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."

67 of 384 comments (clear)

  1. First Post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Shame I can't transfer it to another article...

    1. Re:First Post! by GiantMolecularCloud · · Score: 5, Funny

      Did you purchase it?

    2. Re:First Post! by EmagGeek · · Score: 3, Funny

      No, he only licensed it.

    3. Re:First Post! by Translation+Error · · Score: 5, Funny

      Great, that's just what we need... Chinese first post farmers.

      --
      When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
  2. Trade-offs by Bifurcati · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Having strong property rights of "things" has always been a huge part of our culture. However, in the same way that piracy is hacking away at traditional entertainment business models, perhaps there needs to be some give & take here. For the prices Steam offers, I'm actually willing to give up my right to resell the games - as long the games were truly free of all other DRM (I hate it that they're not...).

    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?

    1. Re:Trade-offs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What? Steam games are almost always overpriced. They get affordable when they go -50% or lower. Its always true for any "non-western" country, but from what I can tell on sites like HotUKDeals ans such - it should be also true for others. Steam is not cheap. I still have around 100 games there, but I wait for bargains, never ever buy at full price.

    2. Re:Trade-offs by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 2

      They're only cheap if you buy them on like -75% deals and even then I do mind my rights. Every company would love to go to subscription models for everything but you might as well be a slave at that point. It's good for people to reassert our rights every so often.

    3. Re:Trade-offs by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not true here in the UK. Steam is often priced 10-15% higher than retail, both via mail-order (the kind that houses it's warehouse in a tax haven and ships small-value packages to avoid paying it in the target country) and, for the big titles, the big-box supermarkets (like Asda) often have a competitive price as well.

    4. Re:Trade-offs by crafty.munchkin · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually here in Australia quite often the local store is cheaper. Current example - Far Cry 3 - $69.99 for digital download only Steam, vs $59.99 in the local store for the Insane Edition with the survival kit and bobble-head figurine... Assassins Creed 3 - $45 at the store, $69.99 on Steam.

      --
      ... wait, what?
    5. Re:Trade-offs by sheehaje · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Steam has great sales - that's usually when I buy most of my games.

      A few years back I got Batman: Arkham Asylum with Lego Batman bundled in for $20 - a great steal for myself and my son.

      This past holiday sale - I got 12 games, ranging from Trine 2 and Torchlight, to Serious Sam 3 and Arkham City for $65 for everything - that's 12 games for a little over what I just spent on 1 game for the Wii U. And I can access them anywhere... Oh yeah, and a great active gaming community that I have instant visibility to while I'm playing on a proven platform. I don't know how many times I've tried games that come with a "social" component that is more a hindrance rather than something useful. Steam takes care of that problem.

      My biggest complaint about steam isn't the fact that I can't resell games - I like my collection in tact. It's the fact that they make it so hard for two people to play. I have a family of 4 - and it becomes a royal pain if my son wants to play Grid racing and I want to play Torchlight. Valve really needs to take a look at introducing a family account. Especially if they are going to start pushing Steam Boxes. What a nightmare it will be to have compartmentalized games for each user that has to be purchased for each individual that wants to play it. Yes, there is offline mode, and yes there are ways around most games for single player mode - but they are band-aides to a much more annoying issue.

    6. Re:Trade-offs by sa1lnr · · Score: 2

      "What? The digital copies of games are usually priced lower than their disc-copy retail counterparts."

      Excuse me, no they are not.

      My local Game store, Batman AC £12.99, Dishonoured £12.99. On steam they're £19.99 and £29.99. Just two examples

      And all the cheap SoldOut label games that are £5 each or three for £10 in-store are £6.99 on steam.

      Of course there are exceptions, but not that many.

    7. Re:Trade-offs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Physical copies of games over here (Poland) are always much cheaper than Steam ones. Especially with Steam's usual $1=E1 prices, the difference is often quite significant and for some reason Steam counts us among the same price region as Netherlands, Germany, e.t.c.

      Example: Far Cry 3. E49.99 on Steam, E31 in a shop right next to my flat and you get one extra DLC with it.

      Steam gets cheap only during sales.

      cya
      Raziel-chan

    8. Re:Trade-offs by Niedi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Simple solution: They shouldn't try to fool people into thinking they are actually BUYING the game. Rename it to say "license the game" or "rent for an unlimited time" or whatever. I'm fine with their non-transferable model as long as they do not try to tell me I'm actually buying the game. Because if I buy something I expect to actually own it and be able to give it away anytime I want.

    9. Re:Trade-offs by arth1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It honestly wouldn't surprise me if one day the bottles of Heinz Ketchup have a tiny-print on them that states that the product is licensed for home use only.
      At present, this is probably not legal, but laws change, and usually to favor big business who can buy lawmakers.

      The first sale doctrine is being eroded, and not all that slow either. It's not that long ago that it was self-evident that the buyer could do whatever he wanted with his purchase, and it required a double signed contract to impose clauses. First, the contract became a one-way contract, not signed by the seller. Then the buyer's signature was no longer needed - breaking a seal or clicking a button was enough. Now, licensing has become the standard for digital goods, even delivered in physical form, and you have to hunt with a microscope to find the legalese that tells you that you're not buying anything, just paying.

      Scary, indeed. Greed breeds greed.

    10. Re:Trade-offs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's Australia. We've established in other articles and discussions that the content cartels gouge the piss out of those down under, and it isn't limited to Steam. It's wrong and should end, but it isn't a fair comparison to make when considering Steam's pricing.

      In the US, prices on Steam are unbeatable. There is nothing quite like getting a classic for $5 that you can't find in stores for less than $19.99 (and that's if you can even find it to begin with). I recently got Borderlands 2 for $29.99 - that is simply not possible right now otherwise.

    11. Re:Trade-offs by Loosifur · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "It honestly wouldn't surprise me if one day the bottles of Heinz Ketchup have a tiny-print on them that states that the product is licensed for home use only."

      You mean like the "Not For Individual Sale" labels on most bulk-packaged items?

      --
      This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!
    12. Re:Trade-offs by arth1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      You mean like the "Not For Individual Sale" labels on most bulk-packaged items?

      No, that is for a company to avoid labeling each unit individually. I.e. improving profits by cutting costs.
      The buyer can still sell the individual packages, he just has to provide the next customer with the mandated labeling.

      What I'm talking about is a future where a restaurant (or soup kitchen) can get sued because they served soup licensed for home use only, without paying extra licensing fees.
      It's not as far-fetched as you might think - the beer and soda industry already tried it a few years ago, suing a pub that bought bottled beverages cheaper at a local supermarket, arguing that those cheaper bottles were not intended for re-sale. A few more battles, and big business might even start winning. Because the general public can't be arsed to care, as long as it doesn't appear to affect them.

    13. Re:Trade-offs by nedlohs · · Score: 2

      Use a US billing address credit card. Steam will be cheaper than your local store (Far Cry 3 would be $48 now - but who doesn't wait for sales on steam?). You'll have to add ?cc=us to the url. And if lying is outside your moral bounds then it won't be an option since you'll probably have to tell them you are "travelling" (though maybe you don't need to be so specific as to why you are not in the country the card is from, or use a US VPN I guess).

      I'm sure there are a bunch of places of varying trustworthyness (and levels of fees) that offer such a thing. I happened to live in the US and hence have just kept the one from then.

  3. You can't have your cake ... by prasadsurve · · Score: 2, Funny

    and sell it too.

    1. Re:You can't have your cake ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Of course I can. I have done that for years with physical games.

      And I can do it with cars, books, DVDs, CD, and basically everything else that is not turning into shit while I use it.

    2. Re:You can't have your cake ... by allo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      a game is nothing you consume. Its like a book. you read/play it once, then you sell it to the next person for a cheaper price.

    3. Re:You can't have your cake ... by lxs · · Score: 3, Funny

      I sincerely hope that that policy includes a clause about the food in question being undigested.

    4. Re:You can't have your cake ... by Lord_Breetai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Haven't you heard? The cake is a lie.

      --
      "You are only young once, but you can be immature forever." -www.animemusicvideos.org
  4. Being able to transfer games would be awesome by arkhan_jg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Being able to transfer games would be awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The simple answer is boycott products with DRM. Don't give those companies any money otherwise they will think DRM is acceptable.

    2. Re:Being able to transfer games would be awesome by arbiter1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      then you are boycotting pretty much 75-80% of the games released now days. they all have some type of register/online activation system.

    3. Re:Being able to transfer games would be awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Suck it up. Seriously, are people today so pathetic that they can't go without playing some games?

    4. Re:Being able to transfer games would be awesome by Darinbob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's ok, because 75-80% of today's games are crap anyway.

    5. Re:Being able to transfer games would be awesome by Scarletdown · · Score: 2

      then you are boycotting pretty much 75-80% of the games released now days. they all have some type of register/online activation system.

      That sounds easy enough to do. Let's see, I just turned 45 half a month ago. Assuming I can make it another 45 years, there is a metric buttload of games on a wide variety of platforms (from Amiga or older to Wii, plus the arcade classics on MAME) that I have yet to get caught up on. As long as I have the hardware to run them on, I can easily go the rest of my life without ever purchasing a new game. Heck, now that I'm thinking about it, I am almost tempted to pull the Vectrex out and play a few rounds of Solar Quest...

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    6. Re:Being able to transfer games would be awesome by fredprado · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nope. Suing them to hell seems better to me as the law don't allow for their practices.

    7. Re:Being able to transfer games would be awesome by jareth-0205 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Suck it up. Seriously, are people today so pathetic that they can't go without playing some games?

      Wait, so as far as you are concern as long as it's not an 'essential' item then it's fine to have to make a choice between complete boycott and giving away long-held consumer rights?
      The whole article is about games. Non-essential things. We shouldn't have to choose, art and entertainment is what makes life worth fucking living, it is not something that should be so easily dismissed as a triviality.

    8. Re:Being able to transfer games would be awesome by Monkey-Man2000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's ok, because 75-80% of today's games are crap anyway.

      Too bad they are not the same 75-80%. The games the producers expect to be popular will undoubtedly be the most draconian.

      --
      This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
    9. Re:Being able to transfer games would be awesome by atomican · · Score: 2

      No, his point is that it shouldn't hurt that much if you have to go without certain games because of their DRM-laden nature. He said some games, not all games. Buy stuff from GOG for example and you don't' have this problem. Sure it's not necessarily the latest stuff, but you at least stick to your principles even if it means not playing the latest SimCity for example.

      If people are to addicted to games to refuse to buy/play certain titles due to user-hostile actions by the developers/publishers, then honestly we have no excuse for what abusive measure come our way.

    10. Re:Being able to transfer games would be awesome by fredprado · · Score: 2

      The point is that we, as a society define the privileges we give to copyrights owners. I don't see why we should go out of our way to allow these kinds of licensing, especially when they go against laws made to protect consumers and guarantee their rights.

  5. Even Worse with Physical Media by ghotihed · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Even Worse with Physical Media by mr_jrt · · Score: 2

      ...which is why I've had to stop buying most games now that so many are using Steamworks. I cancelled my Aliens vs. Predator preorder when I found out, and now I won't be buying Aliens: Colonial Marines. Such a shame...but I refuse to have to ask permission to install software.

      --
      Boo.
  6. The worst kind of corporatism by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:The worst kind of corporatism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Communism didn't quite work in the material world, but for digital things it's just what the doctor ordered: everyone gives what they can, everyone gets what they want, since there is no scarcity coming from limited nature of natural resources.

    2. Re:The worst kind of corporatism by progician · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, "Communism did not work" argument is a bit of a stretch since the "Communism" did not attempt to be what it claimed to be. State ownership is still private property as far as the communist argument goes, since communism is not simply against the personal ownership of things, but the use of production facilities for non-collective benefit. The state owned factories can be used for appropriate profits only for a small minority, or can be used to fund activities that directly goes against the interest of all workers: like wars.

      Communism with capital C, was and is a way where capitalism has been always heading: completely socialized production (i.e. manufacturing at large, employing large crowd of workers in a single economical entity... see the development of factories in the very early capitalism) for the benefit of a small class of individuals and building social hierarchy on the basis of the production. The USSR, China weren't so much incompatible with the market-fundamentalist capitalism of the USA after all, rather a forced modernization from virtually feudal state to wage-work and socialized, industrial production of profit.

      Communism with small c, is and was a movement that aimed to destroy the artificially imposed scarcity which capitalism depends on so much. It is quite characteristic that any time technology makes it possible to reduce the resource cost of production, it creates panic, meltdown, and eventually use of force to recover the scarcity (using whatever legal device is available in form of copyrights, patents, non-disclosure enforcement in the area of digital production), or actively promotes new areas of scarcity to recover the losses of profits. The tech industry is the best example how technological development in capitalism is restrained by imposing scarcity, secrecy and lies on the larger population.

    3. Re:The worst kind of corporatism by dabadab · · Score: 2

      For the life of me, I can not fathom why this "there's no scarcity in the digital world" bullshit is so popular on Slashdot. Of course, there is. There is a scarcity of new content. You can make almost unlimited number of copies of old stuff but for new stuff, you have to invest scarce things (if nothing else, someone's time) and that makes it scarce.
      And frankly, I don't think that anyone shouting "there's no scarcity" would be happy if the only source of his gaming would be another copy of Super Mario Bros.

      --
      Real life is overrated.
  7. Re:Welcome to the PC gaming market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just because "everybody does it", doesn't mean it's right. There's a certain price point at which you're effectively paying second-hand prices for a game anyway, so the inability to resell them down the road doesn't bother me - a lot of the GoG back catalog (especially when it's on sale!) fits that bill. But just because it doesn't bother me doesn't mean that I shouldn't have that right. More important, though, is the question of what happens when the company goes under, or decides it doesn't want to support a particular game any more. If I drag out my old Karateka discs, and my old Apple II, I can still play it (barring physical media issues, or the computer having a fault.) If, in thirty years' time, I drag out my Starcraft II DVD (or my Assassin's Creed DVD, or whatever), will I still be able to play it? (assuming I have access to a system that can run the code, of course; I'm not necessarily expecting to be able to do the equivalent of playing Apple II games on a Commodore Amiga.)

    We're entering a world where physical scarcity no longer matters for a great many things (currently, video, music, and electronic games; this may extend into other items as well in the not-too-distant future); navigating all the issues that that creates will be extremely interesting, for Chinese values of the word.

  8. Finally by pookie13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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! :)

    1. Re:Finally by Pi1grim · · Score: 3

      This totally makes sense. Wish they would also prohibit disabling single player games for violating terms of use. If I don't use a device in accordance with it's manual, a company is in their right to refuse repairing it refuse connecting it to their network. But taking away all games is just ridiculous. Heck, taking an analogy to the world of physical things it's as if company reps came to my home and took, without any compensation, all of the devices made by their company just because I spilled water on my laptop's keyboard.

    2. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Term of usage and EULA's are not contracts. Contracts demand informed consent, which that one can prove within reason that the other person understood what they signed. Contract law demand this because otherwhise, house sellers and job offers could try sneak in "creative" stuff into contract. The "cartoon" way of tricking people with contracts are not legal in the EU, and the law term that enforce this is "Informed consent".

      EULA's and Term of usage is more closer to disclaimers than contracts, and is more about published information rather than contracts. In those cases EULA's and Term of usage has been tested, the rulings are almost always in favor of the consumer.

    3. Re:Finally by Gaygirlie · · Score: 5, Informative

      EULAs have been challenged in courts multiple times here in Finland, every single time ending up in loss for the EULA-enforcer. The simple fact is that an EULA is covered by copyright laws, and copyright law cannot remove rights given by other laws. It most certainly is NOT covered by contract laws. That means that even if the EULA e.g. specifically said that you cannot sell the item after you're done with it the clause is invalid and you are perfectly within your rights to sell it.

  9. Re:Welcome to the PC gaming market by Jiro · · Score: 2

    GOG doesn't take measures to prevent you from selling their games. There's nothing which prevents you from buying some games from GOG, burning them to a disk, and selling someone that disk. The person who you sell it to won't be able to redownload the games from your account, and if you try to redownload them yourself that's piracy, but there's nothing to keep the person you sell the disk to from using the disk to play the game.

    Of course, it would be illegal to sell someone that disk and keep a copy for yourself, but that's also true for a game you can buy in a store.

  10. Germans should read the license before suing. by uaiz · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:Germans should read the license before suing. by gl4ss · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Contrary to popular belief not all things put on licenses are enforceable and not all rights are possible to give up in exchange of a cheaper deal(essentially this is the whole basis of consumer protection laws).

      OTOH.. it's technically possible to sell your steam games. you just have to sell them all at once(sell the account. you can change the realname if you ever put one in..).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:Germans should read the license before suing. by dkf · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yeah, but if the law in Germany says otherwise, then it is the law that applies. That's the difference between laws and contracts (of which a license agreement is just a small part) and it's actually impossible to have a contract to break the law; contracts must be lawful or they are simply not contracts by definition. Even if the agreement says that it is not conducted under German law, German consumers will have the right to use German law anyway. (Well, probably; I've not actually checked what the relevant law says, but there's a lot of similarity in this area across different EU members and I know that UK law is very clear on this point.)

      The real question is not whether there's recourse in law, but how any ensuing judgements would be enforced. An unenforceable ruling really isn't much use.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    3. Re:Germans should read the license before suing. by Sique · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Laws strike down any license or contract. A law will always supersede what's in a contract or license. If the law for instance states that no truck driver is allowed to drive more than 4 hrs without at least 30 min pause, then no work contract can force a truck driver to drive 8 hrs without stopping (even though trucking companies seems to be under the impression that they can do anyway).

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
  11. Valve, or the publishers? by trawg · · Score: 2

    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.)

    1. Re:Valve, or the publishers? by mog007 · · Score: 2

      if you use Steam with DRM for online distribution (a good idea) then they disallow you from having a physical copy without Steam (bad idea) or from using alternate online distribution means.

      That's not true. Let's pick a semi-recent release, FTL. Development was funded through Kickstarter, and the game is available from three digital distributors. You can get it on Steam, GoG, or direct from the developers.

  12. Re:inevitable by arbiter1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yea it was, but wonder if reason you can't resell your steam games besides ones like assassin's creed III which has striped down version of uplay which you have to register your key with, is the game companies that choose to have steam as their distro platform. Some of them made that call to say they couldn't transfer games. If its made easy to sell a game to another person, protections that are needed to be in place to stop say someone from getting their account hacked and all their games transferred to another person for say 10 cents.

  13. Re:inevitable by dreamchaser · · Score: 2

    It is an easy problem to fix. Upon transfer the seller's copy is deleted and a fresh copy is provided to the buyer.

  14. Re:Digital Licenses are not physical media by Munchr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hurrah for posting before reading the whole article and the article's sources. So the ECJ (I guess Europe's equivalent of the US Supreme Court, correct me if wrong) determined that licenses can be transferred, even for downloaded software. The exclusive right to control distribution of a copy is exhausted on it's first sale. So even though this group suing Valve lost in 2010 over a very similar issue, they will likely prevail after this new ruling by the ECJ. Nice going Europe, I only wish we could convince US courts to follow the same reasoning.

  15. There is a bigger problem with Steam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  16. Re:Always Germany by bfandreas · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
    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 ... insulting.

    --
    20 minutes into the future
  17. Perfect Opportunity for Valve by Ogive17 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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."
  18. Re:Digital Licenses are not physical media by Rhywden · · Score: 2

    Merely saying that it is "licensed" doesn't make it so.

  19. Re:inevitable by Ash+Vince · · Score: 2

    It is an easy problem to fix. Upon transfer the seller's copy is deleted and a fresh copy is provided to the buyer.

    That of course is dependant on whether Steam are allowed to do this according to their contract with the people who created / distribute the game in question?

    I would not be at all surprised if the who way Steam negotiates the very cheap prices they offer stuff for is that the publishes know the use a very restrictive form of DRM that prevents resale. That DRM may actually be a condition attached by the company who actually own the copyright on the game in question. Since many of the games bought through steam have a different form of DRM if bought on disk this is definitely the case for some stuff.

    It will be funny if that is the case as this could just end up in Steam having to not sell those products in Germany in future.

    Of course there are also the other companies that are following Steam's example now as well. Is Origin (EA's offering) any different in this regard?

    --
    I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
  20. Re:inevitable by Sique · · Score: 5, Informative

    No. It's Germans who make a contract with a german outlet of Valve, following german law. If Valve's infrastructure is not able to handle the problem, they shouldn't do business in Germany. And a change in an EULA does neither change a court verdict nor a law in Germany. The new EULA has to adhere to german law too, and german law says that either Valve rents the game or it sells it, so either the legal framework of a rent or that of a sale applies. No EULA can change this legal fact.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  21. Re:Welcome to the PC gaming market by petermgreen · · Score: 2

    BS,

    In the early 2000s, games (at least all the ones I played) could be installed and played without online activation. Many games did prevent multiple simultaneous uses of the same CD key online which made buying a used copy for online use a little risky but that was about the extent of problems with resale.

    Steam was first made available to the public in 2002 but didn't really rise to prominance until 2004 when valve shut down it's WON servers and released half life 2. People bitched and moaned a lot but ultimately desire to continue playing half life/counter strike online and desire to play half life 2 at all outweighed dislike of steam and gamers sucked it up. As the performance issues were sorted out some even started to like steam. Having seen gamers put up with steam gradually everyone else started putting some form of online activation into their games too.

    --
    note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  22. Re:Lets address the obvious problem here, shall we by mr_gorkajuice · · Score: 2

    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.

  23. Re:local laws super seed that contract by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    local laws super seed that contract

    It's a crumb! It's a bug! No, its SUPER SEED! Punishing evil-doers with his Embryo of Justice and Sprouts of Righteousness!

  24. Re:local laws super seed that contract by rarumberger · · Score: 3, Funny

    And this, kids, is why your Comp Sci and Engineering degrees require you to take a semester of English.

  25. Re:inevitable by Angeret · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well that's dead easy to answer. You sell a game or games online, you are already connected to the Internet. "To complete the transaction, click this button to uninstall the software from your machine. The license will then be transferred to the buyer who may then install the software". Not hard, is it? Click or not click, sell or not sell.

    As Steam knows every copy of every game and who owns it, I should think that even if you could cheat the system by installing a backup, the next time you were online and Steam is running it could politely tell you if you were being a dick. If you did it legit, you'd have payment (in lucre, Steam store credit or some other goods), the buyer would have the game. Everybody happy, I like that!

  26. Re:almost never? by Zimluura · · Score: 2

    Clarification: I've almost always been able to resell my PC games. Only relatively recently has DRM really been difficult to get away from. I've been playing PC games since the early 90s and there was a time without DRM restricted resale.