"No matter what EULA you agreed to."
https://www.eurogamer.net/eu-rules-publishers-cannot-stop-you-reselling-your-downloaded-games

Okay, but who's going to drop the first shoe of implementing this? (Preferably without a stupid caveat like a NFT.)

Wait a fuzzy navel, that's an article from 3 Jul 2012!!

OP, you just dug up an article that's over a decade old, did you mean to own goal?

Yes, I do remember that, it was in the news back in... well, around the time this article was published, back in 2012 or so.

Like it matters much here. In the EU you may have the right to resale a license but GOG, or any other store, is not obliged to facilitate it AFAIK.

Our licenses are emails with order numbers. (In case you ever delete your account : )

I had written to say that there hasn't been much progress in all the time since this came up. But hey, whatever.

Nice OP, by the way. Although I would tone down the enthusiasm, just throwing up a link and no comment at all seems a bit overwhelming to me, it really contrasts with the lack of interest in my post.

That's the EU for you: "Let's pass a law/ruling but never follow up on it!" Yes, your lack of interest seems to be congruent with feeding the need to post :P But hey, at least we get to commiserate on the EU's inaction.

Back-up your emails, people!

This is not really news, the laws exist for many years now.

But so far not a single gaming platform implemented the means to do it.

There's always a way around the laws. While no one can stop us from selling digital games, the account the games are tied to cannot be sold, even a simple change in ownership of the account requires legal documents from what I've been told.

Yep, that's pretty much how they argue. We actually don't own the games, not even a licence to play them. We pay for unlocking the licence/game for our account.
Having the offline installers on GOG gives one a feeling of ownership, but it's still not the case.

The only viable way to sell a game was to have one account for each game and transfer the account like you described.

I probably should not say "they", as my company acts exactly the same :)
Our customers have an account with unlocked licences.

According to which definition of ownership?

Wouldn't it be possible to have support revoke a game from one's library in exchange for a key that's to be resold by the consumer to someone else? Or are companies bypassing that law completely with the type of license they're selling?

Then maybe we should all stop buying games until they do implement it. Except an NFT may actually work in this case, as a form of ownership and unlocking said downloads on platform. Certainly there may be rules of how often it can change hands (say once a year).

Or just having a 'give game X to user Y' and have them verify it, possibly with a trade of other game(s), which would secure another way to buy/trade keys and verify they exist at the source.

Anyways... unless an NFT is actually tied to something, it is worthless. I'd rather an NFT was tied to a physical disc, then turn in the NFT to get the actual disc... could be worthwhile.