Unless you come up with a system of reselling the game back to the original vendor, with a certain cut. think of GameStop :) Imagine having a right to sell the game back to GoG or Steam after you have played it. You get a certain amount of money back. And, you have a certain time period to utilize this right (similar to what we have currently, but that is based on a number of limitations). The percentage of returned games would make interesting statistics in terms of replayability and the general attitude of player-consumers to individual products-games.

Er, no, it's stupid and untrue. Most of it's wrong, but this part in particular: Is laughably wrong on every level. It wasn't even true in 2012. Consumers did not "happily pay" for mobile games, they only want free games. (Which means games have to be warped into the FTP model, which I hope I don't have to explain how it ruins them.) The vast majority of mobile developers don't make "lots of money," they make little or nothing, and for those that do, you have to be rich in the first place to buy your way into the system with loads of money for ads, otherwise you are ignored. And the "sometimes get insanely rich" only ever applied to a small handful of people. If you're just after money, you'd literally be better off buying lottery tickets, since at least then you don't have to spend all that time and money developing a game.

It would undermine gogs business model although gog started on the premise it was offering a better service than people pirating games, by fixing and giving people extras which has gradually wound down over the years.
But with endless mini updates on a lot of newer games meaning once someone has sold on their game they wouldn't get updates, thus 2nd hand game sales would not be as bad as some other posters claim especially for early access cash grabs. People need to reject this "games are licensed" meme and see it for what it is, an attack on their rights.

The indie market was starting to hemorrhage crap at that point and the glut of low standard gamers from the xbox360 and wiitards would be drying up.

I disagree with that.
Mobile phone games ripped off the ignorant masses and spammed absolute trash because little kids and wine moms didn't know any better so indie "devs" could get away with low effort flash games. We still have the problem to this day with unfinished,low innovation,low effort,asset flip flops being pushed thanks to the always online digital market.

You own a license, not a game, and your license is personal and a nominative one (while the CD/DVD license was on the owner of the CD/DVD and linked to the disk).

So while you cannot sell/transfer your license, you cannot lose it since it is linked to your account.

I think there used to be at least one PC digital gaming store that had its own system where you could sell your game to someone else through the store. It had strong DRM to make sure you really can't continue playing the game after selling it, I think the store took a cut from the second-hand sale and part of it probably went to the publisher as well etc.

(I think the store might have been GreenManGaming.com, but not fully sure.)

Anyway, apparently that model didn't fly because they dropped that business model at some point, and became a mere Steam key seller. It seems even the consumers don't really care for such model, otherwise that store would have really taken off.

So yeah, I prefer DRM-free games, even if it has no system to allow second-hand sales.

I do think LordMarlock has a point here though. We may not want it but that doesnt mean the industry isnt moving in that direction (did we really want no more physical PC releases and the PC market to be dominated by one platform?).

Similar to Netflix and streaming, Steam was the big kid on the block and making bank being the platform for all PC users. Other devs see the money on the table and want in, creating their own launchers and platforms to create the launcher conundrum we have today (although unlike Netflix, other devs arnt making their games exclusives to their own platforms).

However, the big publishers are now making "streaming game" models a thing. Gamepass by Microsoft, PS Plus by Sony, EA play by EA. Users can now play a multitude of brand new games at a fraction of the cost. Gamepass is apparently making a killing and given most players dont finish most games and "ownership" is not as valued (look at how successful streaming movies and tv has become), I dont see why more and more users dont move toward Gamepass and just forgo platforms like Steam or GOG. Although some say mods, if the majority of gamers (like 50 to 80%) dont even finish games, would they really bother modding when they can instead just play the shiny new release?

Gamestop is considered a joke because the resale value is fractions of pennies on the dollar lol. Steam basically did implement this with the trials (users can refund games for full price if they play for less than 2 hours within 2 weeks) and it essentially killed an indie developer. An indie game dev, Summer of '58, created a horror game that took less than 2 hours to beat and despite receiving positive reviews, users mass refunded the game. Most games are going to be one and done.

https://www.eurogamer.net/steams-two-hour-refund-policy-leads-to-indie-developer-quitting-game-development

"Good, smart designers don't go bust - they develop for iOS, where consumers will happily buy inventive ideas and original IP because it only costs 69p or £1.99, and they make lots of money (relative to their expenditure at least, and sometimes just get insanely rich by any standards)."

Yeah and this is a gross misunderstanding of the mobile market. The mobile market is built around the F2P model because its so dominant so now, people expect games to be free it MTX for the developer to reap returns. This can easily be seen with Nintendo's first mobile venture, Super Mario Run. It was a decent game with high reviews but only made $60 million worldwide since launch because people didnt want to pay the set dollar price of $10. In contrast, Fire Emblewm Heroes raked in 115 million USD in 2020 alone.

Unfortunately, the mobile gaming market is super exploitative. Since the majority of players are free to play and only 20% or so spend, these are a whales the designers cater toward to continue to fund the game. Mobile games dont make money "selling" the initial app. That has to be free or no one is downloading. Mobile games rake in the dough by exploiting the whales they catch which basically funds the enter enterprise. As a result, it also is the top 20 or so most popular mobile games that rake in tons of money.

Can you continue playing the console game you've sold? In my experience, no, but the only current console I own is the Switch.
The reason you can sell your console games is that the game data itself (plus the DRM that says that you're allowed to play it), is packaged together on the same disc/card and also symbolically represents the licence granted to you when you bought the game.

With a digital game the licence is intangible - there's no physical representation of it or a convenient way to transfer ownership. Of course, a licence transfer scheme is possible but it would require tying the game files to the licence using DRM.

If you want DRM-free games, you can't have resale. If you want resale you can't have DRM-free. Of course with Steam you get neither resale nor DRM-free. I seem to remember the DRM'd store Green Man Gaming trying the idea of trading in digital games, no idea if they're still around.

Spoken like someone who has never tried to dub a Blockbuster tape by connecting two VHS recorders! I can assure you that VHS tapes can and did have copy protection.
?????

You can own a product without being a proprietor. There's no legitimate way to transfer ownership of a digital product without DRM, which strips away ALL other rights of ownership. I'd rather have the ability to permanently have a game in my library, free for me to download via an optional client OR via offline installers that I can back up anywhere I want.

While it would be nice to be able to make a little money off of a game that I'll probably never play again, I know that's not going to happen, especially not without DRM. I'd rather just view it as a collection, instead. Sure, if you won't play it again, it basically becomes a trinket in your library shelves collecting digital dust but it's still cool to say "I permanently own this game, that game".

The ONLY plausible way I could see GOG potentially allowing this is to make it so you have to use Galaxy if you want to ever sell the game once you're done. If you download the offline installers in any way, shape or form, you're automatically and permanently locked out of that ability. That is a feasible solution to this idea, as it would give the user the choice to have a game DRM-free OR be able to sell/trade it with another user once you're finished... but that'll almost certainly never happen due to two factors:

1) A lot of GOG users, at least on the forums, are notoriously overzealous about their definitions of DRM. If GOG did something like this, I guarantee you'd see the Boycott Squad make a proper return, insisting that such an option is DRM (nevermind the fact that, like Galaxy, it'd never be mandatory). GOG has made some solid strides toward improving the service for everyone, including the people who have major complaints, and such a system would likely destroy that momentum

and

2) Steam and EGS lack a feature like this, and they're full-on DRM stores. This makes me think it's more about the licensing, as doubtless, a publisher would vastly prefer selling permanent unlocks to a game rather than introducing a digital used games market. I mean, old school video rental shops were sometimes questioned for that very reason. It'd be even worse now that DRM is intertwined in virtually every aspect of media these days. Even if licensing weren't the issue, I doubt GOG would want to pour development time into designing a system like this (one that would probably cause controversy), especially considering the fact that it'd also mean less money for THEM too.

So yeah, while it would be nice to have an option like that, the chances of it happening are pretty much an infinitesimal of an infinitesimal.

I was never part of the boycott thread, and I get that "the boycott squad" may annoy some people, but sometimes the "anti-anti-DRM" crowd and their constant passive-aggressive snark ends up sounding even more stupid.

"We are removing access to x game in your account based on an online ownership check but this isn't DRM" is exactly what DRM is. That 'you don't have to use the client' doesn't make the process of checking / restricting access "not DRM". It simply means you are now selling two versions - one obviously DRM'd (Galaxy) that would no longer function offline / work at all if GOG ever closed (precisely because the game's exe that you may have backed up (by zipping the game folder) doesn't know whether you still own it or not until it connects with GOG's server. What you're 'suggesting' then pretending 'isn't DRM' here is shovelling a literal Steamworks style online ownership check into every game, doubling down on 2nd Class Citizen then actually further incentivising piracy...

If GOG closed and you bought a new PC / HDD or reinstalled Windows, Galaxy wouldn't work at all. So 1. Forcing every GOG game to need Galaxy to do a DRM check would mean everyone's entire GOG collection would fail to start in a post GOG world (the exact opposite reason of why people buy games here), or 2. If you didn't force games to need Galaxy and relied on just GOG detecting whether an offline installer was downloaded or not, then people would buy a game, download via Galaxy, zip up the game folder then resell it and keep playing the game offline. You hardly need to be a member of "the boycott squad" to oppose that complete lack of common sense... Honestly Jakob, between this, constantly 'low-key' attacking anyone who doesn't want DRM on a DRM-Free store and you openly calling for always-online lootboxed train-wrecks like FO76 the same day GOG bring just one online game here whilst constantly questioning others 'zealous' mindsets, leaves me wondering if you're actually on the right store yourself...

As I said, it's not likely to ever be something GOG would put effort into. However, if they did something like that, it'd become "DRM optional", I suppose you might call it, and I don't see a reason to do that. My idea was merely spitballing of a possible way GOG could pull off a trading/reselling system without betraying the DRM-free mission. I, myself, would never even use a feature like that.

Also, here's the problem with the Boycott Squad mentality: I understand that we have to be careful to not give too much room. That does not mean that having an option to use a client, or having online multiplayer require Galaxy, is DRM. DRM is about controlling how a person enjoys their purchase. Giving the customer an option to use a game client, or requiring a client to play online multiplayer strictly designed around the concept of an always online game routed through a client's online infrastructure, is not DRM simply by nature of the fact that an online game HAS to have internet to be played. Even if you COULD consider it DRM, complain to the devs who didn't design LAN capabilities, don't complain about GOG somehow 'betraying' everyone because they had no other choice. I also don't see a problem with GOG offering online-only multiplayer games if it's clearly specified on a game's page, as they said it will be.

I'm anti-DRM. That does not mean I can't enjoy and advocate for some always-online games like Fallout 76 (which isn't lootboxed, by the way; try playing it before criticizing). There isn't a truly feasible way to bring online games like that to a DRM-free state. This is doubly true for a game set in a primarily single player franchise, where many players who play solo would just buy the game and play alone, making the financial burden even more difficult for those who enjoy playing online, meaning that we'd see online games begin to fizzle out overall.

If you want to avoid always-online games, that's totally cool but that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with GOG offering some of them so long as it's very clear that you have to have an internet connection and use Galaxy to play them. Oh, and as long as it's clear that GOG is still primarily fixated on offering fully DRM-free games that don't require the internet.

While I agree in principle with the OP, it is a complex situation, and really when you consider that DRM-Free is not the wider status quo, then there are other barriers in place by default.

It is one thing for GOG to provide DRM-Free games, and quite another to give you complete free reign in an ownership sense.

In reality, none of us fully own anything that has copyright or implied copyright. What we can buy ownership to, is the type of license.

The ownership we have with GOG is more flexible than the ownership we have with Steam and other DRM purchases.

With DRM-Free, there is of course a huge level of trust in the customer. This is why DRM-Free is not the market defacto, because trust is not easily felt or engaged in by big corporations etc.

When you think about it, GOG and partners are already engaging in a lot of trust. This is especially so when it comes to Refunds, where they are trusting you did not keep a copy of the game to continue playing.

To sell a game on, which in reality would have to be a transfer, involves work by GOG, for which they would be entitled to charge a fee. GOG might do such, but the type of license or agreement with partners (DEVs and PUBs) would be mandatory to any success with that option. The financial incentive is not there, and GOG from everything I have ever seen are overwhelmed with their current workload. We don't have many things at GOG, which would be great, because of that workload .... including true support for Linux versions of games.

That is just the tip of the iceberg.

If digital games could be sold on by transfer, then original price of games would be increased to cater for losses, as businesses would see it.

Who would dictate the price of a game being sold on?

In the book world after many years of arguing, secondhand bookshops had to eventually pay a fee when selling books secondhand.

And where does it all end?
In a truly fair world, all of us that already own a copy of a game or book or movie etc, should be entitled to a digital copy, either for free or with a good discount, depending on what additional work has been done to each, to bring it into the digital realm ... improvements, updates, etc.

It is annoyingly a complex situation.

Excellent points Timboli.

"If digital games could be sold on by transfer, then original price of games would be increased to cater for losses, as businesses would see it. "
This may or may not be true. Consider all the titles available through various services listed in one of the posts above. Has their price changed? As far as I can tell, not really. It is a matter of compensation the producers and developers receive and a profit margin that needs to be achieved. Again, perhaps you are right.

"In the book world after many years of arguing, secondhand bookshops had to eventually pay a fee when selling books secondhand."
Let me ask you this: did Google pay a fee to all authors and copyright holders whose books it has digitalized? There are still ongoing suits, and this story is far from over. And it goes to tell how complex this brave new world truly is.

It wouldn't be "DRM optional" it would simply be DRM in denial. You're not seeing the obvious here. If GOG "tied all games to Galaxy to enforce checks & removal of games post resale" (as you suggested) then the games would be unplayable without Galaxy (ie, if GOG went out of business) because the whole reason for your suggestion is to go online every time the game starts to verify that the game is still in the person's account. Exactly like DRM'd games on Steam do. Pretending "that isn't DRM" is denial in the extreme when online ownership checks are the exactly perfect clear-cut definition of what DRM is.

"But an offline installer would still be available so it's not DRM", no they realistically wouldn't as it would mean literally doubling the workload, ie, the developers and / or GOG would have to send two separate versions to GOG, one encoded for Galaxy and one completely Galaxy-free. You only have to look at Galaxified offline installers / ' GOG shoves galaxy.dll's into everything and even ignores them for years on end after they break' issues today to see how that would realistically work out. And if GOG then did drop offline installers, you know who'd be the only people providing DRM-Free GOG games would be? The pirates... There's absolutely nothing positive there in getting GOG to both add DRM to GOG Games and simultaneously drive up the cost of publishing for publishers to enable reselling games (that publishers would refuse permission for anyway).

No, it'd be DRM-optional. You wouldn't HAVE to opt in to the trading program but if you wanted to trade them, you'd have to route through the client. That's optional, ergo DRM-optional. Furthermore, it would be as simple as a flag for each account. If they download the game via the offline installers, they're locked out of the trading program. It wouldn't be hard to do from a technical perspective, just from a legal and logistics one.

Not like it matters, though. As I said, it was an idea, spitballing, not something I actually want. You're making a mountain out of a molehill, here.