EU Vice-president says once a video game is sold, it is owned by the customer.

[Bohandas]

I'm not sure that the ruling would really matter.

The wall of text that most people skip when starting a new game says that you're not being sold the game; instead, you're being sold a (limited) license to be allowed to use the game.

Not saying that I agree with game companies. Just saying that I think their position is that "buying" a game is akin to buying a movie ticket: you're allowed to view it and interact with it, but you don't necessarily own it.

They hide their sleaze behind walls of text written in a deliberately impenetrable pseudolanguage.

I'm not sure that the ruling would really matter.

Wouldn't a ruling in effect mean that this particular bit of sleaze is not allowed, even if it's in the contract?

Although ultimately the ruling that's really needed is one saying that all these "agreements" are unconscionable and invalid. And also one saging that consumer rights in general can't be waived. Unfortunately, the world's governments, EU included, are far too in league with big business to ever rule like this officially.

 

[Argyle King]

They hide their sleaze behind walls of text written in a deliberately impenetrable pseudolanguage.



Wouldn't a ruling in effect mean that this particular bit of sleaze is not allowed, even if it's in the contract?

Although ultimately the ruling that's really needed is one saying that all these "agreements" are unconscionable and invalid. And also one saging that consumer rights in general can't be waived. Unfortunately, the world's governments, EU included, are far too in league with big business to ever rule like this officially.

First, I'm not a lawyer.

Secondly, I do not currently live in the EU, so it may be parsed differently there.

That being said, I do have some experience with how wording can matter when it comes to legality, rules, and regulation. I currently work for a government agency; the specifics of how things are worded can (and often do) matter.

It's also a question of established logic.

If the EU ruling says that buying a game means that you own a game, I'm inclined to see that as a hollow ruling when contemporary game companies claim that you're not buying the game -instead, you're buying a license to use the game.

In a similar way, buying a movie ticket does not mean that I have ownership over the movie; I only bought a license to be able to view the movie for a specified time and for a specified number of people. (FWIW, there is talk of streaming services trying to use this model to prosecute people for sharing their passwords for other people to watch movies on streaming services.)

I do agree with you that such things are sleazy tactics. I do not support doing business that way. As a member of a community engaged in a conversation, I'm simply expressing how I imagine that companies using sleazy tactics would continue to do so, even with the ruling in place.

 

[Morrus]

If the EU ruling says that buying a game means that you own a game,

There's no ruling. Just somebody expressing an opinion.

 

[Argyle King]

There's no ruling. Just somebody expressing an opinion.

Fair enough.

Someone expressing the opinion that buying a game means owning a game doesn't dispute a company saying that they are selling usage licenses and not game.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

When Star Wars the Old Republic finally shutters, maybe I'll get to run an offline copy into my dotage. Nice.

Ooh. Having MMORPGs turn into Skyrim when they go off-line would be amazing. There's certainly enough content in many of them to play them solo for years and, with mods, to continue to do raids.

 

[GreyLord]

I think most of those "license" agreements have been considered unenforceable in the past. The only tests against them have normally gone somewhat against the companies (the biggest one I think was a side track which led to a massive microsoft lawsuit which became an anti-monopoly case against them in the 90s).

Quoting those "License" agreements as saying you only have a license doesn't work all that great. It's why the movement has gotten steam recently. If you aren't actually buying a product, how can one actually steal it. (I can name several ways, but that's just like...my opinion and hence most of those who say this would not agree with these ideas).

It's either a product you buy, or an item you simply cannot actually own or buy or even obtain...only view. And it you only have rights from a license to view and interact with it, then, just like any other experience if it's in the open where you can view it...they can't claim you stole it.

(For example, you can steal a movie ticket, but if you stumble across a movie showing out in the public and decide to watch it, they cannot accuse you of stealing it as you didn't steal anything from anyone. You watched something that was open on the outside and no one seemed to be stopping you. It's not your fault, it's whoever was broadcastng the movie on TV, in a Park, or where ever you say it.

In that light, you can sell a license, you may even steal a license, but you can't steal a thing which isn't property (as I said, I can think of several ways to, but most of those using this argument would not agree with me). If it's not property that you can buy, then there is nothing you can steal.

You can steal a car, but you can't steal an experience of riding in a car someone else drove. You wouldn't steal a car, but you might ride in car if someone offered you a ride, even if it wasn't your car (especially if it wasn't your car, that's why you accepted the ride in the first place).