Where the copyright holder makes available to his customer a copy - tangible or intangible - and at the same time concludes, in return form payment of a fee, a licence agreement granting the customer the right to use that copy for an unlimited period, that rightholder sells the copy to the customer and thus exhausts his exclusive distribution right. Such a transaction involves a transfer of the right of ownership of the copy. Therefore, even if the licence prohibits a further transfer, the rightholder can no longer oppose the resale of that copy.
I see a massive downside to this ruling as a gamer. This is talking about resale of a digital game. In reality what would happen is someone would download a game, copy the file to a harddrive, sell the “digital license” or whatever it’s called for a lesser amount and still own a copy of the game. It’s basically simplifying piracy.
This might actually necessitate game companies to have a hardline DRM approach to their games. Ironically the only games that are protected from this kind of resale are the those that heavily dipped in microtransactions since you can’t resell those and would push the market more in that direction.
IMHO this ruling is shortsighted and pushes for a future with increased monitisation that isn’t in the box value of the game and targets to hurt the Devs that make consumer friendly games while giving games with loot boxes and microtransactions an advantage in the market when talking in terms of overall sales for the devs.
Edit: My mind has changed from the piracy perspective. Still don’t like how this feels from the overall market perspective.
Steam has a sub 2-hour game time no questions asked refund period - what prevents someone from doing exactly what you said using the refund process instead of resale?
As a gamer, that’s some ridiculous whataboutisms. What’s to stop me from buying a physical copy of a game, copying it, and reselling the game? Only time, experience and know how, and yet that isn’t seen as much of an issue. This isn’t any different, it’s just digital.
Most people aren’t going through the effort of buying a physical game or any media these days, it’s why digital stores are so effective. But the other commenter did say that steam already has a 2hour refund window that basically has the same impact so I might have panicked for no reason.
Though my other point about micro transactions vs full box value still stands.
Because pirating games is not something that the majority of the population is either aware of or wiling to do due to perceived difficulty. This can be done through steam which is the biggest host of PC games and significantly less risky than going to some site and figuring out which copy of a game is legit.
Edit: I retract comment, other comment about the steam refund changed my mind.
Any protections to consumers are a win. I think overall this will be a positive for gamers.
IMHO this ruling is shortsighted and pushes for a future with increased monitisation that isn’t in the box value of the game and targets to hurt the Devs that make consumer friendly games while giving games with loot boxes and microtransactions an advantage in the market when talking in terms of overall sales for the devs.
Your last paragraph could hold some truth if publishers think this will affect profits. I don’t know if this would significantly impact profits since we’re talking about a new secondary market that did not exist in the digital space before. There’s probably some historical data for how physical used game sales affect new game sales but it might be hard to quantify since that market has existed pretty much from the beginning.
I would anticipate another across the board price increase for games as a result, but I see this more as an excuse for greed on the publishers’ parts rather than a cost to offset any actual lost revenue.
My problem is traditional consumer friendly sales model for digital games are already on the back foot. This ruling only works to dissuade any new or existing Devs from persuing that model over one with microtransaction.
If anything I want this method of purchasing digital content to be pushed further into any game with purchasable in game items to even the playing field.
This is an important observation; slowly, it becomes better for EA releasing their next singleplayer adventure to restructure: The base is “free”, and then you can buy passes to access the singleplayer world as microtransactions that are not easily transferred.
A lot of RMT content is not easy for a court to define resellability of; think things like orbs that increase a weapon’s stats through a one-time forging process. We don’t want to make that a safer vending process for publishers than full games.
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.
i have a lot of fun playing valorant, but in order to preserve my sanity i immediately mute everyone and disable text chat whenever i join a game. if something is important, they can ping it. it makes me sad, because in my experience the valorant lobbies are a coin toss between the sweetest and goofiest people you'll ever meet online, or the most unhinged sociopathic 16-year-olds letting their life frustrations out on you.
i want to meet those sweet and goofy people and have fun with them, but i just can't be bothered sitting through 3/4 lobbies of toxicity until i find one with mentally stable people
I have the misfortune of being a woman, so I play absolutely zero things with voice. And when I was younger, I'd pick the most 'bro' username possible just to avoid the bullshit.
Now that I'm older I just refuse to play competitive games at all. Life is too short to be constantly insulted. (Like the above user, I played LoL maybe twice before uninstalling.)
They need to run peoples text through a sentiment analyzer and categorize players based on toxicity and group tiers of toxicity together. Maybe include tips on how to be a better human.
Absolutely. I enjoyed playing a bit of Smite at one point in time (mostly that big open area map) and some Heroes of the Storm, but I'm not a big MOBA guy. Decided one day to give League of Legends a try, why the hell not ya know?
I have never been called a 'fucking fag' and been told to kill myself more times in a 5 minutes period of time in the entirety of my 40 years on this flying shitball of a planet. Not in public school, not on Xbox Live while playing Halo, not from my abusive family, never.
Uninstalled that shit 10 mins later and went back to TF2 where I get called that only once an hour.
That's why I liked hots, the capability to block chat from the start and for everyone.
It's not really a problem in non-competitive modes, as people usually just use on-map alerts.
gamingbible.com
Ważne