It is legal already now to pass or sell game licenses you have to someone else. After all, that is the point of e.g. GameStop second-hand games. It does not matter if the game comes on a CD or if it is sold "digitally" online. A software license is a software license, period.

What is not required is that any services related to that game license would be passed too with the game license, like the ability to redownload or receive updates and support from Steam/Valve or GOG for that game. Or, in the case of DRM, that the game could be validated online with the service (ie. the sold software license is totally useless second-hand) because of DRM.

So, yeah, you could e.g. sell a GOG game installer (along with the license) to someone else I guess, but GOG wouldn't be obliged to transfer the "game" from one GOG account to another, or if they feel someone has sold or passed their account (=service) to someone else, they probably could remove that account on the grounds of the service is not transferrable, but personal. Two different things: the software license, and the service.

Obviously it's legal when it has a physical component, but I am aware of no such verdict when it comes to licenses on a subscription like GOG and Steam. They certainly do not allow it, and would be forced to if it were.

Some companies did that. A small Polish company created a DRM free store and also one of the most successful PC games ever - without DRM.

Actually that's fine with me. It's like a fee for a private library - you can use all the stuff they have with no extra cost as long as you're "member", but you never are tricked into believing you own anything. You don't own books, CD, DVDs you get from your library. You use them, you bring them back.

What I can't abide is the fake "buying" of the DRM platforms, where you pay a full price and get only the illusion of owning the product. If Steam offered like "pay $15 a month and have access to the full catalogue, stop paying and you have nothing" in a very easy and transparent way, I would really consider it.

I think this would be up to court decisions. There are principles like "Exhaustion of the rights", but also the practical reality of digital sales.

IANAL, but if you bought a game on GOG and made a legally binding agreement with someone to sell them that game (you give them the installer and swear to never use it yourself), chances are, this would have to be legal, no matter what the TOS say, because it's a principle of European law.

On the other hand, it's all splitting hairs anyway. DRM-free is basically built on trust in the first place. So if you buy a game for yourself, then sell it (under the assumption that you mean it) and possibly spend the money to buy more games - you already work within that trust system, because you could have downloaded that game from some torrent site anyway, and the guy who bought it from you could also have downloaded it from some torrent site, and the chances of being caught are really slim (GOG doesn't even seem to put much effort into shutting down those "free gog games" sites with direct downloads).
So in the end it's technicalities we're talking about. DRM-free is about the trust that we - the gamers - are willing to spend money on the thing we love, even if we could get it for free, and rather easily too. GOG and CDPR have proven that it can work this way.


Digressing starts here:

So why is there still DRM? Of course many people in power in the industry still don't believe in living without copy protection is possible. But I think an even bigger reason is that DRM is not only about that, but about control and surveillance. They force people to use clients, not because it prevents piracy (most games are cracked day 1, some even earlier), but clients allow to watch what people play, how they play (achievements!), how much time they spend with what.
And now Galaxy... it's the same thing, with Galaxy 2 even across platforms. That's really valuable data. The difference is - they don't force us (nudging, sometimes even in annoying ways, yes) to use it. They trust us not to abuse the DRM-free, they ask us to trust them with Galaxy. But at least we have the choice. It's up to each one on their own.

The highest european court has already decided on that back in 2012. Whether a sale is digital or not does not matter, software licenses are resellable.

Lookup the Oracle vs. Usedsoft case. A small quote from an article that was published on 2012-07-03 about the case:

- cut here -
EU court rules resale of used software licenses is legal -- even online

In the case involving Oracle the court found that software vendors have no rights to block resale

Europe's highest court ruled on Tuesday that the trading of "used" software licenses is legal and that the author of such software cannot oppose any resale.

The exclusive right of distribution of a copy of a computer program covered by such a licence is exhausted on its first sale, said the European Court of Justice (ECJ). This applies to downloaded software as well as that bought on CD or DVD. This ruling sets a precedent for trading of used software licenses throughout the European Union and could potentially impact ebooks and computer games as well.
- cut here -

You can find the full article here: www.computerworld.com/article/2505356/eu-court-rules-resale-of-used-software-licenses-is-legal----even-online. html

If they're controlling my access either way, I'd definitely rather pay once for games I love and want to replay, rather than having to pay every month for continued access. Other games though, where I just kind of dabble or run through them (like Star Wars Fallen Order recently) a subscription makes more sense.

With video for example, I'm a huge Star Trek nut and re-watch episodes all the time, so I absolutely want to own the shows somehow. Subscribing constantly the rest of my life sounds horrible in compared value. Random dramas my wife watches once on Netflix though? Not as important, who cares. Subscriptions make more sense there.

This is why I hope there's always an option to own your favorites, somehow.

Absolutely - choice is important. I wouldn't want to get all my books from a library either (and always have to give them back when I'm finished), not even if this library was free to use.

They might have to in the future though ... depending on how this ends....
https://www.engadget.com/2019/09/19/french-court-valve-steam-resold/

I'm with StingingVelvet here. If digital distribution platforms will be forced by laws to allow their users to resell licenses AND to transfer the full service to another account, it'll be the end of digital distribution as we know it.

There's a significant difference between physical and digital versions of games:

1. Boxed copies come in a certain language, whereas digital games are multilingual. This means I can't buy boxed games from any country in the world. Digital versions don't suffer these restrictions, so you'd end up with a world wide 2nd hand market.

2. Lazyness! I'm way too lazy to bring all my old stuff to some random store to sell it (bringing stuff to a post office every time someone bought something from me on ebay sounds even worse!). But with digital goods? Press a button, set a price, done! Why would I want to keep any of my games? If I want to replay them one day, I'll just get a new used copy.

3. People are idiots and don't know how to take care of their stuff. Getting a used game on DVD always bears the risk to get a scratched disc. Digital? Not my problem if anyones server has a scratch ;P

So... With a digital "used" games market, you'd get a pretty convenient, risk free, world wide marketplace. No need to buy a game at full price ever again, if you can wait a few days after release. A hundred thousand licenses would be more than enough for a few milion people to play a game. Publishers won't like this... They'll make a loss (a LOSS, not less profit) with every game they release. So they either change their business model, or they stop releasing new games.

I think this'd lead to more subscription services on the publishers' own stores, like Origin Access (or however it's called), where you get games (filled with microtransactions) for a monthly subscription. This'd be the end of gaming for me. I won't "subscribe" to any "services". So I absolutely love to see stores peeing on my rights (to resell games) here.

You have valid points here but since today nearly every game is going on sale quite fast I am not sure that I see it as black as you or others do. Those who puchase games on release - especially expensive AAA games - will still do so, so this part of the market will not suffer much. It's different for those who would like to wait for a sale but who don't want to wait very long. Those of course would simply buy a used game which means a complete loss for the creators/publishers of that game. Anyway, the fight is still on and I am sure that big sellers like Valve will bring up those problems as well and they probably have good lawyers. We'll see how this ends.