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.
Wouldn’t surprise me if, assuming this actually comes to fruition, certain game stores such as epic or any of the non-Steam/GoG stores end up implementing the selling of your digital games in the most absolute abhorrent ways imaginable. Things like making the service to sell your games on their shops run at a snails pace, being forced into a profit cut because you use their service, or just flat out editing your account to make you break ToS and then deleting your account.
Yeah consumer retail has implied contracts that override anything you write in a TOS or EULA. You can add certain things with those but there’s still a basic commercial transaction happening that is bound to the rule of law.
I’m mentioning this because I remember EU going after Valve sometime in 00’ or early 10’ because of this, and remember Valve basically saying “well, we will no longer sell digital goods then, enjoy your licenses”. I know I remember this but I cannot find a source on google…
I’m not sure how to feel about this, to be honest.
I don’t have any serious plans or anything, but I do want to dabble in a bit of gamedev. Nothing major, just like an RPG or something that I put on Steam for like $5. I imagine there’s a lot of people who take bets on their future by releasing games that cost $10 or $20.
Why would anyone pay full price for games if you could get them from a trading platform for like 75%? I bet there’s a lot of people that would buy my game, play through it once and then sell it for maybe $4. And others who thinks anytime that pays full price for a game is an idiot.
Indie Devs would have to rise prices, perhaps drastically, to cover the lost revenue here. This would also put an end to Steam sales, because the instant you put your game on sale it sets the price for it in third party markets.
What about bigger games like BG3? What’s stopping me from buying it full price, copying the files somewhere and then instantly reselling it? It would probably force them to implement strict DRM restrictions, and probably the nasty rootkit kind.
I’m personally against DRM and don’t want to release a game with it, but the fact that this lowers the bar to piracy so much may force my hand.
I honestly believe this could spell the end of the indie gaming scene.
What about bigger games like BG3? What’s stopping me from buying it full price, copying the files somewhere and then instantly reselling it? It would probably force them to implement strict DRM restrictions, and probably the nasty rootkit kind.
The same thing that's stopping you from downloading the files now. A combination of ethics and the value legitimately owning the game adds to your purchase.
The ethics get muddier for your average person, though. Piracy is (to a good chunk of people) clearly wrong: there is something someone made that most people had to pay for and you’re getting it for free. That’s not how things are supposed to work.
With this, you are still paying money for the game, it’s just cheaper, but games are cheaper when they’re on sale, too. I think a much larger group of people will make use of “used” digital games without giving a ton of thought to the fact that the game creator is getting less than those who are fine with pirating games. On top of that, ethics aside, one of those activities is illegal and the other potentially legal, which does affect how people make decisions as well.
I don't think buying used is unethical if the law establishes that, just buying to download and immediately resell, which I don't think that many would rationalize as any better. I think the people most likely to do it are people who pay to pirate now who might pay a little for a slightly easier experience.
I fully acknowledge that it’s a grey area, but I’ve personally always considered resale of digital goods (goods which can be obtained purely digitally, even if sold in a physical medium) to be unethical, although legal. If I’m going to pay money to it, I want the money to go to the person who created it, not to someone else who happened to purchase it or, worse, some company that provides no value other than encouraging those transactions.
To me, resale on physical goods is ethical because there are two core differences with those which could be acquired purely digitally. Physical goods degrade with use, providing reduced value compared to new goods. And it is better for unwanted physical goods to continue to provide value for someone than for it to enter a landfill.
My guess is if that happens, studios will choose not to put their games on sale anymore or less frequently. Why would they discount the game when the used market is an option. It also depends on the average price of the game used and if a sale undercuts the used market. Lots of variables and there’s opportunity to boost new sales in the form of perks, bundles, exclusive in game content, etc…
Why would they discount the game when the used market is an option.
I think the key part there is that when they disconnect a game they still get (almost) pure profit off that sale. For a used game, they’re only getting some percentage of it if the person selling is getting a cut or majority. I think the creator would always prefer sales and avoid the used market at any cost, since it provides them no value and actively hurts their more lucrative sales.
I’ve no doubt that Steam, PSN, etc can avoid complying with the spirit of the law on this, but the writing is on the wall as far as subscription services go.
Since I got my PS5 just over a year ago, I own 2 games for it. GoW Ragnarok that came with it, and BG3 that was only available digitally. PS+ has provided all the rest. I’ve spent the last week playing Teardown which is great. If this law actually happens, then all devs, not just indie ones, will be relying on game subscription service revenue.
What about bigger games like BG3? What’s stopping me from buying it full price, copying the files somewhere and then instantly reselling it? It would probably force them to implement strict DRM restrictions, and probably the nasty rootkit kind.
GOG literally exists and yet gamers still buy it on Steam.
If steam implements it, it may be more accessible and thus make it more relevant but as of now, nothing would really change.
SteamDB gives a value of 2500€, 9500€ if I bought everything with today’s prices, for my library, most of which are from Humble Bundle, and I have probably 150 unredeemed keys as well. I could easily sell 95% of them as I’ve played through them or don’t like them, and net a sizeable profit in the process. And I’m definitely not alone.
They would have to implement some sort of revenue sharing for sure that guaranteed some of the resell value went back to the developer, or this would indeed be the result. Also all bundle/discount sites would die overnight anyway.
For this to become a serious issue a couple of conditions need to be met:
there has to be enough second hand supply to meet demand and keep prices low.
…which means lots of people need to circulate their games.
…which means they didn’t like your game enough to want to keep it in their collection for replayability
…which means you made an unremarkable game
Now, given the fact that I have full confidence in your ability to create something worthwhile (because you would do so from passion), this cycle will likely be broken at some point.
There’s also the other option where people will circulate their second hand games with the knowledge they’ll be able to buy back another copy somewhere down the road.
But yes, you’re right that this will bring a new factor to the gaming industry that everyone has to take into account. Keep in mind that your financial security in the indie gaming sector is fully dependant on wether you develop something worthwhile. You are in no way entitled to be able to make a living from publishing games regardless of their quality. Which is the beauty of the indie games segment: the more love and care you put into your game, the bigger the chances are that it’ll be a success.
Please enforce this for console games as well. Digical games and DLCs are typically more expensive than both new and used physical games. Physical games prices usually decrease few months after release, digital one rarely do.
It’s obvious that vendors rely on digital restriction (aka DRMs) to kill the used market and sell older games at higher price. I’m avoiding digital games and DLC because of this, and I’m reluctant to buy a new console given the hard push toward digital games and attempts to kill the used market.
It would be cool but they probably wouldn’t pay money directly to your bank on sale. It would still be locked to Steam. Wish valve let you transfer money out.
They literally just need to add a way to “repackage” a game from your library into an inventory item and then they could use the Marketplace they already have
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
NFT is a non-fungible-token. That’s all that’s required for a game licence. What part of that is unnecessary? Are you looking at existing media based NFTs and applying those systems verbatim?
I imagine the unnecessary part is the whole being built on an unwieldy and expensive third party platform when it would be far easier to just use these platforms existing customer database. All major digital platforms keep track of customer accounts anyway so you can download the game more than once, so it’s not like it would be hard to implement a in house transfer system that doesn’t require an irrelevant middleman.
See and that’s the issue if you want to sell your game you shouldn’t need to do it on steam, it should be a system that continues to exist even if the producer (gamedev) and store go bankrupt, you want some kind of public ledger.
If the storefront goes bankrupt all that public ledger does is give you a dead link unless another storefront picks it up, but if they wanted to do that they could just as easily buy that database from the dying company anyway.
Moreover why would anyone else have an incentive to pay the significant costs associated with hosting a game ownership was on a blockchain, and therefore could be sold independently without them receiving a cut?
The valuable thing about an NFT is not any text (as in: link) you embed in it but the fact that it has been minted by someone to mean something. A publisher minting a game NFT would be saying “this token is a proof of license”, same as companies (once upon a time) handed out slips of paper saying “this token is proof of ownership of a share in our company”.
Moreover why would anyone else have an incentive to pay the significant costs associated with hosting a game ownership was on a blockchain, and therefore could be sold independently without them receiving a cut?
You could charge for it. It’s essentially fancy cloud storage. Also, archive.org.
Archive.org is well, a non profit archive, not a storefront. If you used NFTs and wanted to charge for it, you would need to charge per download. Finally, while a NFT could provide a proof of license, so could any other database.
GOG might let you do it if you buy a game from them once in a while. Steam constantly subsidises downloads by allowing devs to mint and sell their own steam keys, I don’t think it’s going to be an issue.
And, yes, you could have a database somewhere – but then the proof of ownership might disappear with that database, e.g. when the publisher goes bankrupt. Also the publisher has incentives to make ownership transfers awkward, slow, etc, the blockchain doesn’t.
Another option would be the equivalent of a central bank, some public institution (as in public law) which keeps the database. But do you really want to register your ownership of a license of XXX Hentai Boobmania with the copyright office?
Don’t get me wrong I’m far from a cryptobro. It’s just that trading licenses independently of stores is about the one thing the tech is actually good for.
I mean i’d rather register my license of XXX Hentai Boobmania with a govement office than make it permanently and irreversiblly publicly available for everyone to see.
Again, if they can be bothered to host the game, I don’t see how a database that’s smaller than most modern AAA games is more likely to disappear. You could also forgo a central database in favor of each storefront hosting thier own, and just using a private API. More secure too, since it wouldn’t present an easily attack surface for hackers.
The blockchain doesn’t need incentives to be slow and unwieldy when it takes hours to confirm a transaction, and a gas war can randomly delay things even more.
The government would probably have your actual identity, while the NFT is pseudonymous. Granted, the government could also do that. Another argument would be that the government probably doesn’t want to do it.
Again, if they can be bothered to host the game, I don’t see how a database that’s smaller than most modern AAA games is more likely to disappear.
Who is the actual authority on the database? Are publishers going to trust the stores? The stores the publisher? If the operator goes bankrupt, who is responsible for saving the database and keeping it available? Publishers can’t even be bothered to keep selling their own games after a while. It’s a liability, not an asset, noone actually wants it.
The blockchain doesn’t need incentives to be slow and unwieldy when it takes hours to confirm a transaction, and a gas war can randomly delay things even more.
You’d be running the thing in a way where that’s not an issue. It doesn’t even need tie-in with crypto currencies, in the extreme case you need neither proof of work nor proof of stake: All that’s needed is a non-fungible token on a public ledger, run by stores and trading platforms: By the stores because they legally need to provide the possibility to trade the license off-store, by trading platforms because that’s their business. They would then sign off on ownership transfer to a different pseudonymous crypto key (your identity) upon receiving funds in another way.
The NFT is only pseudonymous so long as the account can’t be tied back to an actual person, since most platforms already allow gifting of games to people’s accounts, it would be trivial to tie them back publicly.
The same authority problems also apply to NFTs, does everyone agree to use the same chain and only that chain, if the chain is forked becuse the founders of etherium loose 15 percent of the entire currency on a obvious scam again which version of the NFTs hosted on it are valid? How to the platforms deal with someone scaming someone else by selling them the wrong version on a third party marketplace?
If publishers can’t be bothered to sell their own games after a while, why would they want to sell someone else’s for free, and why would that incentive disappear if they use their own private API instead of a publicly accessible one?
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.
Presumably becuse their the ones paying server costs to host the game, let you download it again and again on diffrent devices, and manage all the technical issues with the system of getting it to you.
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 loopring.org/#/Another example of super high scalability with extremely low fees ripple.com/xrp/
You’d obviously build a bespoke purpose built solution instead of shoehorning it into some random existing crypto network
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.
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
Right??? There’s lots of games I own that I played through once or twice and will probably never play again. I was hoping something like this would come along someday.
Add comment