Why people don't demand that companies give them the option to resell digital games?

Digital games already give you more rights than physical in some aspects.

They let you install numerous copies and even play them at the same time on consoles for instance . My wife and I play co-op games on consoles with 1 purchased copy all the time.

Just the ability to install them endlessly without having to worry about anything physical makes them a different and more reliable way to purchase a game.

With physical you lose some "rights" but are then able to resell your individual copy.

I hope physical sticks around and while I don't use it I support it, but it's just not the same thing as a digital copy and it makes no sense that the consumer would have the same rights with them. If you don't like it don't buy them.
 
Last edited:
cireza said:
For the same reason people still buy new physical games ? The existence of a second hand market doesn't render initial/new sales useless...
Click to expand...
The main reason digital is a thing at all is that it is super easy to make a purchase. The same would be true for trading digital purchases - the value of a new game would crash within 24 hours of release for anything single player.
 
LordOcidax said:
i fail to see how this is a bad thing for us.
Click to expand...
See my post above. The reduction in overall gaming spend going from consumers to publishers will go down drastically. This would, in turn, cause publishers and developers to stop spending so much making games.

It's a similar argument to the "is Game Pass good for the industry?" debates we have here. It's an excellent value proposition for the consumer, but it's breaking down how games are made and turning them into glorified casinos. Is the trade off worth it?
 
jshackles said:
See my post above. The reduction in overall gaming spend going from consumers to publishers will go down drastically. This would, in turn, cause publishers and developers to stop spending so much making games.

It's a similar argument to the "is Game Pass good for the industry?" debates we have here. It's an excellent value proposition for the consumer, but it's breaking down how games are made and turning them into glorified casinos. Is the trade off worth it?
Click to expand...
People are going to buy new games at full price, is not the same as GP…. Actually is going to be the same as physical.
 
Many of us have been demanding that. However, the reality is it's up to lawmakers to make that change. As it stands, most copyright and intellectual property laws in the developed world are vastly out of date and have never taken into consideration newer technologies. Here in the US, the last major revision of copyright laws was the Digital Millennium Copyright Act… in 1998.

The technology to allow reselling and transfer of digital licenses undoubtedly exists but companies have no financial incentive to allow it nor do they have a legal obligation because copyright law - and related case law - is on their side in this matter. (See also: Vernor vs Autodesk, something you can expect to hear referenced a LOT by lawyers for the big software publishers if the Stop Killing Games movement gains momentum in the US.)
 
Last edited:
Because no one cares enough to base their purchase upon this niche cultural behavior.

Used games, records, clothing, etc. are not massive industries relative to buying new. Same thing here.
 
LordOcidax said:
People are going to buy new games at full price
Click to expand...
Ok sure.

Let's take a wildly successful game like Elden Ring, and look exclusively at its sales on Steam.

3mjzlqT.png


At one point, near launch, there were almost a million people playing this game simultaneously. In the last day, there were about 60k people playing it.

What happens to digital sales numbers when a million people buy the game at launch, play it for a week, and start dumping their digital copies at a discount when they get tired of it? There might be some dopes out there who will pay full price, for some reason (not as convenient, somehow no copies available, etc.) but the majority of people buying it after the first week are going to go looking for a used copy in order to play the game and save some money. How many millions of copies after the first million are they going to sell? One, two maybe? At some point you've now saturated the market, and used copies will be so abundant that it's a race to the bottom in price. Why buy the game for $60 when you can have it for $5?

This game sold an estimated 30-45 million copies on Steam alone. Do you think it could hit this target if people were able to resell their digital copies? I don't. And this is one of the best-selling games of the last few years. Indie games and AA budget games wouldn't stand a chance of getting anywhere near as many sales as they currently do.

LordOcidax said:
is not the same as GP…. Actually is going to be the same as physical.
Click to expand...
Selling a physical game requires a physical transfer in ownership. That physical transfer adds friction, on top of the already inherent differences that have been mentioned, like people wanting a pristine copy, sealed, etc. To sell a physical copy of a game, you have to take it to Gamestop for trade in, list it on eBay, throw it up on Facebook marketplace - then either trade it off in person, send it through the mail, etc. in order for it to change hands.

Digital trades would have none of this friction. It could be as easy as pressing a "list game for sale" button, and typing in your desired price. Hence, the quick race to the bottom as the 30-45 million people who have played this game all trade around the same 2-3 million copies.
 
Elfstar said:
People buy the game because want the new shit, no because they want to support someone, that's what like ten people on a forum do.
Click to expand...
Well that's great, because people buying day one because they want "new shit" is one the reason I stated of why people would still buy games at launch, unlike what you suggest.
 
LordOcidax said:
In a digital only world, companies are going to have the total control of video game prices and the market of used games is going to disappear completely … this could be a good option and a balance. Still, i fail to see how this is a bad thing for us.
Click to expand...
It'll turn digital back to physical because I know companies will slap unique serial codes into every digital game making digital games limited in availability.
It'll remove the very thing that makes digital so good.

Long term negatives outweigh the short term positives.
 
Publishers will simply change the EULA to say that you don't own the games you buy digitally. That you're just renting a license to use the software and that the license is non-transferrable.
 
cireza said:
Well that's great, because people buying day one because they want "new shit" is one the reason I stated of why people would still buy games at launch, unlike what you suggest.
Click to expand...
You claimed people bought new game to explicitly support developers but that's basically irrelevant
 
Sometimes I feel way better buying a good used game knowing someone else bought it for a good reason and I feel safe and secure by doing that. That helps more than reading reviews.
 
cireza said:
For the same reason people still buy new physical games ? The existence of a second hand market doesn't render initial/new sales useless...
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying, however a second hand physical game has been physically used. It might be worn down, the disc scratched, box damaged, previous owner rubbed it on their balls etc. That's why a second hand physical game decreases in value.

Why would a "second hand" digital game be any cheaper than buying it new?
 
IDKFA said:
Why would a "second hand" digital game be any cheaper than buying it new?
Click to expand...
People will want to sell it at whatever price they see fit. Exactly like the physical market. I played some games entirely, and then sold them brand new pretty quickly. In the end, this is as if I had paid 10 or 15$ to play a game. I find this fine and I am good with it, no need to keep that specific game.
 
One of the many reasons I still prefer physical.
I'd love if they did this, but it would need Governments to make this change.

I also hate how digital games are priced the same forever (excluding sales), even if the game is many years old. Digital is a scam that everyone is falling for.
 
As I said in another thread here this morning regarding preferring gamekey cards( GKC or digital....the ability to uncouple your digital game from your account via a GKC for resale should at least have people questioning the difference in how DRM is handled in that case vs a digital game you buy off right off the eshop. The digital 1's and O's and license you purchase off the eshop is the same as what you download using the GKC as the authentication tool, and I imagine the EULA conditions are the same regarding licensing. But one delivery method grants the 'physical' benefit of resale and one doesn't, even though fundamentally it's the same digital files in question being downloaded from the same servers. So these companies can allow 'transfer' of digital licenses ( using that term instead of selling because of the semantics of 'ownership' in the digital context) under certain conditions, and if enough actually advocated for it through proper channels, I don't see why a compromise can't be reached. It shouldn't just be left to let the companies completely dictate the terms by which we engage with their product hiding behind EULAs. Consumers should always demand more and better for ourselves.
 
Isn't this one of the things MS was promising during the original Xbox One announcement? That you could basically sell/transfer a license of a digital game to a friend? It had some constraints like you had to be friends with them more than 30 days but general idea was there.

But you all freaked out and thought it was the worst thing ever?

If you want to be able to sell/transfer digital licenses then it has to come with the 'always online' drm caveat
 
cireza said:
People will want to sell it at whatever price they see fit. Exactly like the physical market.
Click to expand...

The difference is physical games are limited. I can sell the game for a high price if people are willing to pay it, especially if the game is out of print. Digital games are different because there is no limit to copies available.

As previously mentioned, physical games degrade over time — scratches, damaged boxes, etc.

Digital games stay perfect forever. A used digital copy is functionally the same as new, making a used market undercut publishers/devs with zero cost. If you're digital game is exactly the same as a new version, why would you sell it for less? What makes a digital copy drop in value.

I also don't see how this benefits developers. In the physical world, reselling reduces sales but is tolerable due to limited scale. A digital resale market could massively cannibalise new sales, since a used copy is just as good, instant, and always available.

Then there is the issue of how this would even work. How is the transfer made? Creating a system to "revoke" access from seller and "transfer" to buyer securely would require overhauling digital storefronts.
It would adds legal, technical, and customer service complexity. What incentive is there for platform holders to build this? Would Steam, GOG, Sony etc get a cut of the sale?

It's a nice idea, but it has so many complex problems to it that I can never see it happening.
 
Without regulatory pressure, I don't see it happening. Storefronts will want a fee to transfer the license and publishers will want a cut too for allowing the license to be transferred and since the product is available "new", they'd have little incentive to undercut their own market. We can't even transfer ownership of our accounts to someone else when we die and if I was going to pick a battle to fight, that's where I'd start.
 
IDKFA said:
The difference is physical games are limited. I can sell the game for a high price if people are willing to pay it, especially if the game is out of print. Digital games are different because there is no limit to copies available.

As previously mentioned, physical games degrade over time — scratches, damaged boxes, etc.

Digital games stay perfect forever. A used digital copy is functionally the same as new, making a used market undercut publishers/devs with zero cost. If you're digital game is exactly the same as a new version, why would you sell it for less? What makes a digital copy drop in value.

I also don't see how this benefits developers. In the physical world, reselling reduces sales but is tolerable due to limited scale. A digital resale market could massively cannibalise new sales, since a used copy is just as good, instant, and always available.

Then there is the issue of how this would even work. How is the transfer made? Creating a system to "revoke" access from seller and "transfer" to buyer securely would require overhauling digital storefronts.
It would adds legal, technical, and customer service complexity. What incentive is there for platform holders to build this? Would Steam, GOG, Sony etc get a cut of the sale?

It's a nice idea, but it has so many complex problems to it that I can never see it happening.
Click to expand...
Not just that but buying and selling would just be a click. Finish the game - just click sell. Buying a used game just click buy.
People overall massively favor digital over physical (not just games) because it is so much easier and convenient. Transfer that convenience to trading used games and it would be a bloodbath. The people wanting a second video game crash - this idea would do it.
 
From a legal point of view you are licensing for personal use and you cannot sell it since you are not the owner, only a licensee. Now, you are talking about blockchain, just like the NFT scam, that won't age well. Finally why buy a second hand digital game when you can just pirate it.
 
I'd love to see it, but it will never happen. Digital licenses means infinite supply and zero ownership by consumers. Win-win for publishers.
 
In a couple countries it's actually legal. But it doesn't mean that Steam has any obligation to provide any official support for it, nor make it easier for you to sell your Steam account. You can legally do it but you're on your own.
 
Last edited:
Spider Man Lol GIF


There is no way in hell that any company would willingly allow you to sell a digital key after you've bought it. Especially not nowadays when they're already telling you that you don't even own the game you buy. That would be like a theme park letting you sell your ticket after you've ridden all the rides.

Why don't people demand it? Well for one, I have no interest in an all digital future and B, as I said above there's no incentive for companies to do it. They've done everything they can to neuter any of the benefit physical copies have. Why would they give that back to us?
 
Ass of Can Whooping said:
An EULA has absolutely zero influence over legislation lmao
Click to expand...

Actually it does. It doesn't necessarily impact whether a legislation will pass or not, but it does impact whether a legislation has grounds to be argued for in the first place. If the EULA explicitly says a digital game is simply a license that you rent to use the software and it's non-transferrable, then the consumer never had ownership to begin with.
 
Last edited:
LordOcidax said:
What do you think could be a solution? I think that a credit system in the stores could do the trick and some people think that using the blockchain to transfer digital goods can also work. I think this should be a relevant topic in the future looking at the panorama we have right now.
Click to expand...
Blockchain would make it trivially easy to transfer a games licence to another person; that is what it was created for in the first place.

However, having the carte blanche to sell digital games would make the current model of game development virtually impossible.
 
AmuroChan said:
Actually it does. It doesn't impact whether a legislation will pass or not, but it does impact whether a legislation has grounds to be argued for in the first place. If the EULA explicitly says a digital game is simply a license that you rent to use the software and it's non-transferrable, then the consumer never had ownership to begin with.
Click to expand...

Lol what? Do you think if there was a debate in the US for example about whether digital licenses should be transferable, that an example of an EULA would be used to try and prevent legislation from being proposed in the first place?
 
Ass of Can Whooping said:
Lol what? Do you think if there was a debate in the US for example about whether digital licenses should be transferable, that an example of an EULA would be used to try and prevent legislation from being proposed in the first place?
Click to expand...

Yes.

📚 Real-World Examples


  • Apple's App Store EULA has been cited in antitrust hearings to argue for legislation to curb monopolistic practices.
  • EULAs with forced arbitration clauses have been used to advocate for laws banning such clauses in consumer contracts.
  • The DMCA was partly influenced by the kinds of restrictions companies tried to enforce via EULAs before it passed.


Bottom Line


A EULA can be used rhetorically or as supporting evidence in arguments about legislation. It can help highlight why a law might be needed or why existing legal mechanisms may be enough, depending on the argument's framing.
 
AmuroChan said:
Yes.

📚 Real-World Examples


  • Apple's App Store EULA has been cited in antitrust hearings to argue for legislation to curb monopolistic practices.
  • EULAs with forced arbitration clauses have been used to advocate for laws banning such clauses in consumer contracts.
  • The DMCA was partly influenced by the kinds of restrictions companies tried to enforce via EULAs before it passed.


Bottom Line


A EULA can be used rhetorically or as supporting evidence in arguments about legislation. It can help highlight why a law might be needed or why existing legal mechanisms may be enough, depending on the argument's framing.
Click to expand...

Well done. Now try again without asking your friend for help

Edit - You didn't even read it lmao.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ITT list the games that the company that represents them will never be topped….
17
1K
HRK69 replied
Why developers don't ask to the players fanbase before releasing a remake?
42
87
Itchy Tickles replied
Wait, why do I need my original switch to redownload my digital games?
43
1K
Luipadre replied
Why did all gaming companies go a HUGE hiring spree during COVID?
35
105
SILKYSMOOTH30FPS replied
Why is Digital Foundry the only place that feels like it has a standard in the gaming journalism sphere
2 3
129
1K
Rocco Schiavone replied
Top Bottom