From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

Did I beat Spalls to this one, especially since UbiSoft is mentioned?
:-)

https://www.tomshardware.com/video-games/new-york-rep-announces-game-ownership-bill-that-would-require-consumer-ownership-rather-than-sale-of-licenses-would-also-require-publishers-to-keep-the-game-functional-after-support-ends?lrh=e475157eecb7dd5a143f7c36aea0032717f5d2d16d286111a58b04424ffe30f4

One reason that I do not play on-line games, and try not to do any
subscription stuff.

This is good here: "requiring publishers to provide an offline mode,
community servers, or a 25% minimum refund."

-pw
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Sat, 17 Oct 2026 08:50:03 -0600, PW <[email protected]> said
this thing:

Did I beat Spalls to this one, especially since UbiSoft is mentioned?
:-)

You did! Ninja'd by PW! I never thought I'd see the day! ;-)

https://www.tomshardware.com/video-games/new-york-rep-announces-game-ownership-bill-that-would-require-consumer-ownership-rather-than-sale-of-licenses-would-also-require-publishers-to-keep-the-game-functional-after-support-ends?lrh=e475157eecb7dd5a143f7c36aea0032717f5d2d16d286111a58b04424ffe30f4

One reason that I do not play on-line games, and try not to do any >subscription stuff.

This is good here: "requiring publishers to provide an offline mode, >community servers, or a 25% minimum refund."

It'll never happen of course (especially the refund bit, which
-honestly- even I don't support). But making sure a game has an
offline mode so people can keep playing it after the fact should be
mandatory and isn't an impossible ask of publishers.

I like the idea of being able to re-sell games too. I mean, it
shouldn't just be limited to games of course (other software, and
media ownership need to have the same rights too). The entire idea of
'shrink wrap' EULAs needs to be gotten rid of. It doesn't matter if
the media -games, software, music, movie, books- are offered in print
or digitally. We should have the same rights of re-sale as we do with
stuff bought on physical media.

But its this latter bit which will probably kill this bill. *Maybe*
publishers would allow 'offline' modes for games. But they are
terrified of allowing the reselling of games. US retailer "Gamestop"
was a clear example of how this affected publishers' bottom lines, and
one of the reasons digital took off so quickly was because it allowed
them to restrict resales and cut GameStop (and similar companies) out
of the loop. Publishers will fight very hard to prevent that from ever happening again.



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Sat, 17 Oct 2026 12:10:18 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sat, 17 Oct 2026 08:50:03 -0600, PW <[email protected]> said
this thing:

Did I beat Spalls to this one, especially since UbiSoft is mentioned?
:-)

You did! Ninja'd by PW! I never thought I'd see the day! ;-)

*--

On this day in history....

https://www.tomshardware.com/video-games/new-york-rep-announces-game-ownership-bill-that-would-require-consumer-ownership-rather-than-sale-of-licenses-would-also-require-publishers-to-keep-the-game-functional-after-support-ends?lrh=e475157eecb7dd5a143f7c36aea0032717f5d2d16d286111a58b04424ffe30f4

One reason that I do not play on-line games, and try not to do any >>subscription stuff.

This is good here: "requiring publishers to provide an offline mode, >>community servers, or a 25% minimum refund."

It'll never happen of course (especially the refund bit, which
-honestly- even I don't support). But making sure a game has an
offline mode so people can keep playing it after the fact should be
mandatory and isn't an impossible ask of publishers.

I like the idea of being able to re-sell games too. I mean, it
shouldn't just be limited to games of course (other software, and
media ownership need to have the same rights too). The entire idea of
'shrink wrap' EULAs needs to be gotten rid of. It doesn't matter if
the media -games, software, music, movie, books- are offered in print
or digitally. We should have the same rights of re-sale as we do with
stuff bought on physical media.

But its this latter bit which will probably kill this bill. *Maybe* >publishers would allow 'offline' modes for games. But they are
terrified of allowing the reselling of games. US retailer "Gamestop"
was a clear example of how this affected publishers' bottom lines, and
one of the reasons digital took off so quickly was because it allowed
them to restrict resales and cut GameStop (and similar companies) out
of the loop. Publishers will fight very hard to prevent that from ever >happening again.

*--

How would someone resell a game?

-pw
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Sat, 17 Oct 2026 20:11:29 -0600, PW <[email protected]> said
this thing:

On Sat, 17 Oct 2026 12:10:18 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson ><[email protected]> wrote:

I like the idea of being able to re-sell games too.

How would someone resell a game?

We'd need some new infrastructure to allow the transfer of digital
games, but there's really no difficulty for most storefronts and
publishers beyond the fact that they don't want to. Since most
storefronts already use some form of DRM to check licenses prior to
game launch already, it really becomes a matter of transferring the
license from one user to another. This could be done through the
storefront itself (e.g., Steam adds a method where Alice transfers $30
to Bob, and then Bob's license is then moved over to Alice). They
already do something similar with trading cards. It's really just a
matter of flipping some bits on a database.

Outside the storefront is possible too, although you'd have to trust
the users to move the cash/license. You could also have third-party
resellers which buy licenses from users only to hold them so they
could be resold to other users. And licenses need not be limited to
singular storefronts (e.g., technically there's no reason why a game
purchased on Steam couldn't be transferred to Epic).

It would be more difficult without DRM, however, since
license-checking wouldn't work. A user could 'buy' a game once and
sell it ten thousand times in that case, and obviously publishers
wouldn't go for that. One way to prevent this is to provide extra
services to users who have validated licenses. Alternately, you could
tie the license to some sort of hardware key (a programmable dongle
that needs to be inserted if you want to run the game perhaps; when
you transfer the license the key is revoked on Alice's dongle and
added to Bob's).

There are other difficulties that would need to be worked out, of
course (like, who does the license checking? Is it the publisher? What
if they go out of business? What about privacy? What if the DRM is
hacked and people can steal keys from other users? etc. etc.). All
this needs to be worked out too.

The ephemeral (and easily copied) nature of digital media adds all
sorts of new issues that really should have been worked out decades
before. Instead, it was just easier (and more profitable) for
publishers to just strip people of the right of first-sale than figure
that sort of thing out.

But all this is why the resale part of the new legislation is going to
be a much more difficult proposal than the offline mode. Publishers
are going to whine it's too difficult and will be too expensive to
figure a solution to the problem, even though they are the ones who
created the whole mess to start.

So I'd *like* right of resale... I just don't expect it.






--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Sun, 18 Oct 2026 13:06:02 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sat, 17 Oct 2026 20:11:29 -0600, PW <[email protected]> said
this thing:

On Sat, 17 Oct 2026 12:10:18 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson >><[email protected]> wrote:

I like the idea of being able to re-sell games too.

How would someone resell a game?

We'd need some new infrastructure to allow the transfer of digital
games, but there's really no difficulty for most storefronts and
publishers beyond the fact that they don't want to. Since most
storefronts already use some form of DRM to check licenses prior to
game launch already, it really becomes a matter of transferring the
license from one user to another. This could be done through the
storefront itself (e.g., Steam adds a method where Alice transfers $30
to Bob, and then Bob's license is then moved over to Alice). They
already do something similar with trading cards. It's really just a
matter of flipping some bits on a database.

Outside the storefront is possible too, although you'd have to trust
the users to move the cash/license. You could also have third-party
resellers which buy licenses from users only to hold them so they
could be resold to other users. And licenses need not be limited to
singular storefronts (e.g., technically there's no reason why a game >purchased on Steam couldn't be transferred to Epic).

It would be more difficult without DRM, however, since
license-checking wouldn't work. A user could 'buy' a game once and
sell it ten thousand times in that case, and obviously publishers
wouldn't go for that. One way to prevent this is to provide extra
services to users who have validated licenses. Alternately, you could
tie the license to some sort of hardware key (a programmable dongle
that needs to be inserted if you want to run the game perhaps; when
you transfer the license the key is revoked on Alice's dongle and
added to Bob's).

There are other difficulties that would need to be worked out, of
course (like, who does the license checking? Is it the publisher? What
if they go out of business? What about privacy? What if the DRM is
hacked and people can steal keys from other users? etc. etc.). All
this needs to be worked out too.

The ephemeral (and easily copied) nature of digital media adds all
sorts of new issues that really should have been worked out decades
before. Instead, it was just easier (and more profitable) for
publishers to just strip people of the right of first-sale than figure
that sort of thing out.

But all this is why the resale part of the new legislation is going to
be a much more difficult proposal than the offline mode. Publishers
are going to whine it's too difficult and will be too expensive to
figure a solution to the problem, even though they are the ones who
created the whole mess to start.

So I'd *like* right of resale... I just don't expect it.

*---

Well that sounds easy Spalls! :-)


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Mon, 19 Oct 2026 20:25:50 -0600, PW <[email protected]> said
this thing:

On Sun, 18 Oct 2026 13:06:02 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson ><[email protected]> wrote:

On Sat, 17 Oct 2026 20:11:29 -0600, PW <[email protected]> said
this thing:

On Sat, 17 Oct 2026 12:10:18 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson >>><[email protected]> wrote:

I like the idea of being able to re-sell games too.

How would someone resell a game?

We'd need some new infrastructure to allow the transfer of digital
games

<long list of difficulties and concerns snipped>

Well that sounds easy Spalls! :-)

Heh. Not easy... but possible. But this problem has been around for
decades and expecting it to be quickly solved is unlikely. Although
Steam could take a step in that direction by allowing sale/transfer of
games between its users. It's not a complete freedom-of-resale, but it
would be a step in the right direction, and the basic infrastructure
is already there.

(they'd get sued out of non-existence by all the publishers within
hours, though ;-)


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2