Makes you wonder if this will affect digital distribution services at all. Will they have to provide a way of transferring to someone else now?

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.

Wow. That's massive. I knew this was the case in German law already, didn't realise this was becoming an EU ruling as Hexus are saying.

It kind of also makes me think that you actually own your games, not just a license to use them

Agent
Makes you wonder if this will affect digital distribution services at all. Will they have to provide a way of transferring to someone else now?

I presume they'll just update the license revocation tools that exist for games that do allow resale - resale is conditional on making your own copy of the game unusable, which is what license revocation tools do anyway.

Ferral
It kind of also makes me think that you actually own your games, not just a license to use them

In Germany that's the case. Same thing I was getting at with my quote :)

I don't know that this will automatically apply in the UK however.

In this brief moment of sanity can they cast their gaze over the UK government and raise their banhammers again?

Green Man Gaming have a nifty little blog entry about the whole thing.

But Sulyok believes all it will take is for one consumer to enforce his right to the resale of a game – and thus be required to make his copy unusable – for the two heavyweight companies to be triggered into action.

C'mon… Who's gonna be the man, the legend, the freer of our unwanted games? Dare I say… The Messiah?

Well that's *seriously* going to put a crimp in publisher's ambitions to decimate the second hand market. And thank the EU for that (for a change).

Of course, now that we've had a prevalence of good sense, we're now in for a ****storm of stupid and federalisation to readdress the balance of cronyism.

This might have a negative affect and push game distributors towards a subscription model.

As it applies to other software too rather than only games, does anyone think that this will prompt price cuts for high-end packages (such as Adobe's Creative Suite etc.), to dissuade those who will now be looking to buy second hand for much cheaper?

hip hip, hooray!

How soon till we see the option for trading used PC games, either physical or downloaded?

Thank God for the EU, we'd be in an awful state without them keeping the worst capitalist offenders in check.

Jimbo75
Thank God for the EU, we'd be in an awful state without them keeping the worst capitalist offenders in check.

I can only assume irony.

mark22
I can only assume irony.

No irony. Who else is keeping the worst offenders in check? There is no other governing body bar the EU doing a thing to protect the common man against the increasing levels of corporate bullying.

Jimbo75
No irony. Who else is keeping the worst offenders in check? There is no other governing body bar the EU doing a thing to protect the common man against the increasing levels of corporate bullying.

It's true; I'm not exactly pro-EU or anything, but I'm not on the mindless bashing bandwagon either. It's pretty normal for governmental bodies to be heavily influenced by corporate lobbing and the EU is no exception, but they do also have an undeniable socialist/elitist slant to them, which of course isn't entirely a good thing by any means but it does mean to get rulings like this from time to time where the citizen is favoured over corporate interests.

Ultimately who is the winner and loser here really? If they do go down the route of subscription model, that is bad for the Consumer

Agent
Makes you wonder if this will affect digital distribution services at all. Will they have to provide a way of transferring to someone else now?

I doubt they'll be obliged to make it easier for the consumer, the ruling would affect the customer's right to resell, not make it compulsory for the providers to make it more technically feasible. That said, Steam are quite pro-active in terms of allowing you to gift games you already own and such, so it's not unimaginable that they could provide some sort of transfer services provided the publishers agree.

Malphas
I doubt they'll be obliged to make it easier for the consumer, the ruling would affect the customer's right to resell, not make it compulsory for the providers to make it more technically feasible. That said, Steam are quite pro-active in terms of allowing you to gift games you already own and such, so it's not unimaginable that they could provide some sort of transfer services provided the publishers agree.

But Origin on the otherhand are more difficult and this could be a problem

Malphas
Steam are quite pro-active in terms of allowing you to gift games you already own and such

Quite the opposite, far as I can tell. You even lose a double copy you buy in most cases (i.e., if you have a game and buy a pack containing it, you lose the extra copy). The Steam license also forbids more than one person to use an account. GamersGate is the best store I know in terms of gifting, since anything you bought and haven't downloaded yet can be gifted. Extending gifting there to comply with this decision will be easy.

Anyway, this is pretty exciting. The EU does come up with some nice decisions from time to time. This is also relevant to a lot of other software. Some software is even sold with personal named licenses. Perhaps these might no longer be sold in the EU.

csgohan4
Ultimately who is the winner and loser here really? If they do go down the route of subscription model, that is bad for the Consumer

Nothing changes really. This law was already in place in Germany, but it looks like it was challenged (for application in Germany) and went to a higher court in the EU, which has upheld the German law and clarified the the conditions by which a product can be considered to be owned by the buyer, even if the terms state otherwise.

Licensed games in Germany usually come with a revocation system if there is a limit on number of installs - same as securom basically.

Services like Steam are possibly not affected if they are providing access to a library of games rather than acting as a retailer - steamworks enabled games will probably come under this category. Think of Steam as a version of cloud gaming where you cache files locally to improve performance. Same probably applies to Diablo 3.

ET3D
Quite the opposite, far as I can tell. You even lose a double copy you buy in most cases (i.e., if you have a game and buy a pack containing it, you lose the extra copy).

That's not the case. If you get an extra copy then you can gift it. The only time you can't would be if the pack games weren't being sold separately.

kalniel
Services like Steam are possibly not affected if they are providing access to a library of games rather than acting as a retailer - steamworks enabled games will probably come under this category. Think of Steam as a version of cloud gaming where you cache files locally to improve performance. Same probably applies to Diablo 3.

Uh, no. Steam sells lifetime software licenses for a fixed sum, and provides the software via download to use it. This ruling effects steam as it would for origin, or any other such CDN service. The judgement is pretty clear, no matter how you try to wiggle around reclassifing what Steam do, they're still a games vendor just like GAME, minus the boxed software.

BlackDwarf
C'mon… Who's gonna be the man, the legend, the freer of our unwanted games? Dare I say… The Messiah?

Well, my step-son's copy (boxed, retail, I might add) of Skyrim is currently registered to my Steam account. I want to “resell” it to him. Might be worth an email…. “Dear Steam, In light of the latest ruling by …” ;)

aidanjt
Uh, no. Steam sells lifetime software licenses for a fixed sum, and provides the software via download to use it. This ruling effects steam as it would for origin, or any other such CDN service. The judgement is pretty clear, no matter how you try to wiggle around reclassifing what Steam do, they're still a games vendor just like GAME, minus the boxed software.

You're agreeing with me. I said if they are providing access to a library of games rather than acting as a retailer. If they're acting as a retailer then they're a games vendor just like GAME. If they're acting as a library provider like onLive etc. then it's possibly different.

Where it gets interesting is online passes..

I'm don't entirely agree with this, if people buy a creative work and then sell it on second hand then multiple people have enjoyed it/used it but only the first has actually paid anything to the creator of the works. In the case of software and games in particular then the more widespread second/third/fourth hand use is then the more it is going to push up first-buyer shop prices to cover the costs of development.

Musicians receive royalties whenever their work is played in public, photographers take a fee if someone re-uses their photo, in cinemas everyone pays to see the film, but if you buy a DVD or CD everyone at home can enjoy it for no extra cost… are games more like a CD or DVD, you pay for a media and can use whatever is on it? Maybe, but unlike music and cinema the industry doesn't have an equivalent of concerts and cinemas… or perhaps the equivalent is online play, so you can get the second hand disc, install the software, play the single player but each online player should pay a fee to join in.

I can see this type of ruling and the “second hand problem” dramatically changing the industry to either an entirely subscription model (relies on internet connection to play) or free to play initially but with paid unlockable content (content that is somehow limited to only one person ever). The shame is that either way the industry is going to be wasting a lot of money on combating the inevitable idiots who try to hack it and play for free because their bad attitude won't bend to paying for something they're getting enjoyment out of.

Whiternoise
In this brief moment of sanity can they cast their gaze over the UK government and raise their banhammers again?

The EU should ban the UK government? I'd go along with that ….

Anyone know if the publishers plan to appeal this decision (assuming that there IS the ability to appeal of course)?

ET3D
Quite the opposite, far as I can tell. You even lose a double copy you buy in most cases (i.e., if you have a game and buy a pack containing it, you lose the extra copy).

What happens to your duplicate copy depends on whether or not the game's publisher allows it to be gifted or not. Valve's stance is to allow gifting.

kingpotnoodle
I'm don't entirely agree with this, if people buy a creative work and then sell it on second hand then multiple people have enjoyed it/used it but only the first has actually paid anything to the creator of the works. In the case of software and games in particular then the more widespread second/third/fourth hand use is then the more it is going to push up first-buyer shop prices to cover the costs of development.

That's how the market for almost every other good works though. When you buy a new car, you're not just paying for the physical materials and labour, you're also paying for the engineering and the R&D, etc. (similarly to the development costs for a game or other creative work). Meanwhile everyone buying a car second hand (i.e. the vast majority) aren't contributing to that.

aidanjt
And thank the EU for that (for a change).

+ 1 , something actually good and useful coming out of the EU courts.

Dopes this mean people on forums will finally shut up incorrectly telling people that want to transfer their OEM Windows license to another computer/person that the EULA denies them that right?

“the exclusive right of distribution is exhausted on first sale”

The legal opinion that OEM licenses were unenforcable due to EU rules preventing restrictions on resale has been the consensus for years now. Now it is enshrined in case law.

Malphas
That's how the market for almost every other good works though. When you buy a new car, you're not just paying for the physical materials and labour, you're also paying for the engineering and the R&D, etc. (similarly to the development costs for a game or other creative work). Meanwhile everyone buying a car second hand (i.e. the vast majority) aren't contributing to that.

Indeed. However the second hand car buyers (and potentially software buyers) are increasing both potential sales and values of new cars (or software) as the people that buy new cars (or software) can take into account anticipated second hand value before buying.

kingpotnoodle
I'm don't entirely agree with this, if people buy a creative work and then sell it on second hand then multiple people have enjoyed it/used it but only the first has actually paid anything to the creator of the works. In the case of software and games in particular then the more widespread second/third/fourth hand use is then the more it is going to push up first-buyer shop prices to cover the costs of development.

Musicians receive royalties whenever their work is played in public, photographers take a fee if someone re-uses their photo, in cinemas everyone pays to see the film, but if you buy a DVD or CD everyone at home can enjoy it for no extra cost… are games more like a CD or DVD, you pay for a media and can use whatever is on it? Maybe, but unlike music and cinema the industry doesn't have an equivalent of concerts and cinemas… or perhaps the equivalent is online play, so you can get the second hand disc, install the software, play the single player but each online player should pay a fee to join in.

I can see this type of ruling and the “second hand problem” dramatically changing the industry to either an entirely subscription model (relies on internet connection to play) or free to play initially but with paid unlockable content (content that is somehow limited to only one person ever). The shame is that either way the industry is going to be wasting a lot of money on combating the inevitable idiots who try to hack it and play for free because their bad attitude won't bend to paying for something they're getting enjoyment out of.

Do you think the same about Art? Pieces of art are sold on a daily basis, enjoyed by the owner, who can then sell it on if he chooses, the Artist has only received the initial sum.

What do you think about the second hand car market? Should we stop people from buying second hand cars?

I hold on to great games, I wouldn't want to sell them - the games I have sold on are the crap games that I wouldn't want to play again, if developers make a great game, they will make money.

Yep and new cars are priced accordingly high - they are in effect subsidised by second hand sales*.

I've long been arguing for the same thing with games - a higher initial price so that developers can make a living, while allowing second hand sales to help subsidise the initial price (and with natural decay you'll get more or less money back depending how long you continue playing the game).

* and also parts, servicing and finance to be honest, especially the latter.. I hope those don't come into play for games.. though I guess microtransactions…

Malphas
Meanwhile everyone buying a car second hand (i.e. the vast majority) aren't contributing to that.

Not directly, but the second hand resale value is clearly relevant to the people buying it new - I'm pretty sure new car sales would go down pretty sharply if you suddenly weren't allowed to sell them on, get a trade in price etc… The economics of the car market is established and used to the fact that there will almost certainly be multiple owners for each car.

The arguments are in my eye exactly the same as second hand sales of retail boxed games - on that front I agree with the decision entirely. The only practical issue to me is that second hand digital will be more attractive, i.e. if all you're getting is the ability to install/play something with no physical media, box, instruction manual, etc… does it matter in the slightest that it's “second hand”?

I assume the current economic/business models for digital distribution don't take into account the ability to re-sell. If e.g. Steam are forced to allow second hand sales, will the the big Steam sales reduce as the developers/publishers need more cash from the first sale to make up for (potentially) lost sales? Or will, as others have said, the entire industry shift to renting access to a game rather than selling a license/ownership?

[Edit - i.e. basically what others have all said first in reply :))

I guess the depreciation over time can come from technological advancement, rather than the product actually degrading. I still find it a bit concerning that given any ‘used’ digital copy is bit for bit exactly the same as a ‘new’ copy, there would never be a reason to buy a new game if there is a person willing to sell their copy.

I guess it probably wont affect steam other than giving you the ‘right’ to sell your steam account.

kalniel
That's not the case. If you get an extra copy then you can gift it. The only time you can't would be if the pack games weren't being sold separately.

Not true. See here. Only very specific packs give you extra copies.

kingpotnoodle
I'm don't entirely agree with this, if people buy a creative work and then sell it on second hand then multiple people have enjoyed it/used it but only the first has actually paid anything to the creator of the works.

True, but that's how it's always been before the digital age, and prices haven't been reduced due to going digital. In fact the normal prices of physical books and games are often less than the prices of digital ones. (Although digital is more often discounted.)

The ability to lend and sell what you have is normal in a market, and it has beneficial effects. I haven't seen proof that it hurts the market, though that's commonly said by publishers. People who sell usually put the money directly into new games, and people who buy used are introduced to franchises they might not have bought otherwise, which they'll be more likely to buy new in the future if they like them.


And looks like the EU is continuing with the good work: Acta: Controversial anti-piracy agreement rejected by EU.

This could mean the end of extravagant discounts, however, as publishers will have to worry over second hand sales. Why should they “reward” gamers with low prices if the latter group can just get games second hand? Digital downloads don't suffer from wear and tear either so you would basically be getting a second hand product in perfectly new condition.

Yeah indeed. It seems the UK is very stoic in the beliefs/regulation of digital purchases. Surely this will not be hard to implement on a Steam/Origin basis where your games are removed from the store when the license is transferred. Exactly like “real” games in CD/DVD format.

Ross1
I guess the depreciation over time can come from technological advancement, rather than the product actually degrading. I still find it a bit concerning that given any ‘used’ digital copy is bit for bit exactly the same as a ‘new’ copy, there would never be a reason to buy a new game if there is a person willing to sell their copy. I guess it probably wont affect steam other than giving you the ‘right’ to sell your steam account.

Don't agree with that last bit, mainly because that "if there is a person willing to sell their copy" means that it'd be a sellers market - at least initially. You will always get folks who are willing to pay full price in exchange for getting the “Game Of The Year” on launch day. If you don't believe that, then cast your mind back to all those CoD launches where folks were queueing outside GAME/HMV at midnight.
Don't forget the pester power factor too - if el sprog's friends have all got “Bang, Bang, Shooty, Car Race III” then your sprog will definitely have an incentive to get a copy (or at least annoy you into getting one for them). And I guarantee that “wait until it's available second hand” will cut no ice at all.

pfb201
Yeah indeed. It seems the UK is very stoic in the beliefs/regulation of digital purchases. Surely this will not be hard to implement on a Steam/Origin basis where your games are removed from the store when the license is transferred. Exactly like “real” games in CD/DVD format.

Hmm, I think you meant account rather than “store” in that? Otherwise you'd be proposing that you could only ever have one copy of a particular title and selling your current copy meant that you could never buy another.

Assuming you did mean “account” then that'd seem like a reasonable way to do things - especially if the Steam/Origin/uPlay/etc client also removed the program from your PC (although it couldn't do anything about backup copies I guess - but online activation should deal with that).

I can't see any problem in them (EA et al) defining a second hand value. So when you'd finished with BF3 (for example) then you could “deactivate” your copy and get back the current “resale” value - more than likely as digital store credit. In the case of the publishers own stores this would seem like a good deal - keeping the punters in your ecosystem.

DeludedGuy
Do you think the same about Art? Pieces of art are sold on a daily basis, enjoyed by the owner, who can then sell it on if he chooses, the Artist has only received the initial sum.

What do you think about the second hand car market? Should we stop people from buying second hand cars?

I hold on to great games, I wouldn't want to sell them - the games I have sold on are the crap games that I wouldn't want to play again, if developers make a great game, they will make money.

And the price of unique art (as in not a mass produced print) is beyond most, do we want that to happen to games?

Cars and most other machinery have an ongoing generation of money from repairs, parts, servicing so manufacturers continue to make money even though the machine has been sold on to another person. Games developers don't have this.

So because some people play second/third/+ hand you are now penalised and must pay out a larger price for your games which you want to keep. In effect this punishes eager fans who want to play a game soon after release and keep it.

I don't think paradigms from other industries really work so well with games and other software.

kingpotnoodle
And the price of unique art (as in not a mass produced print) is obscene, do we want that to happen to games?

Cars and most other machinery have an ongoing generation of money from repairs, parts, servicing so manufacturers continue to make money even though the machine has been sold on to another person. Games developers don't have this.

I think you will find that games developers do have something similar, its called expansion packs…

crossy
I can't see any problem in them (EA et al) defining a second hand value. So when you'd finished with BF3 (for example) then you could “deactivate” your copy and get back the current “resale” value - more than likely as digital store credit. In the case of the publishers own stores this would seem like a good deal - keeping the punters in your ecosystem.

That would never work, how many people are going to keep a game if they've played it through? It would be effectively selling the game at (initial price) - (2nd hand price). Each person would only in effect pay a few pounds for having played the game rather than £30+. You'd have to hugely increase sales for that to pay for itself…

DeludedGuy
I think you will find that games developers do have something similar, its called expansion packs…

You mean downloadable content, expansion packs are no different to the original game in terms of second hand treatment being resold as a disc. And how long until it's enforced that people are trading their DLC access, you bought the “Sword of Massive Face Whacking” from the developers, but then sell it on… again developer profits down.

Software development as an industry needs to make money, if most of the players actually pay another gamer rather than the developer then the initial purchase price is going to rise - that or we'll end up with a subscription/rental model which will cost loyal fans a lot in the long term. I've been playing Skyrim for months, even if I had to pay only £5 a month I would now have spent more than I did to purchase it on Steam. That sort of thing will destroy the community, modding and long term player segment by pricing people out.

kingpotnoodle
You mean downloadable content, expansion packs are no different to the original game in terms of second hand treatment being resold as a disc. And how long until it's enforced that people are trading their DLC access, you bought the “Sword of Massive Face Whacking” from the developers, but then sell it on… again developer profits down.

Software development as an industry needs to make money, if most of the players actually pay another gamer rather than the developer then the initial purchase price is going to rise - that or we'll end up with a subscription/rental model which will cost loyal fans a lot in the long term. I've been playing Skyrim for months, even if I had to pay only £5 a month I would now have spent more than I did to purchase it on Steam. That sort of thing will destroy the community, modding and long term player segment by pricing people out.

Most games these days only take a day or two to complete. A subscription model would kill them faster than dead. They're just going to have to make better games to compel gamers to retain purchases, like they should have been doing anyway.

aidanjt
Most games these days only take a day or two to complete. A subscription model would kill them faster than dead. They're just going to have to make better games to compel gamers to retain purchases, like they should have been doing anyway.

Depends in the charging scheme, wouldn't if charges were something like:

Month1 = £20
Month2 = £10
Month3+ = £5pm

They would price them for profit same as they do now, we'd probably end up paying more in the long run. Digital only distribution makes this possible, as soon as someone stops paying their client (e.g. Steam) prevents launching the game. Wouldn't be too hard to ensure only authorised copies could run but it would sure make it a PITA for customers wanting to play offline.

If you complete it in a few days you only pay 1 month and then stop. It kills the second hand market, so more people are paying that £20… from a publishers perspective it looks like all win to me. Not so bad for people playing quick games as they have only paid £20, same as you might have done buying second hand on a fairly new game. It would also encourage longevity and replay value to be built in… however those who do play a big game like Skyrim, Fallout etc over many months are likely to end up getting ripped off - this is what I do an why I don't like the idea of subscription services and as such am wary of things forcing the industry down that path.

It's the direction the second hand market will force the industry, and I can unfortunately see why from a business perspective… otherwise it's like buying season ticket a theme park, having your fun and then selling that season ticket to a mate who also goes and has their fun, then sells it to a mate… IMHO games are more analogous to that type of interactive entertainment than they are to passive forms like DVDs, music or art, or to any other commodity.

kingpotnoodle
I'm don't entirely agree with this, if people buy a creative work and then sell it on second hand then multiple people have enjoyed it/used it but only the first has actually paid anything to the creator of the works. In the case of software and games in particular then the more widespread second/third/fourth hand use is then the more it is going to push up first-buyer shop prices to cover the costs of development.

Musicians receive royalties whenever their work is played in public, photographers take a fee if someone re-uses their photo, in cinemas everyone pays to see the film, but if you buy a DVD or CD everyone at home can enjoy it for no extra cost… are games more like a CD or DVD, you pay for a media and can use whatever is on it? Maybe, but unlike music and cinema the industry doesn't have an equivalent of concerts and cinemas… or perhaps the equivalent is online play, so you can get the second hand disc, install the software, play the single player but each online player should pay a fee to join in.

I can see this type of ruling and the “second hand problem” dramatically changing the industry to either an entirely subscription model (relies on internet connection to play) or free to play initially but with paid unlockable content (content that is somehow limited to only one person ever). The shame is that either way the industry is going to be wasting a lot of money on combating the inevitable idiots who try to hack it and play for free because their bad attitude won't bend to paying for something they're getting enjoyment out of.

With that sort of logic, every time you buy something second hand, the original owner or IP has to be paid again, let's see how fast you change your mind once the car industry tries the same business model.

IronWarrior
With that sort of logic, every time you buy something second hand, the original owner or IP has to be paid again, let's see how fast you change your mind once the car industry tries the same business model.

Well as already mentioned, the car industry both gets continually paid through service parts/franchises and has a high enough initial cost of cars to make the business profitable in the long run.

kingpotnoodle
Depends in the charging scheme, wouldn't if charges were something like:

Month1 = £20
Month2 = £10
Month3+ = £5pm

They would price them for profit same as they do now, we'd probably end up paying more in the long run. Digital only distribution makes this possible, as soon as someone stops paying their client (e.g. Steam) prevents launching the game. Wouldn't be too hard to ensure only authorised copies could run but it would sure make it a PITA for customers wanting to play offline.

If you complete it in a few days you only pay 1 month and then stop. It kills the second hand market, so more people are paying that £20… from a publishers perspective it looks like all win to me. Not so bad for people playing quick games as they have only paid £20, same as you might have done buying second hand on a fairly new game. It would also encourage longevity and replay value to be built in… however those who do play a big game like Skyrim, Fallout etc over many months are likely to end up getting ripped off - this is what I do an why I don't like the idea of subscription services and as such am wary of things forcing the industry down that path.

Nobody is going to buy that that is a genuine subscription model at all, least of all an ECJ judge, who isn't going to be terribly amused with companies trying to worm their way around a prior ruling. Now if publishers want to charge complete distribution platform access to all games for £X/m, then you might be talking. But again, that brings us back to them losing out in the long run, as soon as users get bored of the offerings they're going to stop paying, and that doesn't really take long unless there's an exceptional title which keeps them interested.

kingpotnoodle
It's the direction the second hand market will force the industry, and I can unfortunately see why from a business perspective… otherwise it's like buying season ticket a theme park, having your fun and then selling that season ticket to a mate who also goes and has their fun, then sells it to a mate… IMHO games are more analogous to that type of interactive entertainment than they are to passive forms like DVDs, music or art, or to any other commodity.

It doesn't matter if the software is interactive. The ruling applies to all copyright material, with an emphasis on software, because software publishers are the target of the prosecution.

In any event, their focus should be on making great games people want to keep, and they should have been doing that for years instead of ramming DRM down people's throats discouraging them from buying at all.

Ross1
I guess the depreciation over time can come from technological advancement, rather than the product actually degrading.

Exactly. Games (and movies, etc.) generally make most of their revenue within the initial release period, so it's not like only one person has to buy the game new then everyone else can just buy it second hand from each other, one after the other (ridiculous example to illustrate the point). So although a digital copy of a game won't physically degrade like a boxed game or a car or whatever, the game might still be six months old by the time you're purchasing it second hand so it has in effect lost part of its value still. Not only that but the reselling of games does potentially allow those buying new games to buy more of them and more often, which could offset some of the publishers' losses.

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.

Guys I think you may have missed something. I'm not sure and I'm no lawyer so bear with me.

I haven't read the full judgement but the article quotes that the customer has to have been granted right to use that copy for an “unlimited period”. If the game is purely offline then what you all say is more than likely true.
However, if the game is online or uses the net maybe played on servers they control then they can always state that the game is only able to be used while they support the servers i.e. not an unlimited time period so the judgement will not affect them.

Any bets on what game dev's will do next?

Green Man Gaming already gives you trade ins for certain games.

kalniel
Well as already mentioned, the car industry both gets continually paid through service parts/franchises and has a high enough initial cost of cars to make the business profitable in the long run.

The service/parts issue is an aside, there are plenty other second hand markets (e.g. furniture, clothes) where the manufacturer doesn't continue to make money. And the initial cost is a chicken and egg issue, if digital game downloads were subject to the same market forces as cars then the initial price would adjust accordingly also. Probably wouldn't need to increase as much as you might think though, considering cars cost materials and labour for every unit sold, in addition to the cost of develop (design, engineer, test) and market the product. Digital distribution on the other hand has costs close to zero and almost 100% margin per unit, with almost the entirety of costs being development and marketing. Not only that but - again like the car industry - the second hand market could influence first sales, with consumers more likely to buy more games with the knowledge and increased disposable income that comes from being able to sell them later - as is already the case with boxed console games.

The car/other physical goods analogy actually works fine even when discussing resell of intellectual property.

kingpotnoodle
That would never work, how many people are going to keep a game if they've played it through? It would be effectively selling the game at (initial price) - (2nd hand price). Each person would only in effect pay a few pounds for having played the game rather than £30+. You'd have to hugely increase sales for that to pay for itself…

Good games do tend to get held onto - I've heard it said that Bulletstorm (for example) can be completed quickly, however it's got definite “replay value” to see if there's higher scoring ways to complete or the “what happens if I do X?” factor.

Granted that won't happen with your typical “on rails” beat-em-up or any movie tie in (or - for that matter pretty much all of the current crop of Olympic bandwaggon fodder).

I also didn't say how much EA etc would offer - I would assume a sliding scale - so if you sold BF4 in the first month then perhaps you'd get £15 back, second month £12, third £10, etc. It also wouldn't prevent EA turning around and selling the license they just “reclaimed” at a good profit - since there's obviously no difference between a new and used digital download.

Yes, it would mean that game prices would have to rise - but even something as simple as pricing digital the same as real would be enough - perhaps the savings in not having to produce and ship disks, manuals, etc would cover the shortfall?

I'm sure that there's folks in the publishers looking very closely at this at the moment…

Just as long as they don't come up with a subscription-based “pay to play” model. In which case Just Cause 2 and COD:2/4 would be costing me a mint!