this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2023
295 points (99.3% liked)

Gaming

30618 readers
64 users here now

From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!

Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.

See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Finally some good news! I've been waiting for quite a while for such a ruling.

Edit: Seems this cites an article from 2012, I didn't notice that (and it's still news to me). Though there's still hope that it'll happen, EU is slow, but usually eventually gets shit done.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] drjkl 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Need someone who knows more about EU law to chime in here: does this mean valve et al will be forced to implement a way for users to resell/transfer games to other users?

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As others have pointed out, the original article is from 2012, and even with similar rulings in EU countries more recently, it will take years before we see any result of this.

But I think the ultimate answer to your question here is: yes, that would become a thing.

But there is so much to this that makes it hard to predict how good it would be. Who decides the price? What rules will there be on when and how you can resell?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

NFT game licences turn digital game sales into used game trading like you'd find at gamestop - except still being equivalent/identical to brand new purchases

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Yep tradable licenses is about the only thing NFTs are actually good for.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not really, though. NFTs only benefit is to distribute trust/authority. In this case there still needs to be some central authority who will actually honor it and provide the game at the end (either Steam or the game's creator or something else). It is far more energy efficient for that central authority to also track who has what without performing useless work.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Steam or the creator shouldn't be a central authority: If you have a game on steam and want to sell it to someone and they then activate in on epic, that should be possible. There should be zero influence from those parties over what happens with the NFT. It would also be legal, at least over here, to procure an erm backup copy from somewhere if you have such an NFT. And the NFT can live on after the original minter (presumably the publisher) went out of business. Say, GOG or archive.org could offer a service where the gamer pays a small fee and they can download binaries+emulation environment for those abandoned NFTs.

Neither the publisher nor the original store have any legal standing preventing any of this because exhaustion. Which is also why you can get Windows keys for dirt-cheap in e.g. Germany: There's a small cottage industry buying up volume licenses at bankruptcy proceedings and then sell them on, unbundled. Microsoft can do exactly as much about it as Coca-Cola can stop you from selling individual cans from a sixpack.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

That's an interesting idea to me, particularly regarding preservation of games of bankrupted companies. I'd still be in favor of a central registrar as opposed to NFTs, just because of the huge inefficiencies and environmental impact of that (essentially useless) computation.

There would need to be some governing authority dictating that companies need to honor the download of games not purchased from them (essentially the government of each country that has this as a law). It would make sense to me that that same government could host a service to keep track of the transactions. Or, more likely, the government just mandates the companies to play nice and exchange purchase data with each other. Sure, in some sense you're letting the wolves run the henhouse, but it also isn't that different from a game company refusing to give you a game you purchased from them. They could do that, but you would take legal action against them. Same thing here.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't mind tradable game items too, it would be cool if valve didn't have a monopoly on community trading. They could still even take an automated royalty cut with NFT trades

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Problem there is the gas cost of blockchain is too high. Recording transactions on chain is expensive. It might be worthwhile for full game transfers, but for cosmetics? I doubt that.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You could also achieve exactly the same benefits without adding in the expense of gas fees at all. Indeed that gives you quite a few other benefits like being able to reverse fraudulent transactions and being able to ensure the platform gets a cut.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why should steam get a cut if I sell a game.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Presumably becuse their the ones paying server costs to host the game, let you download it again and again on diffrent devices, and manage all the technical issues with the system of getting it to you.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What blockchain? There are many implementations, there's no reason there has to be excessive "gas" costs. These are solved problems

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What blockchain doesn't have high transaction costs once it scales up to large usage? Fundamentally blockchains are about hyper-redundant indestructable storage with expensive costs for writing to that storage to prevent flooding it with garbage. The most mature and sophisticated blockchain that doesn't involve burning down a forest to solve sudokus is the Ethereum network, which is probably the one to point to when we're talking about a large blockchain, and that's one that uses the subcurrency of "gas" to model paying for recording into that ledger.

Are there any blockchains that could handle transaction volumes on the scale of a game-store like Gog or Epic (much less Steam) without putting non-trivial prices on writing the transactions to the ledger?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

One example already handling game item NFTs with super low fees https://loopring.org/#/ Another example of super high scalability with extremely low fees https://ripple.com/xrp/

You'd obviously build a bespoke purpose built solution instead of shoehorning it into some random existing crypto network

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Why bother with NFTs? every storefront already has a licensing system, the only benefit I could see is being able to move it from storefront to storefront, but they will never go for that. Even then it could be done much more efficiently other ways.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Direct trading of games between individuals. Not locked into one market that could shut down. EA and Steam sell the same game. EA wouldn't let valve have a monopoly on used game trades