Is it really true that when you buy SoaSE and link your CD-key to an account, they stay together forever and thus screw over anyone unfortunate enough to buy a used copy containing that CD-key?
Both "epiclulz" (I do really think this is a poor name choice) and the people in disagreement with him make valid points as well as invalid ones.
To epiclulz's credit:
To provide further explanation:
Other points of interest:
I don't know any retailer where I live will take used (open box) PC games anymore.
I feel the need to reiterate again that software licenses are non-transferable and have always been that way. This is nothing new; it is industry standard, and as such is not required to be stated anywhere on the packaging. It is assumed that anyone purchasing software will know this, just like it's assumed that you know you need insurance to drive a car.
I love analogies.
So if I made a sandwich and sold it to a guy... And he decided to cut it in half and sell the other half to you at a reduced price... Does that mean you can come to me complaining that you only got half a sandwich? Or that you can complain that it has mustard instead of mayo on it? And then demand I make you a whole new sandwich?
What would be in it for me? You didn't pay for the first sandwich that I made the money off of. I have no obligation to you since you are not a customer of MINE, but instead a customer of said first customer.
Even better one! It's like if someone bought a soft drink with free refills and sold you a glass of the drink. You'd get that one drink but wouldn't be able to get any more. You also wouldn't be able to complain to the establishment if the drink was flat. And all this time the first guy would be filling up again and again on that same drink...
I could see why you'd be mad if you paid full price for the game and was not able to get up-to-date patches for it. That'd suck! But you paid a reduced price, so you got a reduced experience with the game. I think the consensus of this forum will show you that while you may not be wrong in your opinion, there's valid arguments for the other side as well.
You got screwed, don't complain to SD/IC, complain to the game store. Maybe they'll change their practices to better ensure that this doesn't happen again in the future.
I had to at least type SOMETHING after spending an hour reading this thread. I won't be back though so whatever. hahaha
i my self have had the unfortunate experience of buying it second hand and didnt know that i would not be able to patch it up to the latest version.. now i paid £11.99 from a store here. i then got in touch with custumer support here and they told me the serial key had already been used but they told me i could... carry on playing the game i have patched upto 1.5 or i could buy a new licence and that they would give me a discount on a licence so they offered me it for £13.99.
now i have been playing the game for 3-4 hours the last few days deciding if i should get it or not, and i am happy to say HELL yes i will be getting it as its bloody brilliant! i do think there should have been a warning on the box however i shouldnt be so tight as to buy it second hand.. i do not think EA have a better system i thinks its awful, had this been say spore and it had all activations used up and i had got it, would EA have offered me a deal? the idea of buying the licence to actully own the game and be able to download it should i ever need it, even if its in 3 years time!! is a good one. i wouldnt say your getting screwed by stardock i would say your getting a hell of a deal to be honest.
well i hate to say it... no wait.. i dont rlly.. but epiclulz was right your statement keeps deteriorating since u can't find anything to counter his statements you resort to pointing words, that without context seem rude, but when u search em up its just a way to express what he means, not meant to someone.
so i think he prety much out-talked yah with marely 2 posts, either find some valid statements or dont spam the topic trying to make him look like some troll, if u hate him that much already for having seconds thoguht about your beloved company, count to 10, or 10k if doesnt help....
unfortunatly "normal" (as in MOST) strategy games don't have a DRM protection type currently used by SoaSE, nobody cares to search for it online as they expect it to be normal EA-based not working DRM the only place it is informed is INSIDE the box, unfortunatly, you have to buy to take a look inside, or ask a doctor to give him your Xray scanner and take it to the store to check the eula, the information should be given and laid down before you nose b4 you buy it, otherwise you can't consider the buying valid, becuase a valid agreement never occured, the customer never had the chance to get to know important information before purchase
YES it was on some site, NO peopel dont go looking for it, they should receive the information the moment BEFORE buying
it really is a sad way of making money, not properly informing your customer about copy protection etc. they know some peopel wont bother returning it, and they also know most shops dont accept returned games, so your stuck with it. whilst the guys making profits are investing the cash in buying golden bricks for their new homes
unfortunatly this is how it works today, and until some game-loving president wins the elections, we probably wont see this type of scam get it's restrictions anytime soon, mainly becuase most politicians dont know about it >.> wich is normal.. they dont have time for gaming >.>
A game store "weeds out" DRM-crippled games!?
do you eat your game-discs? do you drink the game-data then go to some terminal and refill it?
your making pointless statements, they dont apply to the problem
to make it as easy as possible for you... when buying that sandwich you can see/check what you get in that gaming store, you see the game and only get to see it's about space, and short text saying what it's about.. written by some zombified gamer getting paid to make it sound atractive. you DONT get to see that the game cannot be used online becuase it has a serial key that can be used only once "stolen" or used by the previous user
or again in easy terms, you dont get to see that the sandwich your buying is cut in haf
theres only 2 real options to avoid this, 1 is to stop making these types of drm
and 2 wich imho is the only real one, MORE INFORMATION, there should be some sticker pasted onto the box telling you allabout the serial etc. or lie all other system information, should be written in the technical section on the OUTSIDE of the box.
think it's pretty weird to see the "opinions" (if i can call em that) of multiple people, they seem so much like brainwashing, something like "you mess with producer of my super game? i kill you and maybe i get medal"
its coming back time and time again, and people liek us who have actual complains about how things go just get banned or warned about not being such a jackass if only haf of you actualy thought about how others get screwed, and you to have the potantial of getting screwed.. that's finaly fix one problem, ofcourse none of you actually think, its the typical thought of "well im not the one having problems here, he's just some unknown person let's help the dev's and flame this guy til he goes home crying and maybe i'll get some medal for my effort"
Yes, MOST store's actual take the time of checking if a game is "redistributable" a fine example is a store in Amsterdam, it specializes in selling games, brand new, second hand and even a few 3rd hand (wich sell for 1$ each)
the store is "manned" by 2 regular people.. not involved into "hardcore" gaming.. yet they check if a game is redistributable, you can buy olmost any "once popular" game there only some are being left out, becuase theyre plainly not resellable
any other store does the same, do you EVER see WoW laying in a 2e hand game box? no ofcourse not it's obvious that you cant re-use it.
sins of a solar empire in a 2e hand game box, plenty of times becuase its NOT obvious that it can't be re-used
and now to make this even longer. explenation for all those annoying statements that it CAN be re-used
1: no patching, youre stuck with version 1.05 of the game.. wich tough is playable is still pretty unbalanced and compared to v1.1 (or 1.12 today) thats a big.. BIG loss
2 no multiplayer: singleplayer.. over and over again... no updating of the AI... no AI improvements... may i again remind you that the AI today seems to have unlimited cash (try putting bounty, he'll always increase after 5 seconds.. it wont end not at 10k credits.. not at 100k)y
you cant call this re-useable, if you pay 10 $ for it i'd say that'd be a waste, no offense Stardock, but multiplayer until today still is the only ray of hope SoaSE has it wouldn't be fair to condem anyone with points 1 and 2.
remember this can happen when u buy from a STORE,people stuck here didnt pirate, they legally bought the game, and when asking for support theyre getting flamed like theyre pirates
EDIT
3: no mods, mods are being released for up-to-date versions so it'll be pretty difficult finding working mods for 1.05
C'mon shadow, please dont hate. That entire quote has been taken out of context. It was one of the first replys to a very very rude start(on page 1) to this same forum, that has grown to so much more. Taking the argument apart and showing the reasons for statements is at this point in thime irrelevant.
Example : Patches aren't some fucking "reward," and outside these cult-like forums you're pretty unlikely to find a single person who's outraged that a publisher is providing patches for free : Page 5 Reply 102
Is it neccicary to use language like that to bring your point across. Does it make your point more correct or more incorrect by trying to bulldoze your way through other people. As long as that person gets their way, they dont care how it is done or who gets taken out in the crossfire. THATS JUST PLAIN WRONG
Example :
I dont actually care what the answer is to this, im using it as an example. This question has been avoided/bypassed multiple times, but when someone else on the forum gives a unsubstantiated/dismissive answer they get hammered or dismessed out of hand.
Opinions are opinions. Facts with references are called facts
1 persons opinion, not fact. I have had problems with Securom, does that mean suddenly that I am right? No that would be silly.
I could go on, but after page 1, which you so pointed in your post. There was no need for me to do a decent job of trying to convince epic with reason and fact. It was as pointless then as this current post is now.
1 more quote I think is needed
P.s I never indicated that I was a fanboy of stardock/impulse. I love the game, I dislike impules distrubution. I have my own grieviences with the way the do certain things. This topic not being one of those things. Dont paint me with the single brush you use as I have my own opinions about things, I try not to judge someone before they have played their hand. I hope this post has been informative. Thank you.
No, they don't. The ones you listed as examples just have the good idea to prune second hand games. Most quality stores don't even HAVE second hand game bins. BTW, did you know that software in general has no(zero, nada, none) support or warranty for anyone other than the first hand buyer? Read your EULAs people...
"(try putting bounty, he'll always increase after 5 seconds.. it wont end not at 10k credits.. not at 100k)y"
They stopped at 2k or so for me, and I out did their bounty just fine.
Exactly true, patches should be supplied to those that have bought the game first hand, but there is still the moral that releasing the patch only via Impulse that you're not supporting anyone without an internet connection. I want to drill this very fact, why? Simply because despite my friend owning a first hand bought SOASE she's getting persecuted out of any support due to having zero net access except for at work. She was fine to patch up to v1.05 but now she can't.
What you have done is completely alienated thousands of genuine consumers from getting any support whatsoever. If everyone in the world had a net connection then there wouldn't be any qualm about this, however, even in the times of the credit crunch and recession, there will be a lot less people with a net connection that can no longer update their game.
Like I've said before, the downloads section is purely built towards your account, if you bought the game and have an account then you should simply display the current patch in your "update" section.
If that's the case then I can take a EULA from several years ago and it will grant me the right to resell the software then.
EULA for Unreal Tournament 2004 revised on 1/11/05: http://www.epicgames.com/ut2k4_eula.html
In case you don't want to read the whole thing here is the relevant part:
As you can see here in plain english it says that the only way for you to terminate your license to UT2004 is to DESTROY the software. Meaning that you can't resell it. Meaning that even back in 2005 you couldn't transfer that license because the only means of it's termination by you is to destroy it. This however is a game I've seen numerous times for resale and have even purchased used myself. Yeah I can get patches for it but I don't feel that I'm somehow entiled to them just because I have the CD and box. I don't have a license and the company owes me nothing in the way of support or multiplayer. The difference is they have no way of telling a used copy from a new one and if they did it can be assumed based on their EULA that they would prevent me from using their resources such as patches and multiplayer just like Stardock does.
In your favor I did find that Hellgate London provides for the user to transfer their license once to another person. In my experience however this is the exception, not the rule. Perhaps I'm the only one that reads the EULA when installing software; maybe it's from working in IT where licensing problems can cost companies lots of money if not handled correctly.
Also I'd like an explanation of what you consider free loading as it's obviously not what everyone else on these boards considers it to be.
I sympathize with your friend's plight in this and I think you do have a valid concern; however I can also see this from Stardock's point of view. If they allowed what you're asking for then your friend could potentially take that file and post it up to a torrent site for all the pirates. I'm not saying that your friend would do that, and without an net connetion it would be pretty difficult for them to anyways , but I think you understand my point about it. I'm pretty sure that's where Stardock is coming from on the issue if that helps at all.
As for a solution your friend could take a laptop with sins and impulse on it to a net cafe and update it. Then use impulse to back it up and burn it to a disc and then use impulse to restore that backup onto their home computer. Failing having a laptop they could do the same on a friends computer who had a net connection. Yeah it's kind of round about but it is a solution at least.
PS. Some one can correct me if I'm wrong but I think Impulse can be run with dial up. If that is in fact the case then your friend could sign up for a free ISP like NetZero and use their 10 free hours a month to get the patches.
why should MMORPGs be excluded you have brought a game so why shouldnt you be able to play it what is differnt???
you mean you brought a fully funtional game and since your not willing to support the people who made it your upset that you cant get the latest updates
Yes I do understand and the copying my files to hers is the only option I have thought about, but that is a lot of side-stepping, especially now that she lives 100 miles away from me. She could go to the net café with her 6 year old laptop (it can't even run SOASE) but then she would have to spend extra money just to get a patch that is free for her.
It's not a fair situation and I understand the importance of protecting an investment, but putting a patch in the users updates portion of the site, like what they have done with v1.05, is a fair compromise. Those without a CD Key tied to their account can't even see the updates section so I don't see the problem.
Did you miss the part where I said it doesn't matter if it is rare - those are the rules? You couldn't have missed it since you quoted it! Clearly from this one single example, you only choose to reply to whatever suits you, not on the issues. And whoever asked you to quit PC gaming? I only asked you to leave these forums.
I never said whether you were or weren't free-loading. You must have me confused with other posters. I merely said that the fact is you paid someone else for a second hand copy of the game, and not SD - therfore, SD/IC will not give you support patches.
So, why are you here then? OK, well, I think you explain why in the next comment:
Do you fancy yourself as Erin Brokovich trying to save the rest of us poor innocents from the terrible things coming out of SD/IC that will corrupt out soul? God Help Us!
You must be a comedian, saying that I am cornerned. Numerous times I asked you specific questions, and you did not answer, or gave a non-specific answer, or deflected it completely by changing the subject and so on and so forth. It is you who are trying to be slippery, and when pushed for specifics, fail to deliver.
As someone said earlier, time to call a spade a spade. A troll is a troll. Look at your replies to my questions. Ladies and Gentlemen of this esteemed Forum - I rest my case.
The problem was unfortunately that some users abused that system and ruined it for the rest of us. The reason things changed after the 1.05 patch was that Stardock/Ironclad was seeing their patch files showing up on pretty much every torrent site out there as soon as they were released. If this hadn't been the case things probably would have stayed how they were but with how things happened they really didn't have a lot of choice if they wanted to maintain their business in the manner they had choosen to. It's sad but unfortunately that's how the real world tends to be .
Edit: Apparently I misunderstood how the situation evolved with the patches; see below.
I stand corrected then.
Just as a point of reference, Impulse is mentioned by name in the original Sins of a Solar Empire documentation.
With regards to second-hand sales, I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other.
I don't, however, look at games as being like books or movies but more akin to soft drinks and other consumables. The reason I say that is because computer games, unlike movies or books, have a relatively short life-span. Star Wars or The Lord of the Rings trilogy cost the same today as they did 10 years ago (or more in some cases). By contrast, a 10 year old game is likely gone no matter how popular it was.
That said, I can understand the frustration some people have in not being able to resell their games or buy used games but on the other hand, it's really not my responsibility to spend money to make it easier for other people to sell things that we are not a party of.
People are free to sell their CD of Sins of a Solar Empire. But we're under no obligation to support that sale as we weren't a party of it.
Most people are unaware of some of the advantages our system has. GalCiv II standard, Sins standard edition and Demigod standard edition are all $39.95 games in an age where most new games are $10 to $20 more.
When we do things that streamline our support costs and our development process we pass those savings on to users which, I think, most people would say is a good thing.
Actually EULAs and licensing are at the heart of your arguement, you just fail or refuse to realize it. What I have been trying to calmly explain to you is exactly that. I have laid out how licensing works and why it is important to your arguement and yet you haven't listened.
Here it is plain and simple. EULA determines the bounds of the license. You must accept it to install the software. You saw it when you tried to install as did the first owner. The first owner agreed to it as did you if you actually installed it. One of the stipulations is that you can't transfer your license, just like 90%+ of software out there. Being that this is the majority of PC games it can be assumed that this is known thing to people that purchase PC games, and therefore is not required to be stated on the package. The first user knowingly sold their copy under this EULA, meaning they essentially defrauded the store they sold it to. The store like many others sells used PC games, ignoring the fact that most PC games don't allow the license to be transfered. They could safely do this because up until recently there was no practical way of enforcing the bounds of the EULA. Based on the EULA these stores are not selling you the license they are selling you a box, manual, and disc and that's it. Now that there are good ways to verify a license a lot of stores are ceasing the sale of used PC games, or at least newer ones. You purchased the game from a store that hasn't instituted a policy like this yet. What it comes down to is you being mad that a company is actually enforcing the contract that you and everyone else who purchases a PC game new is agreeing to. You've been agreeing to this for the decades that you site as being how long PC games have been being sold used. For those decades nearly every game you bought used you never owned a license to. The only difference now is that it's being enforced. The license is the core of your complaint; the EULA defines the bounds of the license, and is therefore the core issue you're debating here. I doubt very seriously that you have been unable to understand what I've posted so I have to conclude that you're just trying to make a scene and don't really care about having the situation explained to you or having a rational discourse about it.
"ree·load
(frē'lōd')
intr.v.
free·load·ed, free·load·ing, free·loads Slang
To take advantage of the charity, generosity, or hospitality of others.
free'load'er n."
That's the dictionary.com definition for free loading. You're taking advantage of Stardock's hospitality by wanting patches for a game purchase that they have recieved no money from. This is why it matters where your money went. Stardock's hospitality in offering meaningful patches is based upon their revenue stream from original sales, which your purchase was not. The original purchasers are paying Stardock/Ironclad's operational costs for this hospitality, you're not. If you were to get the patches you essentially wouldn't have paid for them, and hence would be taking advantage. The arguement over if you're freeloading or not comes down to where you're money went; not if you paid money or not.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
