Don't know. Technically you're still able to sell the game so it might be tough luck for you.

Well there'll probably be a test case soon. I'm sure there are loads of people who have been chomping at the bit to sell their Steam games.

Its been what, at least a day since the ruling, why hasn't anyone filed yet?

I'm sure it won't take long tho.

Is a license key to unlock the software the same thing as the software? Is an something like a battle net account the same thing as a key? I look forward to convoluted in-app shenanigans to get around this.

It really depends on how the software is being distributed, no? I don't think any (legit) company sells keys that come from the DVD version of a game, even if there's a downloadable version available. But for Diablo 3 and other games, the software itself is free to download; you just have to buy a key if you want to play.

There's a debate on the Steam forums about whether you actually own a game you've purchased through Steam or whether you've only acquired the right to access the game through Steam.

In a sense Steam et al hands have already been forced. This is a ruling from the highest court in Europe after all, so everyone in the EU has to fall in line. Exactly how the digital retailers will comply is the question and may be grounds for further legal battles. Steam will probably update its EULA in EU countries soon.

EULA can't get around law. Oracle most assuredly had language in their EULA to forbid resell (thats why Oracle sued to begin with after all).

7fetty sure this just means all games go persistant authentication and games are "sold

Yeah I know. My point is that stream will have to update their EULA to reflect the ruling.

You don't think raising the price of new games is kind of short sighted? The online poker sites seem to have taken a similar stance of "Oh no we're bleeding customers. Let's increase the effective price our most loyal customers pay. Oh **** we're losing customers even faster! WHY????" If they further increase the price of new games it seems a great way to make sure even more people swap over to purchasing used, or even resort to piracy. Even more so today where increasingly more major titles are released with major flaws and only reach their 'peak' some months after release - further deincentivizing early adopters.

I think the companies will respond intelligently. EA originally came out attacking Steam for 'cheapening their IP' through large scale price cuts and promotions. It didn't take them long to realize Steam (and Amazon and virtually every other major successful online retailer) were well ahead of the game there and EA's Origin rapidly, and quietly, followed suit. What do you know - when prices are lower, more people buy more products. Especially on mediums like the internet where it's so easy to just click the purchase button if the price is inviting.

The can't just "raise their prices". If people were willing to pay higher prices they'd have already done that.

The biggest difference with normal physical 2nd hand games is that there is zero wear-and-tear on a digital copy. With a physical game disc it gets scratched, and many people would rather avoid the hassle and buy new. With a digital copy there isn't any difference at all.

I'm sure the studios will feverishly try to get around this law. Like not allowing change of nic's when transferring accounts. I mean who'd want to buy a nic that someone else used first? Or perhaps with a game like Starcraft if the original owner sucked, make it impossible to get out of Bronze League (I'll manage that eventually....)

but then consumers will also be able to recoup part of that presumably rising price by reselling their license.



Has anyone contacted/seen an official statement from Steam/EA/Blizzard regarding this?

This is true basically never.

Price points are only obvious on a SD chart. If they raised the cost to $70, we'd likely just take it in the shorts. For the amount of entertainment we get from AAA titles, we're really bending over game companies.

wat? Its true basically always. Any profit maximizing entity (ie anyone who likes money) will charge whatever amount leads to the most profit. If raising prices would bring in more revenue they would do it in a heart beat.

The reasonable price of a product isn't necessarily related to how much you get out of it, but the cost of production. The average person probably plays a game for what? 10-20 hours before getting bored, moving onto the next game, etc? We pay about $60 for games. So you're saying $3/hour is a a ridiculously good price for games. Well okay I can go buy a basketball that will give me hundreds of hours of entertainment. Should basketball companies raise their prices to $500/basketball? The whole concept of capitalism is that the prices of a product are relative to the cost of production or another company can start undercutting you and producing a very similar product but selling it for much less. Customers getting tons of entertainment value out of games is not an argument for raising prices. This is:



But obviously raising the price of each game $10 or even $20 isn't going to do anything to deal with that. The major companies have embarked on an unsustainable model, it's not a question of if but when it's going to blow up. Major studios are already dropping like flies. In the mean time that means ever more independent/arcade style titles are going to start popping up and as somebody who doesn't like spending thousands on gaming and loves gameplay a million times over graphics and production quality, I couldn't be happier.

A list of major studios closed this generation, from Neogaf:

Radical Entertainment - 2012
38 Studios - 2012
Big Huge Games - 2012
THQ San Diego - 2012
Zipper Interactive - 2012
Gusto Games - 2012
4mm Games - 2012
Eden Games - 2012
dtp Entertainment - 2012
Black Hole Entertainment - 2012
Spellbound Entertainment - 2012
Artech Studios - 2011
Dark Energy Digital - 2012
Hudson Soft - 2012
Reakktor Media - 2012
Ubisoft Vancouver - 2012
3D Realms - 2009
7 Studios (Activision) - 2011
ACES Studio (Microsoft) - 2009
Action Forms - 2009
Ascaron - 2009
Atomic Elbow - 2008
Backbone Vancouver
Beam Software/Melbourne House - 2010
BigBig (Sony) - 2012
Bizarre Creations (Activision) - 2010/2011
Black Rock (Disney) - 2011
Blue Fang Games - 2011
Blue Tongue (THQ) - 2011
BottleRocket - 2009
Brash Entertainment - 2008
Budcat (Activision) - 2010
Carbonated Games - 2008
Castaway Entertainment - 2008
Cheyenne Mountain - 2010
Cing - 2010
Clover Studios (Capcom) - 2006
Codemasters Guildford - 2011
Cohort Studios - 2011
Concrete Games - 2008
Deep Silver Vienna - 2010
DICE Canada - 2006
Digital Anvil - 2006
EA Chicago - 2007
EA Bright Light - 2011/2012
EA Japan - 2007
Eidos Manchester - 2009
Eidos Hungary - 2010
Empire Interactive - 2009
Ensemble Studios (Microsoft) - 2008
Factor 5 - 2009
FASA (Microsoft) - 2007
Fizz Factor - 2009
Flagship Studios - 2008
Flight Plan - 2010
Frozen North Productions
FuzzyEyes - 2009
Gaia
Gamelab - 2009
Game Republic - 2011
GRIN - 2009
Groove Games - 2010
Helixe (THQ) - 2008
Hudson Entertainment - 2011
Humannature Studio (Nexon Vancouver) - 2009
Ignition London - 2010
Ignition Florida - 2010
Incognito Entertainment (Sony) - 2009
Indie Built (Take-Two) - 2006
Iron Lore - 2008
Juice Games (THQ) - 2011
Kaos Studios (THQ) - 2011
Killaware - 2011
Killspace Entertainment - 2011
KMM Brisbane - 2011
Krome Studios (might still be operating on skeleton crew) - 2010
Kuju Manila - 2009
Kuju Chemistry - 2009
Kush Games - 2008
Locomotive Games (THQ) - 2010
Loose Cannon Studios - 2010
Luxoflux - 2010
Mass Media (THQ) - 2008
Monte Cristo - 2010
Monumental Games - 2012
Midway Austin - 2009
Midway Newcastle - 2009
MTV Games - 2011
Multiverse - 2012
NetDevil - 2011
Ninja Studio - 2009
Nihon Telenet - 2007
Outerlight - 2010
PAM Development (Take-Two) - 2008
Pandemic Australia (EA) - 2009
Pandemic LA (EA) - 2009
Paradigm Entertainment - 2008
Pi Studios - 2011
Pivotal Games (Take-Two) - 2008
Propaganda Games (Disney) - 2011
Pseudo Interactive - 2008
Rainbow Studios (THQ) - 2011
Razorworks - 2009
Realtime Worlds - 2010
Rebellion Derby - 2010
Red Octane - 2010
Redtribe - 2008
Rockstar Vienna - 2006
Sandblast Games (THQ) - 2008
SEGA San Francisco - 2010
Sensory Sweep Studios - 2010
Seta - 2008
Shaba Games (Activision) - 2009
SideCar Studios - 2007
Sierra Online - 2008
Snapdragon Games - 2009
SOE Denver - 2011
SOE Seattle - 2011
SOE Tuscon - 2011
Stormfront Studios - 2008
Straylight Studios - 2009
Team Bondi - 2011
The Code Monkeys - 2011
Titan Studios - 2009
THQ Studio Australia - 2009
THQ Digital Warrington - 2009
Transmission Games/IR Gurus - 2009
Ubisoft Brazil - 2010
Underground Development/Z-Axis (Activision) - 2010
Universomo (THQ) - 2009
Venom Games (Take Two) - 2008
Vicarious Visions California - 2007
Visceral Australia (EA) - 2011
Wolfpack Studios - 2006
Yuke’s Company Of America - 2010
Zoe Mode London - 2009
Zoonami - 2011

Not much of a debate really even though they might say they sell you a licence or a subscription in the EULA, de facto you have purchased a game.

This will probably mean that DRM on games and software will be even more restricting, so that it's possible to completely disable the software from being used after it's sold.

Personally I think it's great that consumer rights are being protected in the EU.