And again this "second hand sales have damaged" crap. Most gamers use their money from the sales to buy newer games. Stop second hand sales, make less on first hand sales. And "Valve taking cut" ? This ruling has nothing to do with any trade system in any electronics store. It just says user A can transfer their licence to user B, period. If they do it in person with cash, it's their choice. If the seller gets paid through paypal/google checkout, it's their choice. If they do a game swap, it's their choice. All the ruling says that digital content stores needs to allow the transfer of licence from user A to user B free of charge. Technically, you could right now send a support request to transfer the game from you to someone else on Steam, citing this ruling and they should comply. Of course the question is if they will, but again - this has nothing to do with any trade systems of Steam or Origin or whatever. You could list your game on eBay, get paid through Paypal and then send the game through Steam support request or Steam trading if you wish (of course they would have to allow to sell not only additional copies of the games, but the primary copies as well).
Oh I wasn't saying it wouldn't transfer - I was more imagining that the singleplayer side of the game would be fine, but the online portion would not be. A new account would need to be created, maybe even a subscription as the company provides an online service, to play the multiplayer aspect.
Yes, but they ask him money for the online service. In other words, stuff like online pass where 1st owner has multiplayer, but 2nd hand owners have to buy it for 10€ were made illegal by this ruling as well.
so , we`ll see muliplayer games now charging for online access for everything - even from new , and the publisher includes a `free` 1 use online pass when you buy it new
They could effectively turn around and say that you bought the data that you downloaded and therefore are free to sell that exact data on to others. I can't see them offering a download service for a re-sold game.
The original ruling made no such mention. It was about reselling an Oracle license and Oracle providing download access to the files, which a game sale could give– to the single player aspect. The multi player component will be sold as a 'service support' component, in much the same way Oracle would sell service to a customer. Edit: while I'm on this thought... Here's a work around for the developer /publisher. Game new costs £30, comes with multiplayer pass. When sold second hand, new player only gets the single player aspect and must buy a multi player pass... At a cost of current price on steam so £30(as an example), or even just below price of new. (effectively pricing the sp/2nd hand price with the difference) There would be no advantage or money saved buying second hand unless you want to play just the single player.
The ruling already said that the license that is sold is the same as the one which was bought originally i.e. people buying second hand software licences have a right to download the updates etc that you would expect to get if you hadn't have sold the game and instead played it for 2 years.
If the original game includes multiplayer, then you cannot deny the 2nd hand owner the multiplayer part, simply because the game (licence to program) was transferred as whole, including the multiplayer access. Sure, if they start selling let's say BF3 in a way that you will get a singleplayer box with multiplayer program code for €29.99 and then you will have to separately buy a €9.99 multiplayer access code, then they will be able to deny transfer of multiplayer as it is not part of the software. But if the 1st user gets a multiplayer as a part of the package, then you have to transfer that right to the 2nd user as well, because it is "part of the box" (in this case a digital box).
I'm in agreement with you there, I was talking hypothetically if they selling the multiplayer aspect separately. Ie comes 'free' with a new purchase but costs for 2nd hand.
No because if it comes free with the 1st hand purchase, then it must transfer to the 2nd hand purchase. It's still a part of the item that the original customer bought.
Well 'included' then. There will be a wording of the purchase = game content for single player and an included one use mp key. While we're discussing hypotheticals, they may just sell the games without this mp key to be 'legal' for next user transfer. I'm currently being told I'm wrong for my hypothetical system of getting around this ruling lol.
I thought the ruling was: only content that requires a subscription (monthly/yearly) was not free to pass on. Therefore any Multi-player passes or DLC that came with 1st purchase would also be transferred to the new owner - whereas, say any WOW subscription-time remaining (as it's subscription based) could not. So the only way around that would be if the Multi-player access was time limited (1 year of access from purchase) Using "perpetual-subscription" wording in the EULA also doesn't cut it as the ruling stated that's the same as outright buying the content.
So in my hypothetical instance its a yearly multiplayer pass key, glad we cleared that up haha. But wouldn't a lifetime key for a user be legal in the same way lifetime free brake pad changes are, the lifetime ends when the user sells on the car (or game)?
No, because your comparison isn't correct. You're comparing the brake pads to the game, when in fact you should be comparing the car to the game.
I was comparing the car to the game. And the disc pads to the multiplayer aspect of said game. Brake pads wear out over time and need to be replaced, a games multiplayer aspect is timed and needs to be replaced (subscription). However you can buy lifetime brake replacements for the duration that you own the car, similarly you could buy a lifetime multiplayer pass for the duration that you own the game. Does that make more sense?
It does, but it doesn't work. IF you purchase that licence with the original software, then transfer of the software includes that licence, so the lifetime multiplayer access would transfer too. If you need more clarification, then perhaps this will help: http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2012/07/05/usedsoft_vs_oracle_ruling_analysis/
Would be great if you could sell your digital copies of games, but I see games developers putting every possible obstacle to stop it from happening.
