can you sell empire:total war? (retail)

[cliffski]

I can't find any answer to this. I bought E:TW from amazon, have not enjoyed it and have sold it through their marketplace thing. I've removed local content from steam, but the game was activated on-line with my steam account (I had to, otherwise I couldn't play it).
Someone tell me what I need to do so the person who buys the disk from me can play it.
Ta

[Telefrog]

I don't think Steam will let you transfer ownership.

Can you sell the box and then "gift" the license to the buyer?

[Moggraider]

If you want to sell Steam games, then create a new Steam account every time you buy a game from them. Then you can sell the email/password combination. Heh.

[Skorin]

Yeah, I don't think you can remove a game from your steam account. Did you already sell the game without checking on that first?

[cliffski]

I did. maybe the big sign saying "sell yours here!" on the amazon order page was why I did that.
There is no mention at amazon that the game is not resellable, in fact they encourage it.
It's not a steam game, I didn't buy it from them. i bought it from amazon.
So basically any agme thats associated with steam, regardless where bought is non sellable?

[Zak Gordon]

Yeah that sounds about right to me. Still E:TW is kinda unique in that it was released as a retail game(to get the bigger number of sales) but used steam as it's DRM, which then ties the retail bought game into teh interweb and steam account. no resale. It will end up a slightly messy experiment probably.

[cliffski]

I'm pretty sure that's not legal. Not in the Uk anyway.
Fuck it, I'm mailing it. I had no idea that this game was exempt from normal Uk consumer law. Let amazon argue it with me. They even ASKED me if I wanted to sell it.
I won't buy another game that requires steam in a hurry.

[stusser]

Yep, you're SOL. Steam games, like every other piece of downloadable content in the world like itunes music, etc, cannot be resold.

If you mail it you're just screwing the buyer. That's not very nice.

[ElGuapo]

Yeah, that's rotten. You should be able to sell games that you completely give up ownership rights to (i.e. uninstall and sell all install materials, manuals, etc.).

I could see if you bought it off Steam and had to click a Terms of Service before purchasing, but after the fact? That sucks.

[cliffski]

I suppose I better contact the buyer. and say they arent getting it.
I'm going to demand a refund from amazon.

This sucks big time.

[frank austin]

Fuck it, I'm mailing it.

Yeah, fuck that poor bastard who bought it from you! You could easily just communicate the problem with them, but nope - mail it anyway!

[ElGuapo]

All of this makes me glad that when given the choice I game on the 360. Sell away!

[Eduardo X]

I was pretty mad when Stardock released their gaming Bill of Rights and didn't include the ability to sell the game. I understand why from a publisher's standpoint, but fuck it, I'm a gamer. I want to sell games so I can buy new games. And I want to buy used games. And when I can't, I will sometimes skip over that game.

I felt like such a chump when I finished Bioshock a week after I got it and couldn't sell it off because I bought it on Steam.

[cliffski]

well hey. Amazon, on the phone assure me that I can sell the game and it will work with someone else's steam account. Do they know something we all don't or are they clueless?
Gah!
Maybe steam allow a dozen or so reinstalls in different accounts?

[Skorin]

I really doubt it. You could test it yourself by opening a new steam account and trying to reinstall to that account.

[rezaf]

The #1 reason I avoid digital distribution like a plague whenever possible.
_____
rezaf

[routlaw]

well hey. Amazon, on the phone assure me that I can sell the game and it will work with someone else's steam account. Do they know something we all don't or are they clueless?
Gah!
Maybe steam allow a dozen or so reinstalls in different accounts?

They're clueless, it's tied to your account for good.

Goozex flagged this game as no-trade in their system along with all of the other Steamworks-activated DRM games.

Steam should really release a deactivation tool/procedure for retail-activated games. Stuff bought online is one thing, but their current implementation for retail activation is kind of rough from a user rights perspective. I mean, you can even give an MMO you're no longer playing to a friend if you give them the account information and clear out private data from the account.

Not that publishers mind, of course.

[cliffski]

indeed. I'm totally down with removing the game from my PC and not being able to play it. No problemo.
But it seems valve and Sega have denied me that as an option.
Grrr

[Godzilla Blitz]

I bought a used game (Sin Episode 1) that required a Steam activation, and even though the other person had removed the game from their account, I couldn't activate mine.

I went back and forth with Steam over a dozen emails, and they wouldn't budge: they were insistent that their games could not be transferred from one owner to another.

The thing that ticked me off was that their "Terms of Service" (at the time anyway, maybe it's changed now) made no specific or general reference to this being not allowed, yet their customer service monkeys kept referring me to the Terms of Service. I'd email back asking them to show me specifically where in the language it said I couldn't buy a used game and activate it, and they simply state that it wasn't allowed according to their terms of service. After a while I just gave up. They beat me. In the short run.

The other thing that gets me with this is that nowhere on the box did it state that I had to activate the game with Steam. Heck, the name Steam wasn't even on the box. How was the buyer supposed to know? I had the physical disc, box, and manual in my possession and I couldn't play the game. Didn't make any sense to me.

[Zak Gordon]

I bought a used game (Sin Episode 1) that required a Steam activation,.....edit.......

The other thing that gets me with this is that nowhere on the box did it state that I had to activate the game with Steam. Heck, the name Steam wasn't even on the box. How was the buyer supposed to know? I had the physical disc, box, and manual in my possession and I couldn't play the game. Didn't make any sense to me.

That's pretty bad! atleast with the retail copy of Empire:TW it made it quite clear on the game box that you needed to activate and play it online by setting up a steam account.

I kind of feel sorry for Sega in this - they took on board all the 'nasty screw my computer up' DRM gripes, decided on something different and now people are pissed with them and steam that they can't even play the game.....or sell it on in frustration!

[Sarkus]

The Empire packaging is pretty clear about this aspect, though it is in small print. Plus the Steam tie-in was also known well in advance of release and discussed on various message boards. I'm not defending the way Steam handles this, but I'm also not sure how much "I didn't know" works as an excuse anymore. That this hasn't yet been made illegal suggests they have some argument in their favor.

That all said, I could swear that when Steam first launched they did allow the transfer of games from one Steam account to another. If that was true, when was it changed and what was their excuse? It would seem a very easy feature to support.

[frank austin]

That this hasn't yet been made illegal suggests they have some argument in their favor.

I wouldn't go this far. I would go so far as to say something like "That this hasn't been made illegal yet suggests that nobody has bothered to bring up the legality of the issue on a large enough scale for them to care."

[stusser]

I was pretty mad when Stardock released their gaming Bill of Rights and didn't include the ability to sell the game.
According to Brad in the last Qt3 DRM bitchfestival, stardock will actually let you transfer licenses, but it's a manual process and they charge ten bucks. It's not encouraged, and you can't find it on their website, but they'll do it.

[Brian Seiler]

I wouldn't go this far. I would go so far as to say something like "That this hasn't been made illegal yet suggests that nobody has bothered to bring up the legality of the issue on a large enough scale for them to care."

The really big problem here is that I cannot conceive of an argument that Valve could possibly make that would defend this behavior with boxed retail products. The First Sale Doctrine was originally formulated to represent the consumer's right to resell his individual copy of a piece of copyrighted material to another individual. Where they might have a theoretical leg to stand on when it comes to downloadable stuff (it's not trivial to demonstrate that there's a direct parallel between, say, a CD or a book and a string of bits you get from a server), this is just right out. I think it would be interesting to see a law suit filed against them over this behavior, but the obstacle is that the EFF hasn't cared enough to do it and no sane person is likely to spend lawyer money on a $50 game they can't sell.

[rezaf]

According to Brad in the last Qt3 DRM bitchfestival, stardock will actually let you transfer licenses, but it's a manual process and they charge ten bucks. It's not encouraged, and you can't find it on their website, but they'll do it.

But there's a pretty clear difference between "If you pay us $10 we are grudgingly willing to transfer your license to somebody else" and "You have the unconditional permission to sell your game to any other person holding a Stardock account" (or something like that).

I don't buy the nonsense about ever plentiful support costs - I have never in my life called any support number from any developer or publisher of any game I ever played, and I do not know anyone who has.
Also, I believe i would be pretty easy to estabish a system where, for example, every copy of a game comes with 3 support calls (arbitary number) tied to the serial. Once used up, a $$$ support number needs to be called ... there, problem solved.
_____
rezaf

[unbongwah]

I was pretty mad when Stardock released their gaming Bill of Rights and didn't include the ability to sell the game.
IIRC, Brad's argument was that people who buy used games (or SW in general) still expect free tech support from the publisher; that represents a drain on the publisher's resources without any additional revenue to cover it.

Of course, I would think the solution to that would be to make games which don't break...

[Sarkus]

What I don't get is why the whole legal issues surrounding used PC games have yet to be definatively resolved. You have an entire used industry for console games but none of those chains will touch used PC because there are apparently legal issues they don't want to deal with. EB sold used PC games for a while, but that was based on legal agreements with individual publishers.

So clearly there are legal concerns here and I'm wondering if those concerns also impact what Valve and other publishers feel like they can get away with.

[Royal Fool]

The other thing that gets me with this is that nowhere on the box did it state that I had to activate the game with Steam. Heck, the name Steam wasn't even on the box. How was the buyer supposed to know? I had the physical disc, box, and manual in my possession and I couldn't play the game. Didn't make any sense to me.

That's interesting; my European box clearly states that Steam is required to activate and that the buyer should return the game unopened if he or she does not agree with Steam's subscriber agreement.

I looked up the North American boxart on mobygames and it looks like you're right, this isn't mentioned there at all. Typical publisher screwup.

[Sam Jones]

IIRC, Brad's argument was that people who buy used games (or SW in general) still expect free tech support from the publisher; that represents a drain on the publisher's resources without any additional revenue to cover it.

I'm not sure that's a particularly valid argument. One copy was sold, one copy is eligible for tech support. It shouldn't matter to Stardock if that's the first buyer or the second, as long as they're not both claiming it at the same time.

[Brian Seiler]

I'm not sure that's a particularly valid argument. One copy was sold, one copy is eligible for tech support. It shouldn't matter to Stardock if that's the first buyer or the second, as long as they're not both claiming it at the same time.

I dunno - I kind of see where he's coming from. I frequently have to train people not to be stupid about technology because I support that stuff in a place where maybe not everybody knows how it works. Next thing you know, bingo bango there's a promotion and the guy who's doing whatever job depended on that technology now doesn't know what he's doing again and you have to retrain all the old things that you finally got the other person up to speed on so that you didn't have to handle it. If one idiot calls you and asks you how come he can't play your game on his microwave oven then completes it and sells it to somebody else who's stupid enough to need to ask that question, you're basically solving the same problem twice with no new revenue.

That said, the solution here is the Microsoft one - bill for support issues if the problem turns out to be between the keyboard and the chair.

[cliffski]

Valves position here seems self-defeating.
On the plus side, they get to sell an extra game because I cant resell mine cheap. On the downside, I will never buy a game again that requires this system.
I'm sure in the long run, they lose out.

[Cubit]

God damn cliffski, you are one of the most negative posters on this board. Its always something, isn't it.

I wish for once if you were unhappy about something, you would hold your tongue instead of making all of us suffer the consequences.

[Sarkus]

Valves position here seems self-defeating.
On the plus side, they get to sell an extra game because I cant resell mine cheap. On the downside, I will never buy a game again that requires this system.
I'm sure in the long run, they lose out.

Good luck with that stance. Empire isn't the only non-Valve game that requires Steam, and I suspect the list will continue to grow . . .

[Piperfan]

God damn cliffski, you are one of the most negative posters on this board. Its always something, isn't it.

I wish for once if you were unhappy about something, you would hold your tongue instead of making all of us suffer the consequences.

I don't own one game requiring Steam. The first time I have ever posted that is now. Has my being quiet about that helped developers market to my demographic?

[Moggraider]

Valves position here seems self-defeating.
On the plus side, they get to sell an extra game because I cant resell mine cheap. On the downside, I will never buy a game again that requires this system.
I'm sure in the long run, they lose out.

They'll break you. I boycotted EA for years but had to break eventually. Valve is probably even more powerful now for PC gamers.

[Eduardo X]

This is allowed because nobody has sued Valve or Stardock or any digital distributor to get the issue resolved.

And while I like Steam a lot, I'd like to see this resolved, but I fear what it would do to little devs (like Cliffski) whose games are almost exclusively distributed digitally.

[ElGuapo]

Oh, I like Steam and the quality of games and delivery model outweighs all this. It's also awesome how if you buy a bundle with a game you already own you can gift the other copy. So the mechanic is in place to transfer licenses, clearly.

I also understand not being able to sell digitally delivered copies. Clear enough. What's irksome is that it's the DRM itself (choosing to use Steam) which makes it unsellable. People aren't complaining too much because its Steam, but if this was the case with Securecom people would be throwing an absolute fit.

[scharmers]

God damn cliffski, you are one of the most negative posters on this board. Its always something, isn't it.

I wish for once if you were unhappy about something, you would hold your tongue instead of making all of us suffer the consequences.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v222/scharmers/lolcatsdotcomkj9qqzegnrahk8de.jpg

[rei]

It's also awesome how if you buy a bundle with a game you already own you can gift the other copy. So the mechanic is in place to transfer licenses, clearly.

Only with Valve games.

[cliffski]

God damn cliffski, you are one of the most negative posters on this board. Its always something, isn't it.

I wish for once if you were unhappy about something, you would hold your tongue instead of making all of us suffer the consequences.

sorry for forcing you to read this post. I'll refund your money.
Now fuck off.

[Ergo]

The retail boxes of Dawn of War II and FEAR 2 (PC) also automatically register within Steam.

[Therlun]

sorry for forcing you to read this post. I'll refund your money.
Now fuck off.

I'm sorry for pissing into the subway station. I'd suggest to just stop smelling it.

[MikeJ]

I'm sorry for pissing into the subway station. I'd suggest to just stop smelling it.

Cliffski's has a perfectly valid complaint and it's pretty on-topic for this board. If anything, the hounding of certain posters based on political views is the disruptive activity here.

[Therlun]

Cliffski's has a perfectly valid complaint and it's pretty on-topic for this board. If anything, the hounding of certain posters based on political views is the disruptive activity here.

I'm not doubting the validity of his complaint.
I am doubting the need to open a thread for a topic that would easily fit into any of the other 6 active steam/total war related threads.

Hounding based on political views? Generalizing a bit aren't we?
I must have missed the memo telling me that because some (other) people disagree with cliffski on some random topic I'm not allowed to criticize him myself.

[Cubit]

Cliffski's has a perfectly valid complaint and it's pretty on-topic for this board. If anything, the hounding of certain posters based on political views is the disruptive activity here.

sure, i'll admit its a legit complaint. but this topic (steam pros and cons, digital distribution, reselling digital games, ect...) has been discussed to fucking death on this forum. there is no reason to keep bringing it up. its a known quantity. at this time, digital distribution (and retail tie-ins) is not new, and its the consumer's responsibility to research this before purchase. if they don't like the terms, then don't buy the game. that is what will ultimately make publishers change their song and dance.

and i have little patience for cliffski's particularly tendency to create a thread for everything that rubs him the wrong way.

[MikeJ]

I'm not doubting the validity of his complaint.
I am doubting the need to open a thread for a topic that would easily fit into any of the other 6 active steam/total war related threads.


In my mind at least, it's a different topic. Having it in separate thread gives you the option of whether you want to read. I don't think it's at all the same as pissing in a subway.



Hounding based on political views? Generalizing a bit aren't we?
I must have missed the memo telling me that because some (other) people disagree with cliffski on some random topic I'm not allowed to critique him myself.

Cubit's post certainly seemed like hounding. You seemed to be backing him up, but I probably overreacted. Disagreeing and jumping into someone's thread just to tell them to shut up isn't the same thing.

[MikeJ]

sure, i'll admit its a legit complaint. but this topic (steam pros and cons, digital distribution, reselling digital games, ect...) has been discussed to fucking death on this forum. there is no reason to keep bringing it up. its a known quantity.

I read the forum far too much, and while I did know that you can't resell games purchased off Steam, I didn't realize that this also applied to some games purchased at retail. This particular wrinkle has probably been discussed before, but in my completely authoritative view it hasn't yet been discussed to death.

[Telefrog]

The retail boxes of Dawn of War II and FEAR 2 (PC) also automatically register within Steam.

Don't forget Saints Row 2.

[EvilIdler]

Yeah, it used to apply to only Valve games, not Steam games in general. So Total War is unsellable, thanks to DRM. Thanks for the warning, cliffski!

[lord of the mark]

its the consumer's responsibility to research this before purchase.

I think that until I am more familiar with Digital Dist, I will continue to come here to get opionions on every online game purchase.

[Therlun]

Yeah, it used to apply to only Valve games, not Steam games in general. So Total War is unsellable, thanks to DRM. Thanks for the warning, cliffski!

It is, and always has been "Steam activation=not able to resell".
That always included Valve games and all games bought through Steam.
It has been a point of discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of Steam and other digital distribution channels for ages.
I even agree that that is a major drawback and it should influence buying decisions.

But doing all surprised about the Empire:Total War situation, when it has been known and discussed for ages that it uses a (relatively) new retail-Steam connection really makes me wonder.
I can buy that someone missed the games that used a similar system before, but did you really need the warning about E:TW from this thread?
It wasn't enough that over the last months the issue came up in pretty much every E:TW thread in pretty much every forum?

[Derek French]

OK, so aside from Steam and Stardock, what about Direct 2 Drive and Metaboli and other digital distribution systems. Can you resell from those?

[Jorune]

OK, so aside from Steam and Stardock, what about Direct 2 Drive and Metaboli and other digital distribution systems. Can you resell from those?

Besides Steam and Impulse, I've got an account with Gamersgate and I would say no. Like Steam, gamersgate (now client free), has your games tied to your login/password config.

Jorune

[Alan Au]

My response is to restrict my game purchases to titles for which I enjoyed the demo, or enjoyed having played at a friend's place, etc.

- Alan

[sinfony]

What I don't get is why the whole legal issues surrounding used PC games have yet to be definatively resolved. You have an entire used industry for console games but none of those chains will touch used PC because there are apparently legal issues they don't want to deal with. EB sold used PC games for a while, but that was based on legal agreements with individual publishers.

So clearly there are legal concerns here and I'm wondering if those concerns also impact what Valve and other publishers feel like they can get away with.
There is no legal issue to resolve. PC games require you to agree to a license agreement; you don't "own" them in the same way that you do other things. I haven't actually read a EULA in forever, but I'm quite sure they include prohibitions on the transfer of the game. In buying and using the game, you agree to those terms and you're bound by them. Gamestop knows this, which is why they won't traffic in used PC games.

[Chris Nahr]

sinfony is correct. You own the physical retail box and have the right to resell the box, sure. But you are not automatically entitled to transfer the usage license for the software. That you can do so with console games (or books, movies etc.) is merely a happy coincidence.

That said, it's sure unexpected that a boxed copy has a nontransferable license. The normal expectation is that if something ships in a physical box, it's fully transferable like a book. One might consider a new law to enforce such a rule, but that would probably only hasten the transition to download-only games on PCs.

[Chris Nahr]

That's interesting; my European box clearly states that Steam is required to activate and that the buyer should return the game unopened if he or she does not agree with Steam's subscriber agreement.

I looked up the North American boxart on mobygames and it looks like you're right, this isn't mentioned there at all. Typical publisher screwup.

Hardly a screwup, much more likely intentional exploitation of much weaker consumer protection laws...

[Mordrak]

sinfony is correct. You own the physical retail box and have the right to resell the box, sure. But you are not automatically entitled to transfer the usage license for the software. That you can do so with console games (or books, movies etc.) is merely a happy coincidence.


Not in the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine).

[Zak Gordon]

This isn't just about re-selling mind you is it? I'm all for devs cutting down on the way retail outlets want to control what goes on the shelves(at a large cost, often only AAA can work on) then with the same hand push their second hand games model. This is a system that i'm sure does cost devs and publishers, and they are the ones supporting these retail shops as well.

So yeah this is one way - make a game that needs a specific account to run from and don't even worry about that being able to be resold. They(customer) paid their money, got their monies worth, job/responsibility done. maybe this is a fair point of view in the greater scheme of things?

But this thread is about a guy who paid for a retail game that he can neither play(as the system for letting him do so is screwing up) and now neither re-sell for someone else to try their luck on. Who knows maybe he won't even be able to take it back to the shop/place he bought it from? Maybe this will become 'normal' PC gaming? Maybe PC gaming can afford to die that little bit more?

This is something all DD systems are going to need to work on, or else.....well the console is waiting and has none of this merry-go-round.

[Mordrak]

So yeah this is one way - make a game that needs a specific account to run from and don't even worry about that being able to be resold. They(customer) paid their money, got their monies worth, job/responsibility done. maybe this is a fair point of view in the greater scheme of things?


In the greater scheme of things, it's very debatable.

[Chris Nahr]

Not in the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine).

Read your own article. Nobody is preventing you from reselling the copyrighted work on DVD. The issue is about the license that enables execution of the copyrighted work on a PC. Such things did not exist in 1908, hence the area of confusion that the Wiki article mentions.

[Mordrak]

Read your own article. Nobody is preventing you from reselling the copyrighted work on DVD. The issue is about the license that enables execution of the copyrighted work on a PC. Such things did not exist in 1908, hence the area of confusion that the Wiki article mentions.

I did. I'm well aware of the contention. But it's not just a "happy accident" that we have first sale doctrine in the US (books or otherwise). It's an actual principle, not a matter of happenstance. That's what I amcontending with you. Just because software didn't exist in 1908 doesn't inherently nullify First Sale Doctrine nor do EULAs.

[Chris Nahr]

You misunderstand. The first sale doctrine is about transferring one copy in spite of what a more restrictive copying license might say. The Steam issue does not touch copyright at all -- it's about transferring the usage license.

It's only recently that consumers have electronic playback machines connected to the Internet that can effectively limit the use of a product to a single person. Publishers could always have tried telling people that only the original buyer may read their books but obviously everyone would have laughed at that since there was no way of enforcing such restrictions, hence the law says nothing about them. It's a very recent thing that usage restrictions on retail products are technically possible.

[Chris Nahr]

Such usage restrictions are common and uncontroversial in commercial software, by the way -- for example, many software products have special personal or student licenses that may not be used for commercial purposes, even if you legally obtain the license.

[Harkonis]

I might be the only one here that couldn't care less about reselling games. Any PC game I buy, I just assume it's mine forever or I don't buy it. I guess I was conditioned a long time ago.

[BobJustBob]

It's an interesting glimpse into a strange alternate world where a retail box tying itself to Steam, a physical disc declaring itself obsolete like a human finding its physical body a hindrance and becoming a purely digital consciousness, would be a negative. What century is this again?

[Calistas]

All of this makes me glad that when given the choice I game on the 360. Sell away!

Preach on. I get more gamer-regret from PC than Xbox games these days and this is one of the reasons why.

[Alistair]

Seems pretty obvious that if you're losing something you value by losing the right to sell a game, you'll pay less for it... that's another reason why Steam's so cheap...

[Midnight Son]

The #1 reason I avoid digital distribution like a plague whenever possible.
_____
rezaf

IGG-Zactly!!

[Midnight Son]

It's only recently that consumers have electronic playback machines connected to the Internet that can effectively limit the use of a product to a single person. Publishers could always have tried telling people that only the original buyer may read their books but obviously everyone would have laughed at that since there was no way of enforcing such restrictions, hence the law says nothing about them. It's a very recent thing that usage restrictions on retail products are technically possible.

And it must be stopped.

[Chris Nahr]

Seems pretty obvious that if you're losing something you value by losing the right to sell a game, you'll pay less for it... that's another reason why Steam's so cheap...

I presume this is a joke? Steam is at least as expensive as retail for new games, and cliffski's game was not even bought from Steam.

[Alistair]

It was ironical.

[Midnight Son]

What's this shit I hear about Last Remnant for PC having to use steam before you can even play it? Even though it's a retail copy?

That's the final straw. Fuck PC games.

[mkozlows]

sure, i'll admit its a legit complaint. but this topic (steam pros and cons, digital distribution, reselling digital games, ect...) has been discussed to fucking death on this forum. there is no reason to keep bringing it up. its a known quantity.

But the thing is, it's not. I don't pay attention to Steam threads, because Steam is evil bullshit and I want no part of it ever. But I did buy my wife E:TW for her birthday, having no idea (until I saw cliffski's threads) that I was signing her up for some ultra-draconian DRM nonsense.

And now I don't even know how it's going to work. Will our son be able to play it without signing in as her? Can it even be installed on multiple computers?

I didn't realize I'd need to read up on the intricate details of how some insane DRM service works in order to know which ways Gabe Newell will deign to allow us to play a non-Valve game I bought in a store. I just assumed it'd, you know, work. Like every game up until now has.

From here on out, I'll stick to 360/DS games for gifts.

[frank austin]

mkozlows, it appears that you need to know more about Steam before criticizing it or making any decisions about it.

[Brad Wardell]

IIRC, Brad's argument was that people who buy used games (or SW in general) still expect free tech support from the publisher; that represents a drain on the publisher's resources without any additional revenue to cover it.

Of course, I would think the solution to that would be to make games which don't break...

It's not about breaking or not. For instance, in the majority of support cases, it's the user not having up to date (and I mean, even remotely up to date) video drivers. That's the #1 cause of tech support.

When you sell your game back via Gamestop and Amazon, they certainly make money on the transaction but their value add is nil. The publisher, by contrast, is stuck having to support a totally new player who is statistically the most likely to make use of support.

Anyway, at the risk of being stoned to death, I'm just saying the issue isn't as straight forward as it might seem. :)

[ILTPS]

So basically any agme thats associated with steam, regardless where bought is non sellable?

You just realized this now ?
Oh, boo hoo. That' Steam for ya.
Steam = Control ...and the sooner you learn that, the better.

Weren't you one of the jackals laughing when I was telling people to create a new account for each Steam game ? So that they can sell it later, should they choose to ? Oh the irony.
Thank you - honestly - you made my day.



I won't buy another game that requires steam in a hurry.

Sure. You're angry now, but that will subside.
I know as fact that there will be around 50 new PC games in the next 12 months that will use Steam as their DRM and most will also have a retail version. Games you probably lust for.


But it seems valve and Sega have denied me that as an option.


NO!!
You did that when you purchased a Steam "protected" game.
I love seeing people like you hurt because of Steam.
Stem = control. How do you like it ?


I will never buy a game again that requires this system.

Yeah, "sure"...
Answered above.



I wish for once if you were unhappy about something, you would hold your tongue instead of making all of us suffer the consequences.

How do you know he's not holding his tongue on other issues he hasn't posted about ?
And who really cares what you think ?
Just who are you ?
Who do you think you are ?


(steam pros and cons, digital distribution, reselling digital games, ect...) has been discussed to fucking death on this forum.


And funny how an industry insider didn't know about the issue at hand.

(That's why there's people like me. Web preachers. I know more then any of you.)


that's another reason why Steam's so cheap...

Steam fanboy.
Steam is as cheap as my balls.
Steam is a rip-off.
Steam is control.
Steam is expensive.


What's this shit I hear about Last Remnant for PC having to use steam before you can even play it? Even though it's a retail copy?

That's the final straw. Fuck PC games.

You hear what I already discussed in my thread.
You don't like it ? Tough.
This is Steam.
Take it baby - take it deep. Just like you like it.


Steam is control.
Steam wants to be an ongoing monthly service. (They're working towards this.)
They'll brainwash the unwashed masses with clouds and rainbows.
The masses will cheer and applaud.


Steam's downfall will be when the working keygens will arrive. At this time, they are being held off with incentives.


World Exclusive: Diablo III will use Steam!!

[Cubit]

Here we go.

I wish "I Love To Post Shit" (thanks bill d.) would stop wasting our time with this nonsense, although it is funny in a way.

[ILTPS]

...stop wasting our time...

You speak for the collective, do you ?
I know more in my little finger then you will ever know in your entire life.

[Staff Sergeant]

The important thing here is that no-one quotes him plzkthx.

[Bleeding Edge]

I wish "I Love To Post Shit" (thanks bill d.) would stop wasting our time with this nonsense
A Steam thread without a post from ILTPS would be like a Microsoft thread without an asinine post from Midnight Son, Utterly inconceivable.

[frank austin]

http://www.alicia-logic.com/capsimages/pbr_025Inconceivable.jpg

[caesarbear]

That's the final straw. Fuck PC games.
You mean the final, final straw? What's this, like the fifth time you've completely and utterly abandoned PC games?

[Creole Ned]

Until the next Civ game, yes.

[Mordrak]

Publishers could always have tried telling people that only the original buyer may read their books but obviously everyone would have laughed at that since there was no way of enforcing such restrictions, hence the law says nothing about them. It's a very recent thing that usage restrictions on retail products are technically possible.

No, you misunderstand. That's why it went to the Supreme Court. If laughing at publishers solved the problem, there'd be no reason to establish First Sale Doctrine. And technically, Steam doesn't keep more than one person from playing a game, what it does do abridge my right to transfer ownership of my copy. Steam falls directly under the issue of First Sale Doctrine.



Such usage restrictions are common and uncontroversial in commercial software, by the way -- for example, many software products have special personal or student licenses that may not be used for commercial purposes, even if you legally obtain the license.

It is controversial. That's why there's conflicting cases on it. The issue hasn't been resolved. That partly helps software companies, because until there's some serious legal challenges they can just pretend that it's settled.

[Mordrak]

I
When you sell your game back via Gamestop and Amazon, they certainly make money on the transaction but their value add is nil. The publisher, by contrast, is stuck having to support a totally new player who is statistically the most likely to make use of support.


Good support is good marketing. That's ultimately what any support for consumer software is. There's nothing stopping you from charging for support separately after a particular date.

[Angrycoder]

IIRC, Brad's argument was that people who buy used games (or SW in general) still expect free tech support from the publisher; that represents a drain on the publisher's resources without any additional revenue to cover it.


Thats just silly on Brad's part, the support is for the product, not the person. If the game doesn't work, what does it matter if the owner is Sue, Bobby, or Steve?

[drbob]

There is no need to boycott steam, just register a new account for each game.

The only steam games I own are Half Life 2 and the orange box. I bought Half Life 2 second hand and the seller sent me his steam username and password with the game box, I changed the registered email and password and was set to play.

I don't see what they can do to stop people selling games on in this manner, though it strikes me that it would be a support nightmare in a commercial second hand setting (i.e gamestop) as opposed to private sales or transfers to a friend.

I've not had cause to use it but a quick google search threw up steam account manager (http://www.cheat-project.com/cheats-hacks/377/Steam-Account-Manager/), which looks like it simplifies using multiple steam accounts. Alternatively just set up a shortcut which launches steam with the parameters "-login username password"


Will our son be able to play it without signing in as her? Can it even be installed on multiple computers?

You can install on as many machines as you like, but only play when signed into the linked steam account. According to the steam knowledge base (https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=8963-EIKC-3767#simultaneous)
Games associated with a Steam account are licensed for the sole use of the account holder.So they want you to buy a second copy for your son....

[EvilIdler]

I can buy that someone missed the games that used a similar system before, but did you really need the warning about E:TW from this thread?
It wasn't enough that over the last months the issue came up in pretty much every E:TW thread in pretty much every forum?

I've avoided threads about the game. I don't read pre-release hype about games anymore. No time :)

Besides, games used to be available with or without Steam when not from Valve. Now it seems like Valve is the publisher, and that I didn't expect.

[Creole Ned]

Thats just silly on Brad's part, the support is for the product, not the person. If the game doesn't work, what does it matter if the owner is Sue, Bobby, or Steve?
From a support perspective, you could imagine it this way:

Joe buys GameX and has some issue that prompts him to call support.
Publisher gets revenue for sale, absorbs cost of support.

Joe later sells game to Fred. Fred also has some issue and calls support.
Publisher gets no revenue from sale, absorbs cost of support.

Fred sells the game to Sue. Sue calls support.
Publisher gets no revenue from sale, absorbs cost of support.

The publisher makes money form the original purchase but has to absorb higher support costs as the game is sold to multiple users, all of whom can ding support.

I don't know how often this happens, but I can see why the game publisher would not be keen on easily transferring games between users, regardless of format (digital, CD, etc.). Solutions range from charging for support to making bug-free games (ho ho) to educating users to do the basics without having to call for help -- like updating ancient video drivers. I'd assume game prices are also initially set to at least partly include potential support costs.

[mono]

I've never sold a used PC game in my life. Given some away, and left some on the stoop before moving, but this is a non-issue for me. Personally, given the economics of PC game development, I don't find a non-transferable game purchase objectionable. The ability to install my games on a bajillion PC's, not worry about physical media, key codes, or hardware failure does a bit to offset the few limitations. As long as Steam continues to work, I'm quite happy with it.

[Midnight Son]

You speak for the collective, do you ?
I know more in my little finger then you will ever know in your entire life.

We've had your type here before. You were an asshole then and you are now. Steam that. :)

[Midnight Son]

Until the next Civ game, yes.

I'll have to hold off and see what kind of moronic DRM they will use.

[drbob]

Given some away,
Well steam won't even let you do that if you put all your games in one account.


The ability to install my games on a bajillion PC's, not worry about physical media, key codes, or hardware failure does a bit to offset the few limitations. As long as Steam continues to work, I'm quite happy with it.
You're perfectly entitled to be, but steam should be an option for those who are happy to agree to the draconian limitations. When publishers start to make it obligatory even for store bought games I think it's time for consumers to take legal action in order to enforce the same basic rights they enjoy with every other form of media such as the right to transfer their copy to another person (either by sale or gift).

I've never bought a game through steam, mainly because the same games are always available cheaper elsewhere - for example GTA IV is currently £26.99 (38USD) on steam but I could get a new boxed copy for £19 (27USD) on amazon marketplace. If you factor that I can't sell the game on (gta iv currently fetches £15 as a trade in at CEX (http://www.cex.co.uk/products/Gaming/PC%20Gaming/PC%20CD-ROM/index.php?sku=5026555053839&name=Grand%20Theft%20Auto%204%20(GTA%20IV)%20(18)&mode=buy)) steam starts to look very expensive indeed.

[mono]

Unless Valve sends out hit squads to kill your family when you attempt to re-sell your game, I think 'draconian' is a tad far from the mark. Boy, that's a tired phrase.

Regardless, the Internet makes it simple to discern if a game you want to buy requires Steam, thus preventing resale. Don't buy it if you object. I suspect the resale issue is not a concern for most purchasers but if it's important to you, keep voting with your wallet.

[mkozlows]

Regardless, the Internet makes it simple to discern if a game you want to buy requires Steam, thus preventing resale. Don't buy it if you object. I suspect the resale issue is not a concern for most purchasers but if it's important to you, keep voting with your wallet.

Your faith that people spend a lot of time researching the DRM included with their game before buying is touching.

Your belief that people should never express opinions in ways that do not involve economic transactions is much less so.

[drbob]

Unless Valve sends out hit squads to kill your family when you attempt to re-sell your game, I think 'draconian' is a tad far from the mark. Boy, that's a tired phrase.

draconian - meaning "(of laws) excessively harsh and severe" I think it's a pretty apt word for the limits valve put on steam games.

If you follow their rules to the letter you're not even meant to allow your kids or your partner play a game you've bought and the steam system is set up to make such sharing difficult. I really don't view that as a legitimate way to boost sales.

[mono]

Your belief that people should never express opinions in ways that do not involve economic transactions is much less so.

Just making this stuff up as you go along? Any other fantasies you want to attribute to me?

[McGraw McGraw]

lust... you... any... World Exclusive: Diablo III

Are you a Pirate's Bay?

[Chris Nahr]

No, you misunderstand. That's why it went to the Supreme Court. If laughing at publishers solved the problem, there'd be no reason to establish First Sale Doctrine.

Hello? There was no way to separate private media consumption from media distribution when the FSD was established! That's the point you keep missing. Of course publishers could effectively prevent public sales of used books if they were legally entitled to do so, using the mechanism known as "police". Hence the establishment of the FSD. What they could never do, for technical rather than legal reasons, was to enforce usage restrictions on those books. Hence no mentioning of such restrictions by the FSD.


And technically, Steam doesn't keep more than one person from playing a game, what it does do abridge my right to transfer ownership of my copy.

No, it does not. You can transfer ownership of the copy itself just fine. Steam merely won't provide its proprietary execution mechanism to the new owner. You know, that thing that did not exist when copyright and FSD came into being.


It is controversial. That's why there's conflicting cases on it.

On private-use-only software licensing? Where?

[Tortilla]

On private-use-only software licensing? Where?

In the first sale doctrine. I don't think Mordrak has been presenting his argument well, but courts have held in the past that the First Sale Doctrine overrides EULAs, especially for boxed copies of software that the person must purchase before they have had an opportunity to review/agree to a EULA. Hence the software is not licensed, is a sold copy and the purchaser has the rights to resell that copy. Preventing the resold copy from functioning could thus land a company in trouble.

It is a bit of a gray area though, there's no laws laying out the rules here just a collection of judicial precents that seem to indicate that the courts are not amused by the restrictions software companies attempt to put on consumers by playing software licensing games.

[Chris Nahr]

In the first sale doctrine. I don't think Mordrak has been presenting his argument well, but courts have held in the past that the First Sale Doctrine overrides EULAs, especially for boxed copies of software that the person must purchase before they have had an opportunity to review/agree to a EULA. Hence the software is not licensed, is a sold copy and the purchaser has the rights to resell that copy. Preventing the resold copy from functioning could thus land a company in trouble.

Again... regarding software licenses for private use only? There really were businesses that bought private-use licenses, used them for business purposes, and won a court case? I want a cite for that, because Microsoft's entire profit structure for Office depends on such clauses being enforceable...


It is a bit of a gray area though, there's no laws laying out the rules here just a collection of judicial precents that seem to indicate that the courts are not amused by the restrictions software companies attempt to put on consumers by playing software licensing games.

Sure, that's what I've been saying all along. The first sale doctrine does not explicitly mention that a copy should be functional -- because when it was established there was no such thing as an intact but nonfunctional copy. Hence the gray area, hence just shouting "FSD! FSD!" is not useful unless the FSD is expanded and clarified to take computer software into account.

[rezaf]

Equality concerns also play a role in this one.
The inability to sell GTA4, for example, only applies to PC gamers.
If you bought the game on XBox360, you have no problem.
Putting one consumer group at such a disadvantage compared to another which bought essentially the same thing ... i don't think european courts at least would look upon this favourably.
However, as it's been mentioned, who's going to sue about a $50 game?
IF anybody should ever sue, though, I'm pretty sure these limitations would be blown away like steam in the wind...

Edit:

The first sale doctrine does not explicitly mention that a copy should be functional -- because when it was established there was no such thing as an intact but nonfunctional copy.

I believe that's the kind of thinking which has forced microwave producers to put the term "Not suitable to dry your living pet's fur" in their usage instructions.
_____
rezaf

[Greatatlantic]

However, as it's been mentioned, who's going to sue about a $50 game?



I'm sure there's some egomaniac out there with enough time and money on his hands to make a court case out of the that. Yet, I doubt thats how the law will be challenged. Remember, "computer software" is a much broader term than just games. It also includes Windows, graphics engines, and technical software costing thousands. They represent a class of software that is much more explicitly lisenced. It certainly makes the legal picture a lot more murky in my mind. Much like the old view that trying to enforce a prohibition on reselling books was laughable, so is the idea of trying to come up with a framework where somebody can sell part of their one year lisence away since it came in a box.

For my part, I do not mind the loss of resale. First, because I never sold my games anyways. Second, because Steam takes away the hassle of dealing with CDs which could get damaged or lost and cost me my ability to play a game forever, and I play old games again all the time. That trade off is one that works out great for me.

[moss_icon]

I recently bought a used copy of Saints Row II on PC, not realising that Steam prevented you from transferring ownership. But I found a loop hole:

If you order a new copy of the game online, take a screenshot of the order confirmation e-mail. Then cancel your order. Open a ticket with Steam, tell them you are unable to activate the game. They will ask for a picture of your receipt. E-mail them the screenshot.

Et Viola!

They will reset the the key. Or at least they did for me.

I found it insulting that you can sell pretty much anything in the world, yet you can't sell a computer game that is tied in to Steam.

[nutsak]

You speak for the collective, do you ?
I know more in my little finger then you will ever know in your entire life.


It's "than" you stupid fuck.

[drbob]

I wonder if such restrictions on second hand sales would qualify as a form of illegal price control? It manipulates the market for a game so the price can remain high for much longer than it normally would.

[Lunch of Kong]

To date, have any game software publishers charged separately for support?

How many of you oppose paid support?

[Mordrak]

Again... regarding software licenses for private use only? There really were businesses that bought private-use licenses, used them for business purposes, and won a court case? I want a cite for that, because Microsoft's entire profit structure for Office depends on such clauses being enforceable...


We're talking about steam here, not Microsoft. Of course Microsoft's profit structure depends on such clauses restricting private and business uses being enforceable, but that's because no one (to my knowledge) has challenged them on it. If no one challenges them, then in effect, they are enforcing it but whether it would be enforceable in court would require it to go to court to find out.



Sure, that's what I've been saying all along. The first sale doctrine does not explicitly mention that a copy should be functional -- because when it was established there was no such thing as an intact but nonfunctional copy. Hence the gray area, hence just shouting "FSD! FSD!" is not useful unless the FSD is expanded and clarified to take computer software into account.

This is ridiculous.



In 2008, in Timothy S. Vernor v. Autodesk Inc.[6], a U.S. Federal District Judge in Washington rejected a software vendor's argument that it only licensed copies of its software, rather than selling them, and that therefore any resale of the software constituted copyright infringement. Judge Richard A. Jones cited first-sale doctrine when ruling that a reseller was entitled to sell used copies of the vendor's software regardless of any licensing agreement that might have bound the software's previous owners because the transaction resembled a sale and not a temporary licensing arrangement[7].

[Chris Nahr]

We're talking about steam here, not Microsoft. Of course Microsoft's profit structure depends on such clauses restricting private and business uses being enforceable, but that's because no one (to my knowledge) has challenged them on it. If no one challenges them, then in effect, they are enforcing it but whether it would be enforceable in court would require it to go to court to find out.

And it doesn't strike you as odd that among the millions of Microsoft licensees, including businesses and institutions with their own professional lawyers, it never came to a court case about these clauses? That's not perhaps because the licensees knew they couldn't win, no?

If these clauses were as unenforceable as you imagine, you can bet there wouldn't be ANY businesses using any business licenses of any software right now -- possibly excepting those that want a support contract with the publisher. Alternatively, publishers would no longer offer separate lower-priced licenses of their software. It's highly implausible that the world just sat idly by, enthralled by nefarious unenforceable licenses, until Mordrak and Kraaze came along to enlighten everyone with their great wisdom.


This is ridiculous.

No, you are ridiculous. Once again you simply ignore what I write and quote some random unrelated story. Autodesk claimed that software resale constitutes copyright infringement; the judge correctly decided that this is not the case.

Guess what? Steam never made that claim. They never attempted to prosecute anyone for reselling Steam games. They merely refuse to transfer the activation, which is not even an action but an inaction on their part and legally separate from reselling the copy. FSD says nothing about a resale requiring the publisher to perform any additional actions.

[Midnight Son]

Yah, I'm going to need you to never buy a used car, CD, DVD, book or even a pair of blue jeans. You need to live up to your ideals.

[Chris Nahr]

I'm not actually supporting what Steam does. I think the FSD should be clarified to oblige publishers to facilitate the use of resold copies by the new owner. But as it's written now, I think Steam has a pretty good case and we won't see a decisive ruling until the law itself is clarified.

[marxeil]

To date, have any game software publishers charged separately for support?

How many of you oppose paid support?
I'm all for paid support. If you can't update your PC drivers and need someone to do it for you or walk you through it, then there is no reason you shouldn't pay for it.

[Dan Lawrence]

I'm all for paid support. If you can't update your PC drivers and need someone to do it for you or walk you through it, then there is no reason you shouldn't pay for it.

Wouldn't support also include post release patches and improvements, things like the TF2 updates?

[Tortilla]

Again... regarding software licenses for private use only? There really were businesses that bought private-use licenses, used them for business purposes, and won a court case? I want a cite for that, because Microsoft's entire profit structure for Office depends on such clauses being enforceable...

Here you go (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=autodesk+first+sale+doctrine)

[Chris Nahr]

Are you retarded? I mean that in the friendliest possible manner!

[Creole Ned]

I'm not actually supporting what Steam does. I think the FSD should be clarified to oblige publishers to facilitate the use of resold copies by the new owner. But as it's written now, I think Steam has a pretty good case and we won't see a decisive ruling until the law itself is clarified.
Yeah, if Steam allowed the owner of a game to de-register it and transfer the license to another player, it would seem to take care of the issue. But then, people could just endlessly swap one virtual copy of a game, denying Valve a bunch of sales. Valve could apply a "handling fee" to re-register the game to offset that or perhaps put a cap on the total number of transfers (right-click, Properties/License/This game has 3 of 5 license transfers remaining).

[drbob]

Chris, I believe the point is that the vernor vs autodesk ruling establishes that software is sold, not licensed regardless of what the clickwrap agreement states, if the transaction resembles a sale (i.e pay a one time fee, go away with a box that you don't have to return).

If the software is sold then title to the item passes to the buyer. They are free to do as they wish with the item as long as they don't break the relevant copyright laws.

IANAL but I think the only way a "usage license" could exist under these circumstances would be if the retailer got the customer to sign a usage contract as a condition of the sale agreement, it can't be imposed after the fact.

Can you really see retailers printing out a 10 page document for customers to sign each time someone wants to buy a computer game? Could a minor even be party to such a contract?


Yeah, if Steam allowed the owner of a game to de-register it and transfer the license to another player, it would seem to take care of the issue. But then, people could just endlessly swap one virtual copy of a game

From a consumer perspective that's exactly how is should be, every single other item of media (books, DVD, music), has an active after market which helps to drive prices down and make things affordable for everyone.

[OblivionSHO]

What's this shit I hear about Last Remnant for PC having to use steam before you can even play it? Even though it's a retail copy?

That's the final straw. Fuck PC games.

LOL! I think I have read this from this poster about a dozen or so times.

I can agree with him in some ways, but in others you kind of agree to the same "STEAM-like" environment when you buy a game off of the XBox Live Marketplace. I don't believe you can sell games you buy off of the Marketplace to someone else (I can't find any evidence of this, please correct me if I am wrong.)

Hopefully someday Valve will get around to implementing a policy that will allow the transfer of licenses to other accounts. However, I do wonder that if they did do that, if publishers would have a shit fit over it.

[mkozlows]

I can agree with him in some ways, but in others you kind of agree to the same "STEAM-like" environment when you buy a game off of the XBox Live Marketplace.

The distinction people are making is between explicit digital downloads -- where you know upfront that you're just renting access to some bits, and not really buying anything -- and a purchase of physical goods at a store.

I'm not wild about things like Steam download or XBLM, but if a copy of Halo I bought at Best Buy was tied to only my account forever, that'd be something else altogether.

[OblivionSHO]

The distinction people are making is between explicit digital downloads -- where you know upfront that you're just renting access to some bits, and not really buying anything -- and a purchase of physical goods at a store.

I'm not wild about things like Steam download or XBLM, but if a copy of Halo I bought at Best Buy was tied to only my account forever, that'd be something else altogether.

Very good point.

I always prefered to buy a game, even if it used Steam Works, so I could get the physical media and the manual, but yes, I can see where that would be an issue for some people.

I wish PC games weren't so "buyer beware." :( More demos please!

[Tortilla]

Are you retarded? I mean that in the friendliest possible manner!

Nope, thanks for asking!

[Mordrak]

And it doesn't strike you as odd that among the millions of Microsoft licensees, including businesses and institutions with their own professional lawyers, it never came to a court case about these clauses? That's not perhaps because the licensees knew they couldn't win, no?

If these clauses were as unenforceable as you imagine, you can bet there wouldn't be ANY businesses using any business licenses of any software right now -- possibly excepting those that want a support contract with the publisher. Alternatively, publishers would no longer offer separate lower-priced licenses of their software. It's highly implausible that the world just sat idly by, enthralled by nefarious unenforceable licenses, until Mordrak and Kraaze came along to enlighten everyone with their great wisdom.

No, it isn't odd Chris, because it's expensive and risky to take a company like Microsoft to court. Many of the companies that would take them to court are also IP owners themselves and benefit from more stringent interpretations of copyright law, hence, they are willing to eat the added cost and not contest it because then they can pass it along to their customers using the same profit structures.



Guess what? Steam never made that claim. They never attempted to prosecute anyone for reselling Steam games. They merely refuse to transfer the activation, which is not even an action but an inaction on their part and legally separate from reselling the copy. FSD says nothing about a resale requiring the publisher to perform any additional actions.

An inaction is an action dude and that's even disregarding they set up a system to prevent the transfer of ownership (it's even in their TOS for christ sake). The point of that case was that the user wasn't bound by the license agreement. Steam is a system that tries to enforce a license agreement through the structure of its client. I can't believe you don't see the difference and the reason they haven't taken anyone to court is because they don't want to test their system in a court of law. It's likely they'd be ruled against and as long as they don't make themselves a target, they win.



The distinction people are making is between explicit digital downloads -- where you know upfront that you're just renting access to some bits, and not really buying anything -- and a purchase of physical goods at a store.

I'm not wild about things like Steam download or XBLM, but if a copy of Halo I bought at Best Buy was tied to only my account forever, that'd be something else altogether.


Except games are shipping with Steam built in (from stores). Not only that, but I also doubt that many average consumers would make the subtle distinction that they are only "renting" from steam if they "purchase" their games there.

[sinfony]

This is ridiculous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
In 2008, in Timothy S. Vernor v. Autodesk Inc.[6], a U.S. Federal District Judge in Washington rejected a software vendor's argument that it only licensed copies of its software, rather than selling them, and that therefore any resale of the software constituted copyright infringement. Judge Richard A. Jones cited first-sale doctrine when ruling that a reseller was entitled to sell used copies of the vendor's software regardless of any licensing agreement that might have bound the software's previous owners because the transaction resembled a sale and not a temporary licensing arrangement[7].

But see ProCD v. Zeidenberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD_v._Zeidenberg). I can't be bothered to read the Vernor v. Autodesk opinion, since I have to read entirely too many opinions for school as it is, but from the summaries I'm seeing, it seems that the holding is basically that license agreement notwithstanding, selling a physical copy of a game is not a violation of copyright. That's sort of an obvious point. Furthermore, we have ProCD, in which the court holds that copyright law does not preempt contract law. If a software license agreement requires that you not transfer the software, and you go ahead and do it anyway, you've breached a contract. Copyright law doesn't enter into the equation at any point and thus I don't see how the first-sale doctrine applies, assuming that ProCD remains good law.

[drbob]

That's sort of an obvious point. Furthermore, we have ProCD, in which the court holds that copyright law does not preempt contract law. If a software license agreement requires that you not transfer the software, and you go ahead and do it anyway, you've breached a contract. Copyright law doesn't enter into the equation at any point and thus I don't see how the first-sale doctrine applies, assuming that ProCD remains good law.

But only if the contact is valid - if you can walk into a store and hand over money without ever seeing or being asked to agree to a contract, can you then be held to it? Even if you can, as I understand it, claims under any such contract could only be made against the initial purchaser, not subsequent buyers and sellers.

So, can the copyright owner legally force a user to agree to a usage contract in order to execute a game, or interfere with their ability to sell the game after title to that copy has passed from the retailer to the purchaser?

Aren't there laws against interference with someone elses property?

After buying a car and taking delivery at home, could the manufacturer then legally deactivate the ignition unless you signed a contract with all sorts of restrictive terms? I can see how they might get away with making such a contract a condition of the sale, but after the sale is complete, I don't see how it's legal.

Again I'm not a lawyer, if someone with more knowledge of this stuff could shed some light on the issue I'd be grateful.

[Mordrak]

You can have conflicting rulings. My point is the issue isn't decided and is still contentious. My personal opinion is that first sale doctrine should trump any licensing agreement they try to force on you. Buying software should require me to hire a lawyer.

But interestingly, according to the article you linked:



The court, in addition, noted the ability to and "the opportunity to return goods can be important" under the UCC.


I can tell you that no brick and mortar game store allows the return of PC games (big box stores might). Digital distributions sites may have different policies though.

[TheJare]

I mean, you can even give an MMO you're no longer playing to a friend if you give them the account information and clear out private data from the account.
Some MMO operators like SOE and now Blizzard are encouraging players to consolidate multiple games under a single account, effectively making a similar setup to Steam. I don't think it will be as trivial to transfer an account to someone else if multiple games are going away with it.

[Mordrak]

Here's a link (http://www.citizen.org/documents/vernororder.pdf) to the judgement in the Autodesk case. It basically says the if it looks like a sale, smells like a sale, and quacks like a sale, it's a sale. The judge specifically holds that first sale doctrine does apply and that Autodesk can't prohibit Vernor from selling it. The court specifically leaves undecided whether Vernor or Vernor's customers are bound by the license agreements though, but the license agreement itself can not restrict the sale, unless the copy of the software needs to be physically returned basically. The judge cites United States vs. Wise as binding precedent here rather than the contradictory rulings of other districts as just persuasive authority. I'm not a lawyer, but the importance of the distinction for the judge seems to be what came first.

So in other words, it was a sale with contractual restrictions, but still a sale. The restrictions may or may not pass on to the new user. If you don't want it to be a sale, you need to ask for the return of the copy (asking for the destruction of the copy or prohibiting distribution of that copy is not good enough).