Yeah there's a thread on this from several months ago ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, technically it's not for them to enforce. The various customers organizations that brought the issue to justice will keep doing so until Steam makes changes to their policy.
Comment has been collapsed.
Valve has so much money they could just pull out of the French market if they wanted. I would feel bad for people in France if they did that.
Comment has been collapsed.
Valve can just take it to EU court too, who will overrule French court.
Just few days before this French court, EU court made opposite decision (which was finalized in December, unless there's additional complaint).
Comment has been collapsed.
By demand I think. Isn't how judicial branch works everywhere?
Otherwise, they will overrule executive and legislative branches...
Comment has been collapsed.
actually, through fines, and eventually a ban. But Steam can delay it for quite a long time. They have two layers of appeal within France, and then another at the European High Court. And when it's all exhausted, they can be very slow to implement the change before getting fined.
As an aside, not all countries have separate legislative, executive, and judicial branches. As to whether a judicial branch can overrule an executive or legislative branch, that's more complicated. But in a typical separation-of-powers system, the legislative branch creates the law, the executive branch enforces the law, and the judicial branch applies in particular cases, as well as resolving conflicts of law.
In the latter capacity, the judiciary can determine that the executive branch has exceeded its authority or misinterpreted the law, and the judiciary can resolve conflicting laws (i.e. that the legislature has passed a law that does not adhere to the Constitution)
Comment has been collapsed.
But... fines for individual cases, isn't? I don't know about ban... It seems directly one branch overrides another branches. I mean, something has to be ilegal to be banned, by ilegal, judicial branch actions alone is out of the question since that's legislative duty. In the other hand, the one who should fine generically is the executive branch, based on legislative actions... The politica trias has its variations but always end up the same in general lines. I'm a bit skeptical when one branch overrides another... By overrides I really mean overrides because most systems have their tools to balance usually called as simply "fiscalization powers" over another branches (kinda of what you said in the last line). That's fine, because... you know... balance. However, in this specific case, I don't see how judicial branch can do this enforcement against all game companies (considering this lawsuit isn't dumb enough to reduce DRM matter to Steam).
Comment has been collapsed.
the first thing to consider is who brings the case to court.
If it's the government (police, prosecutors), it's typically a criminal matter, and a lot more serious.
In this case, a consumer group sued Valve - so the penalties can only be financial. I've read elsewhere, and in several sources, that if Valve fails to comply, the fine is 3000 euros per day. That's.... not enough incentive to force them to change.
Note also that because it's a consumer group, and not government, bringing this to trial, other companies don't need to comply with the ruling until they're taken to court (although the outcome would be the same).
Comment has been collapsed.
I may having a very subtle language barrier here (and this may be the origin of my question)... but what you said in the first part of your comment isn't compliance? I mean, isn't compliance different than enforcement? I'm asking because my language does attribute different meaning for both words. In almost all context, compliance don't stand by its own (like I said, they will "feel" forced to comply by individual actions) while enforcement stand by its own (because their origin, like, predefined punishments in laws). Mind to clarify?
Comment has been collapsed.
this may be a language barrier.
In English, Compliance means following the rules, Enforcement means making others follow the rules. In a legal context, the difference is greater, but legal issues quickly become technical and translation issues become worse.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yea this news broke a few months ago.
The problem is a system needs to be worked out that would make 'new' digital goods more desirable compared to 'used' ones in order to create a healthy market. Depending on how you want to interpret the ruling, this could be fairly easy or basically impossible. More tehn likely Valve would need to come up with a number of proposals on how to achieve this and then run them by the courts to see which one sticks.
Comment has been collapsed.
actually, it would be quite easy to design, if Valve wanted to implement it. Valve already has an infrastructure in place that could easily be adapted. Basically, the system Valve had for tradeable gift copies of games is already perfectly designed to suit the task - just change the system that having the gift in your inventory allows you to play the game. When a user gives or trades the game away, the user can no longer play the game.
It's simple, elegant, and already in place. There's just no desire.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hi and happy factorycake day !
I like your idea, but it would have an impact on inventory size. For my part, I would better go for a function to convert game in library to inventory gift (making the game not playable anymore - unless user "consumes" the gift again).
Comment has been collapsed.
Giving the game to someone else isn't really the issue, since like you said they could just use the old inventory system for that. The problem is how to devalue the 'used' game. One potential solution is to not include extended Steam services/features with it (Achievements, Proton support, Steams controller support, etc.), but the wording of the court document says that "everything" must be included, which is the part that could be interpreted in various ways.
Oh, and Happy Cake Day :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Because it's necessary to encourage sale of new goods. With physical products used copies value is determined based on how well kept they are, but with digital goods there is no difference between one copy and another no matter how 'new' or 'used' it is. As a result when it comes to digital goods there's no reason to ever pay for a new copy if you can find a used one, and that means that within days of a product launching its sales will likely plummet to basically nothing in near-perpetuity (that is so long as used copies are available).
So if you like single player games, or games that aren't filled with microtransactions / 'games-as-a-service' business models, then you're in for a bad time if this isn't handled properly.
Comment has been collapsed.
maybe a better solution would be to have achievements, save status, etc. tied to the game?
It'd be really fun to see developers come up with ways to screw later buyers, such as no restarts, or only allowing insane mode after completion, or something like that
Comment has been collapsed.
Hah! Buying a used game and finding out half the achievements are already unlocked by the previous owner(s) would certainly be interesting, and it falls perfectly in line with the 'everything must be included' clause of the ruling. Used retail games used to have old saves on them too back during the cartridge days, and it was kind of neat seeing where the previous owner had gotten to.
Comment has been collapsed.
yeah, it's a double-edged sword, but I can definitely see devs purposely making changes that change the experience, such as not allowing a player to restart the game, or getting rid of easier game modes on replay.
Or better yet, permanent changes to the game world:
Imagine a metroidvania where, when you restart, you keep all the powerups and items you've already collected?
Imagine an RPG where, when you visit a village, any creatures or NPCs killed during the first playthrough are already dead the second time around?
Imagine an adventure game where the items you picked the first time remain where you dropped them, and any puzzle you solved remains solved?
Yeah, I don't see much of a secondary market for those games anymore
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think that games need to be devalued, they can easily charge a fee for the developer and themselfs for each market transaction. Problem solved. Since the devs already gain only a little of the income they wouldn't loose that much, and valve just is being valve again.
Comment has been collapsed.
agreed. they can pretty much treat it just like trading cards.
Comment has been collapsed.
Remove multiplayer, remove trading cards, remove achievements and a good chunk of that would be eliminated. ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree, removing Steams extended features would solve the issue. Though the court documents apparently say that "everything" must be included, which is what makes it hard to know what would be allowed.
Comment has been collapsed.
i cant see why valve would be against this. all valve needs to do is put a 200% markup on whatever price the owner wishes to sell it at, and claim 97% of the sale price as valve tax... i mean after all, you can still "sell" your game, and valve is not stopping anyone from setting their own price, but you are still using valves platform to sell your game so they would have a right to set the rules just like any retailer does.
but realistically, if the french courts want to try and push this as a law, they'll be going up against sony, apple, google and microsoft among many others (what, you think their mobile or console games on their respective platforms will suddenly become exempt?) and good luck with that, france. theres no way this becomes law, its just another example of a bunch of twits who have little to no understanding of digital platforms or digital goods, thinking you can somehow create an easy and natural parallel to tangible goods.
you might be wondering why i made the original suggestion about why valve would want to create such a system... well for a start, you make selling the game very unattractive, unless the seller prices the game so ridiculously high that it becomes unattractive for someone else to purchase OR is priced slightly cheaper than the store version. At this point, if the game sells, valve gets almost all of the sale price for themselves, where as in the past they would only get a portion of it with the bulk going to the publisher. Would this put valve into strife with publishers? unlikely, valve and their steam platform have become so massive with such a large user base, that publishers have no alternatives. What.. theyre gonna go exclusively to epic? to origin? ubistore? yeah right. Valve can not lose in all of this, they have no reason to fight this if they actually think about it.
Comment has been collapsed.
ALTERNATIVELY, steam changes its usage model.
you no longer buy games, or as they technically say 'buy the licence to use the software'... it becomes an open ended rental platform. you pay the price to rent the game for an open ended period, and at any time you can simply 'return' the game with a click of a button which removes it from your library. easy. take that, france... unless the french courts wish to ban the concept of renting things....
Comment has been collapsed.
that doesn't work. Generally speaking, if it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, the law will treat it as a duck. The quick workaroud for the court would be to let renters sub-rent the game to other renters.
Note that for Valve, it wouldn't actually be a bad thing - they've already got the infrastructure, and they could charge a reasonable transaction fee for every resale or regift on their system. The problem is that publishers/developers would leave the Valve ecosystem unless and until every other competitor, EGS, Origin, Uplay, also has a resale system in place
Comment has been collapsed.
not at all, the model already has existed in the past. You could historically rent a movie for example, and then keep it until you decided to return it. However, you can not sub-rent something that you've rented - its illegal to sub-rent a house you are renting for example... and while i dont know for sure, I'd wager its likely illegal to sub-rent ANYTHING you rent... if you sub-rented a car you were renting, or screened a movie you were renting to the public for profit, im pretty sure you would not be allowed to do that. The great thing about what ive suggested is that it is based on a model that has already existed, which makes arguing a case for it much easier.
Comment has been collapsed.
but Valve would have to completely switch their business model. Valve isn't in the rental business. They're also not a subscription business (like GamePass)
Comment has been collapsed.
it is a big change, particularly for the developers.
Comment has been collapsed.
there's a difference between renting and buying. With any product (game, house, appliances) you can buy it, or you can rent it (for a lot less money). Or you can use the subscription model
Yes, Valve can switch from selling games to renting games, but they would need to charge accordingly. If instead of selling a AAA game for $50, they rent it for $5 per month, yes, they're renting it. If they switch to a subscription model "unlimited gaming for $10 per month", yes, that works. If they "rent" it for $50 upfront, keep it as long as you want, that's where the court will call them out.
Also, in common law countries, generally speaking, if you have legal possession, you may transfer legal possession to someone else, meaning if you rent something, you can then rent it out to someone else. Who can then rent it out again. However, you're still responsible toward the owner if anything goes wrong.
But that is a right that can be contracted away, and most rental agreements restrict you from re-renting it out. That's a matter of contract law, and the worst that can happen is that you get sued for breach of contract.
Comment has been collapsed.
1) if Steam changes the terminology to say they're a rental service, then the court can simply say that Steam must allow renters to sublet the games. Courts are not very kind to that kind of sleight-of-hand, and are more likely to punish valve than to accept it.
Despite what most people think, if it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, courts will treat it like a duck
2) selling the license back does not allow resale, and thus doesn't address the issue at all
3) a predetermined percentage is problematic - if a game is purchased for $50, and is currently on sale for $10, is the price based on the original purchase price or the sale price? What about other way around? Plus, it still doesn't solve the issue.
4) Valve can easily create an ecosystem for reselling games, they already have most of the infrastructure in place, and valve could take a cut off each sale. The problem is that unless every other competitor (origin, epic, GOG, etc.) does the same, publishers/developers will leave Steam. They've been complaining for years about reselling of physical games, and those at least wear out after a while. They'd be up in arms. also, the pricing model would have to change. I'm sure the price of new games will skyrocket if devs lose the long tail
Comment has been collapsed.
The problem is that unless every other competitor (origin, epic, GOG, etc.) does the same, publishers/developers will leave Steam.
...if the competing PC storefronts/platforms don't care about EU law, think it doesn't apply to them, or they don't even sell to EU...then sure, devs could move to a competitor
Comment has been collapsed.
how is it a compromise? The court said customers must be able to resell to anyone they want. i.e. that there needs to be a secondary market. I don't see that court accepting that at all. How is it any different than what came before? Instead of the developer charging $60, now they charge $70 and promise to buy it back for $10. How is the consumer any better off?
Think about a house. If you buy it, the builder gets paid. If you sell it, the builder doesn't get paid a second time. And how would you feel if you were only allowed to sell the house back to the builder?
no offense, but I think you're missing the issue. The court wants to treat digital goods like normal goods. If you buy a book, the publisher gets paid once, and after that it's your property, to do with as you wish. You can lend the book to a friend, donate it to a library, sell it to someone else, burn it, whatever you want. And that's what the court is after.
Comment has been collapsed.
it's not a compromise at all, and I don't see how you think it does.
"We want people to be able to give away or sell their games to whoever they want"
"no, but, how about we let them delete their game when they're done?"
"how is that different than what they can do now?"
"it isn't, but we get them to lend us money interest-free as well"
Comment has been collapsed.
"Consumers" here just love to advocate for pro-corporation workarounds, don't they?
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm neither pro-corporate, or anti-corporate. I do believe corporations have too much power.
But I'm an attorney, and it annoys the fuck out of me when people completely misunderstand legal matters
even more, I'm a business / transactional attorney, so my job is making sure people and companies don't have to go to court at all. Not my area of specialty, but, I'd literally be tasked with coming up with a solution to that ruling
Comment has been collapsed.
oh yes, this will appease the "support the devs" crowd.
enjoy watching indies go bankrupt instantly. š
Comment has been collapsed.
We've been hearing fears about an indiepocalypse for YEARS - Has the time finally come?!
Will digital game reselling become the ultimate Steam game curation tool?
Comment has been collapsed.
oh yes, this will appease the "support the devs" crowd.
enjoy watching indies go bankrupt instantly. š
^ This.
If this change were to be implemented, it would impact the Indie developers the most, particularly on games that rely most on a single-playthrough experience and not so much replayability. Instead of selling multiple copies, devs would watch helplessly as people played, quickly finished, and just passed the game along.
Now many may think, "well I don't like the indie experiential genre anyway". But consider this will push the game development market as a whole to homogenize, as risk would suddenly skyrocket for devs. As a result, we would likely start seeing more of the same trending mechanics, instead of new and innovative gems.
Comment has been collapsed.
not just indies. Any single-player story-driven game. RPGs, Metroidvanias, FPS, adventure games, they're all in trouble.
Strategy, simulation, and multiplayer are the genres most able to survive, and they're already operating on a different business model (DLC / expansions for strategy & simulation, loot boxes, cosmetics, and special events for MP games)
Comment has been collapsed.
How would they go bankrupt if this only affects the French market?
Comment has been collapsed.
Depending on the ruling, it could end up being homogenised across the entire EU.
Comment has been collapsed.
I didn't know the EU was in North America, South America, Australia, and Asia.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not sure I ever said it was, but you said 'the French market' but in reality that could extend across 26 other countries + members of the EEC/EFTA + those under the jurisdiction of the European Courts.
That's a not-insignificant chunk of Valve's (and all other digital distributors, who would also be expected to comply with the ruling) market.
Comment has been collapsed.
it's about 11% of the PC gaming market.
See my below response for the math
Comment has been collapsed.
Even better, the entire EU is only about 11% of the PC gaming market.
I was shocked to see this. Of the $151 billion gaming market, $35 billion is PC. Mobile is $68 Billion and Console is $48 Billion. 23% of the entire market is EMEA (14% EU), 4% Latin America, 26% North America, 47% Asia Pacific, with half of that being China.
In Western Europe, 18% of revenue is on PC, 47% Console, 34% mobile, 2% handheld
The entire EU gaming market is $21 billion. 18% PC is $3.78 billion, which is 10.8% of the $35 billion global PC market
Comment has been collapsed.
Well you've definitely missed the point about other stores having to adapt their policies based on any EU rulings, so that's the entirety of the mobile, console and PC space...
Comment has been collapsed.
https://www.engadget.com/2019/09/19/french-court-valve-steam-resold/
Comment has been collapsed.