Slashdot Mirror
Valve Sued In Germany Over Game Ownership
An anonymous reader writes "The Federation of German Consumer Organizations (VZVB) has sued computer game distributor Valve because it prohibits Steam-gamers from reselling their games. Steam users own the games they purchase and should be able to resell them when they want to, just like owners of traditional card or board games can, said Carola Elbrecht, project manager for consumer rights in the digital world at the VZVB, on Thursday. But while those traditional game owners can resell their games whenever they like, Steam users often cannot, she said."
Shame I can't transfer it to another article...
Was just a mater of time...
The biggest drawback, as I see it, is longer term not being able to pass the games on to family/friends to play. Perhaps an option is to have a higher tiered pricing which gives you the ability to resell the game later?
Physicist, consultant, science communicator
Where you've almost never been able to resell your games in the past, long before steam came along, due to various DRM. And now more and more games require you to register your CD key online and are bound to your various accounts, be it games from EA, rockstar, ubisoft and possibly many more.
and sell it too.
Back in the days when you bought games individually, you could share them around the household. So if I had bought say, a copy of unreal tournament 3 and call of duty 2, I could play one, and my wife could play the other on her pc (real example! if you prefer, substitute mate or brother for same effect)
Now, with two online game equivalents on my steam account, we can only play one, as both require being online. Even if it came in a box from retail for cash, you often still end up with a steamworks copy. Just giving my wife access to my steam account so we can juggle offline mode between us violates the ToS which theoretically means they can shut down my account and deny access to all my games, or make most of them non playable online with a VAC ban. Same applies for creating a new steam account for each game; not only would that be a giant pain in the ass, but trying to register the same card for multiple accounts risks the lot getting disabled.
They already have the ability to transfer licences between accounts with the gifting system, there's no reason I shouldn't be able to transfer my games to my wife so she can play them when I'm done with them, other than greed.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
I think it's even worse when they're disallowing physical media. I specifically purchased a game for my son (Portal) so that when he was finished playing it, I could uninstall it from his computer and install it on mine so I could play. But, even though it was purchased at a store (Wal-Mart, Target, something like that), and it came on a physical disc, uninstalling it from his computer is not enough. It's already been registered and locked to his Steam account, and after several communications with Valve, they refuse to disassociate it from his account.
If it was just a download, then I could sort of, kind of see the restriction. But purchasing a physical object, like a book or a DVD or a CD-ROM, should allow one to disassociate the application from one account and sell it on to the next person to associate with their account.
I'm not an actor, but I play one on television.
In the west, Communism is decried in part because it doesn't respect the concept of personal property. None of 'your' stuff is owned by you. So why, given that, should we accept for even one second a culture where we only rent and license things from corporate owners? We can't even be said to own the license since there are so many ways a 'permanent' license can just evaporate.
As a Finn I have waited for this to happen somewhere in Europe. I guess the legislators don't play games or at least buy them from Steam. I hope that this changes how digitally distributed games are seen in light of ownership before every purchase is somehow locked to buyers dna. Tinfoil hats ahoy! :)
The abbreviation should be VZBV, for Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband. See here (article in German): http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/VZBV
Taken from the official Steam license. http://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/?l=english You may not sell or charge others for the right to use your Account, or otherwise transfer your Account, nor may you sell, charge others for the right to use, or transfer any Subscriptions other than if and as expressly permitted by this Agreement (including any Subscription Terms or Rules of Use). 2. LICENSES A. License Terms. Steam and your Subscription(s) require the automatic download and installation of Software onto your computer. Valve hereby grants, and you accept, a limited, terminable, non-exclusive license and right to use the Software for your personal use in accordance with this Agreement, including the Subscription Terms. The Software is licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Software. To make use of the Software, you must have a Steam Account and you may be required to be running the Steam client and maintaining a connection to the Internet.
People here in Australia often bitch about Valve because of the regionalised pricing of video games - it's not uncommon for some games to cost almost 2x as much as they do in the USA (given the strong value of our dollar).
However, it's not Valve that sets the prices for the games - it's the publisher.
In this case I don't know if Valve are just honoring requirements set by the publishers, or if this just a part of their platform. Either way, I think Steam would be a much tougher sell to publishers if one of the features they provided to gamers was the ability to sell your account at a discounted price to someone else.
(If you want to sell games on Steam, my advice would be to separate out game purchases into different email accounts. Then you can sell the email account and the associated games. I'm sure it's still against T&Cs to do that - and it's a giant pain in the ass - but at least it means you can buy and sell Steam games in discrete chunks.)
And that is the difference between Owning a physical copy of a software title, and Licensing a digital version of the same. Games on Steam are not sold as property that can be traded, they are licensed to you the purchaser for your personal use. Now, if you are saying that German law requires that the licensor permit the licensee (are those even the right terms?) to transfer the license to an arbitrary third party at any time, that's a right that the license cannot take away. I'm not German, and am definitely no lawyer, but I rather doubt the law works that way.
And because it is Germany I automatically read "Name" instead of "Game".
Not being able to resell a game is nothing compared to the fact that we can lose all our games anytime with Steam. The license agreement say that Steam can change it whenever they want for whatever they want and if we refuse the new license agreement, then the only option is to close the account and lose all the games we "bought". No refund. We own nothing with steam and considering the current license agreement contains clauses which are clearly abusive (they can do whatever they want with whatever information they can gather from their spyware, err... I mean client software), I'd say Steam is one of the most evil company I ever saw.
Almost never?
I've almost _always_ been able to resell my games. Fallout 3 was late 2008, thats the last big bethesda game i can recall without drm. Aside from the past 5 years of drm bs, I'd say being able to resell is the norm. Though I guess if you're younger you may think it's always been this sucky.
Yup. We've got very strong customer rights in Germany. They have a very strong lobby. Multiple of them in fact. Its own fairly powerful ministry on a federal level even.
... insulting.
Everybody still marvels why we haven't yet gone bankrupt. Quality products and quality service might actually be a good idea. Who knows?
Also note the use of the word "customer". Being called a consumer is a bit
20 minutes into the future
A large chunk of games on steam can be run without steam, unless that's changed since I last tried.
What, then, is stopping one person from buying it, and saving the files elsewhere, then reselling it?
I see this as an opportunity for Valve to get Steam installed on just about every PC. Make it so you can "gift" used copies of the game to other Steam accounts.
This will ensure just about every gamer has Steam. The ability for a gamer to make an impulse purchase is now there. Increase in sales.
Let's face it, if someone is looking for a used copy of a game, their urge to play it probably isn't real high.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
n/t
Being able to sell games on my account does not interest me. I want to give away those games after I am dead.
Go on, list the games that don't require steam.
It just can't happen; at least, not without a major amount of effort which will make it not worthwhile to begin with.
In "hacker communities," steam accounts often go for a hundreth of the price of the games on them. It would be an easy black market buck. Does anyone see a problem with this?
Besides, if the games re-sold sell for less than the selling price, that would mean Steam would lose a sale (which would mean losing money!). It's not even worth discussing, really.
If users can sell or give away games as they see fit, that would put a lot of stress on the steam servers. Would it be possible for valve to take out a fee to cover expenses?
I'm guessing if this is allowed, you should be able to sell iTunes Music as well.
The main problem I see with this concept isn't that games will get sold, the problem is that they will be given away. Fox example if you had 1000 games, they could be shared between 10000 people, just swapping back af forth whenever needed. It is unlikely that everyone plays this game at the same time, you will create a mentality that allows thinking like "Oh I can buy it somewhere else anyway" and in the end the profits will drop drastically.
Lo and behold, for I am a sig!
...stop selling in Germany...when users bitch, point the finger at their government.
Pretty delusional to think Valve wouldn't have anticipated this kind of lawsuit.
I'm fairly certain they will have artfully closed any and all loopholes that could be used for this in their terms of agreement.
I don't know about that, but I know that the exact opposite can be true too. Games NOT bought through Steam can only be played through Steam. Example: The physical copy of Skyrim I got last christmas.
How long w ill that last after a court declares they have to change all the buy buttons to rent buttons. People don't want to rent a $9.99 game.
local laws super seed that contract
This case should be tossed. Has anyone thought how much this would cost Valve and the game studios to implement? Doing this correctly would be seriously expensive, and there is no scenario here where it doesn't result in driving up the costs of games on Valve just to benefit a tiny fraction of the user base.
Once again, a consumer protection agency driving up the costs for consumers.
Who wins? A handful of cheapskates get $10 for their used game, and bunch of lawyers make $ millions.
Anything sold in a web "store" with a "buy" button is a sale. These products even have 20% off "sales." If they were honest about licensing or renting out games then they would be labeled as such.
I suspect that Valve will effectively kick this up stream. Even if they choose do make this feature available with their games, they don't control the licensing restrictions laid down by the publishers/devs/studios.
I wouldn't know, I've never purchased music from iTunes. That whole DRM bit they have.
The EU made it so all licences for anything, including software, dongles, etc can be resold, even if the EULA forbids it. All countries that reside in Europe have this protection. Buy a $10 Dell with Windows 7? You can sell JUST your Windows 7 license to someone else, Dell has to allow it, Microsoft has to allow it. Want to sell a Nintendo Wii game you bought to someone else? Nintendo will have to allow it. Want to sell your iTunes songs? Apple has to allow it.
Do they all support it yet? Nope! But they have to. You will see more cases like Steam popping up until the industry realizes they need to allow reselling in all their apps and stores.
Who absorbs the cost of all the re-downloading bandwidth?
I know it isn't all that great a cost, but I can't imagination they are obligated to keep supplying it. I'm assuming that Valve can't force you to give them a cut of the sale to cover it. Perhaps they would give you the ability to pickup your files and transfer the title to another account, and make you responsible for ensuring the next party gets the game files, not unlike gamestop insuring you get the game disk in "usable" condition. I suppose the buyer could pay a fee to re-enable direct downloading, or Valve could give you the middle finger and tell you your on your own.
> Also note the use of the word "customer". Being called a consumer is a bit ... insulting.
I feel the same way. I'd like to think I have a business relationship with companies, however minor it may be, as opposed to being portrayed as livestock being lead to a feeding trough.
Everybody still marvels why we haven't yet gone bankrupt. Quality products and quality service might actually be a good idea. Who knows?
They might be. Too bad about your cars these days. I still jump up and down with glee when I come across used German tools though (the jokes just write themselves, don't they?)
Also note the use of the word "customer". Being called a consumer is a bit ... insulting.
If you consume, you're a consumer. "Customer" implies money changes hands but a) that's not always the case and b) it doesn't have to be that way, we're all stuck in the mindset that the mercantilism which we call capitalism is superior to all other systems.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I think that software seller should stop their EULA craziness and comply with good trade laws. When a society negotiates a license to use a software, it is a very different business than a usual consumer who buys a software or a game in a supermarket. Laws should be there to protect consumers. When I buy Microsoft Office, I own it, I have the right to decompile it to learn how to use Windows API. If Microsoft Office makes my computer burn, Microsoft shall be responsible. Of course I do not have the right to copy it and to sell copies, but it is the same as with any other object I buy.
We forget it's been eons since anyone could buy and therefore own any software. We only license the vast majority anymore. And the license is not transferable if you read the fine print. But who reads the EULA?
Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
Probably the same company that absorbs the re-downloading any time I install my 8 year old copy of Counter-Strike on a new or reformatted computer: Valve.
Gotta love these people who either don't read terms of service or choose to ignore them, then complain to authorities when the terms turn out to be something other than what they assumed and/or think they should be and eventually end up ruining the service for all the people who were perfectly happy with it the way it used to be. If you don't like Steam terms of service, then perhaps you could just exercise your right to not use it?
Steam routinely sells games at significant discounts. You can get AAA titles for under $10. Do people feel they need to recover a $10 investment by turning around and selling it for, what, $5, $2? Do people feel they need to look for bargain games resold for single digit prices?
Also for the most part the majority of AAA titles on Steam are also available for physical purchase. You opt to buy through the convenience of online distribution by forgoing the ability to trade or resell the game.
So I don't agree that Valve should be sued for game ownership. You clearly are making a choice to buy from the Steam walled garden, meaning you are accepting whatever state of terms they apply to the purchase of that game.
I think Valve should just pull Steam support from Germany, period. End this BS about pandering to lawyers only interested in a cash payout. I am also tired of petulant twits that feel they are owed something back. Gaming is a purely optional function of society. Buying a game is about having disposable income. You have a choice to buy a game or not and its about time adults and caregivers of infants started making responsible decisions about how they spend their money. Any dumb-ass that buys a game through Steam and are surprised they can't resell it is just that, a dumb-ass. Companies should have a right to block dumb users, and countries of dumb users.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Everybody still marvels why we haven't yet gone bankrupt. Quality products and quality service might actually be a good idea. Who knows?
People around here have a different opinion. We are talking about germany, right? The country which has control on the European bank lobby to force countries to go into higher debt while at the same time forcing those countries to put up with austerity measures about 90% of economy students would never recommend in such a situation? This germany whose poverty level has kept rising up to 15% in 2010 (and unfortunately can't find the data on more recent years, which is higher)? This germany who tricks the unemployment rate by forcing people to have half-jobs, which some eldery people have to take because otherwise they wouldn't be able to pay for food/house?
You surely jest (or have been brainwashed properly by the Bank Lobby).
The US has the first-sale doctrine. The first sale doctrine doesn't say that the company selling you the good has to enable or help you resell. It just says that they can't prevent you from reselling using legal means (i.e. lawsuits, injunctions, etc).
I don't believe the above is true. The first-sale doctrine is part of US Anti Trust laws. Any effort to shut down second hand markets could be prosecuted under anti trust laws. The whole point of these locks is price fixing.
I've bought several boxed games from retailers over the the last 2 years that all are tied to my Steam account. It's annoying because I like playing Rocksmith a few hours a day, so my significant other can't play any other games while I'm on that.
To solve my problem I will pirate the next big title I'm interested in, just to avoid retarded DRM. In my country I can pretty much pirate legally, since outdated radio law here states I can copy any media for private usage. I would rather pay, but hey... if you treat people like criminals, people might as well act accordingly. The game developers that use Steam can go stick it up their greedy backsides.
So yeah, I'm justifying and advocating piracy, just because I want some damn peace to play my damn games. FUUUUUUUUUUUUU Steam!!
I've been trying to pick up Assassin's Creed 2 used on ebay and I'm suprised by how expensive it is considering it's age. Boy was I surprised to see I can pick up the "Ultimate Edition" on the Playstation Store for only $10, less than used copies are going for! Plus it comes with all the DLC right? That's a win win. I give money to the actual publisher instead of them "losing" a sale to used. I get it cheaper, more complete, faster, and more convenient.
And according to first sale doctrine I can sell it after I'm done playing it. I'll just make a new account just for this one game. When I sell it, I'll give away the user/pass. It's actually better than trying to sell a disc, because now I don't have to pay postage. Simple. Why aren't more people doing it? So my question to the slashdot community: Have you ever bought a used digital game? Would you even consider it? Wouldn't creating new accounts for every online purchase save you the hassle of not being able to share your games with your wife or sibs? Why aren't people doing that?
If they had the ability to sell their games there would still be the issue of accounts being randomly highjacked for mass profit and still the additional issue of online games that require being paid for etc. Sell your steam account if you don't want your games! Its not their fault you are stupid and want to sell your old shitty games! If they allow to be sold maybe you should sell your games at a price equal to or less than the discounted price you purchased it at! Or valve allow you to opt out of the game to give it to whomever you want! But there should be a wait time and a timeout to prevent abuse. K7ZGQ said this!
We Americans always re-sell our games with the crack on a DVD so they buyer doesn't have to deal with Steam. Why sell something to someone then make them go through a bunch of bullshit to use it. That is just plain mean. :P
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Taken from DIRECTIVE 2009/24/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:111:0016:0022:EN:PDF
Obviously game transfer is not a technical challenge, they simply want to abolish used games market since it hurts SO MUCH MORE THAN PIRACY, since this time it involves people who actually buy stuff, paying to other people, and not the original seller of the product.
I wonder if German Court is also after Blizzard.
Just change the TOS to say that you're not purchasing the software, you're purchasing a non-transferable permanent license. Just like the new model for MS Office, you pay a fee to use the software but you can't sell that software. The only difference is that in the case of Steam, it's a one time fee that grants unlimited use for a single person.
How would an MMO like the Secret World or Guild Wars 2 fall into a potential ruling, where you pay upfront to access to the MMO, but don't have to pay a subscription?
Most gamers will acknowledge there's a difference to buying an MMO like Guild Wars 2 and a primarily single player game like Torchlight that just happens to have a multiplayer component, since you are not really buying the client, but access to their persistent world servers, but someone with a non-gamer perspective might not view it that way. What would the ramifications be if you could effectively be legally allowed to resell Guild Wars 2 accounts? If the court deems that those type of games deserve an exemption, what would the legal rationale be? If the legal rational gives publishers a loophole, could we be seeing a shift into how future games are designed if the exemption is too broad?
I don't know where I really stand on this. The side effects of a ruling for the plaintiffs could make things really weird if the judges don't consider the way they make their ruling carefully.