those abandoned NFTs.
  Neither the publisher nor the original store have any legal standing preventing any of this because exhaustion. Which is also why you can get Windows keys for dirt-cheap in e.g. Germany: There's a small cottage industry buying up volume licenses at bankruptcy proceedings and then sell them on, unbundled. Microsoft can do exactly as much about it as Coca-Cola can stop you from selling individual cans from a sixpack.
  
  That's an interesting idea to me, particularly regarding preservation of games of bankrupted companies. I'd still be in favor of a central registrar as opposed to NFTs, just because of the huge inefficiencies and environmental impact of that (essentially useless) computation.
  There would need to be some governing authority dictating that companies need to honor the download of games not purchased from them (essentially the government of each country that has this as a law). It would make sense to me that that same government could host a service to keep track of the transactions. Or, more likely, the government just mandates the companies to play nice and exchange purchase data with each other. Sure, in some sense you're letting the wolves run the henhouse, but it also isn't that different from a game company refusing to give you a game you purchased from them. They could do that, but you would take legal action against them. Same thing here.
  
  I don't mind tradable game items too, it would be cool if valve didn't have a monopoly on community trading. They could still even take an automated royalty cut with NFT trades
  
  Problem there is the gas cost of blockchain is too high. Recording transactions on chain is expensive. It might be worthwhile for full game transfers, but for cosmetics? I doubt that.
  
  You could also achieve exactly the same benefits without adding in the expense of gas fees at all. Indeed that gives you quite a few other benefits like being able to reverse fraudulent transactions and being able to ensure the platform gets a cut.
  
  Why should steam get a cut if I sell a game.
  
  What blockchain? There are many implementations, there's no reason there has to be excessive "gas" costs. These are solved problems
  
  What blockchain doesn't have high transaction costs once it scales up to large usage? Fundamentally blockchains are about hyper-redundant indestructable storage with expensive costs for writing to that storage to prevent flooding it with garbage. The most mature and sophisticated blockchain that doesn't involve burning down a forest to solve sudokus is the Ethereum network, which is probably the one to point to when we're talking about a large blockchain, and that's one that uses the subcurrency of "gas" to model paying for recording into that ledger.
  Are there any blockchains that could handle transaction volumes on the scale of a game-store like Gog or Epic (much less Steam) without putting non-trivial prices on writing the transactions to the ledger?
  
  One example already handling game item NFTs with super low fees https://loopring.org/#/ Another example of super high scalability with extremely low fees https://ripple.com/xrp/
  You'd obviously build a bespoke purpose built solution instead of shoehorning it into some random existing crypto network
  
  Why bother with NFTs? every storefront already has a licensing system, the only benefit I could see is being able to move it from storefront to storefront, but they will never go for that. Even then it could be done much more efficiently other ways.
  
  Direct trading of games between individuals. Not locked into one market that could shut down. EA and Steam sell the same game. EA wouldn't let valve have a monopoly on used game trades

64 comments