Poll: Boycott Rage

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

I think the only reason developers haven't gone after retailers for this is probably because the publishers are in the way, and have probably told the developers to back off. I've done trade-ins at Gamestop and it's down right criminal, and I've only bought one used game ever and after doing some reading on that and I felt ripped off.

Maybe I'm just a little cynical on the whole deal, but I just don't really see publishers going after retailers for this. Not when the bottom line and money is involved anyways.

See, I treat trade in as a long term thing. I pay into the cards. I only go for store credit (which they are willing to give oodles of over straight up cash). I get rewards and contests, and it works for me. Sure there are clasics I'll probably never trade in, but there are plenty of games I beat completely and just collect dust. It's an investment. You're not gong to turn a quick profit. Plus some of that store credit goes to me buying brand new games, which I wouldn't be able to get at all otherwise.

I know I can't afford to buy new every time. It's just not practical. Do I think I'm ripping off a developer or publisher. Hell no. Console games are owned property (it's not like PC) if I want to sell it to my friend down the street it's perfectly legal.

I don't sell my games and I've only traded two games ever and they both went towards a game that I'm pre-ordering. I know I'm not going to get a ton of money out of the deal, but I do think it's a little ridiculous.

The only reason I buy new is because I don't know the condition of the used games there, and I've been burned many times for buying used. If I can't buy it right away I just wait, or I go to ebay and look for it there new and much cheaper.

Do you buy from Game Stop? Like I said I paid into the loyalty program. (20 bucks and I probably got about 200 bucks of cred and savings out of it) It helps you buy used (which I said I got no problem with). I remember trading in 10 games most I got cheap or used. I got over a 100 bucks in cred. I bought two new games and a used. Sure it's not Steam but Game Stop does have sales too. I remember getting Saints Row 2 used and it didn't play. I just brought it back within whatever number of days with the receipt and they gave me my money back no questions asked. It's an investment, but I've come out way ahead.

Most of the time I do, and the other times it's either ebay or Amazon. I have the loyalty program as well and since I don't trade in games, I'm weird since when I buy something it's mine, or hardly ever buy used, so I don't really use the perks, but I do agree it's an awesome program that has helped me out when I did use it.

 

[Epona]

Or the factor of them being developers meens that they set the standards for what you must do. I know some buisness practices are wrong, thats very obvious. Not including stuff to prevent people from torrenting it or getting second hand sales a few days after seems pretty reasonable to me because it isnt effecting those that purchases the game. And thats just it, they are requireing you to merely, "BUY" the game. Explain to me what is wrong with this. I may be overlooking some huge factor but currently I don't see it with this complaint.

I would like to know how this is wrong too.

I'd like to know that as well.

If you don't like it then why don't you go after the retailers for this, why do you have to hurt and go after the developers for this?

The problem is that consumers who buy used are still considered (legally) to be legitimate consumers but they aren't being treated as such. At this point, those who pirate get more content.

It's the developers (publishers really) who should be "going after" the retailers. They are the morons who aren't stealing back their customers with better trade ins and used prices. Have you ever seen the used prices/trade-in values at gamestop? It isn't exactly competitive. And with online connectivity to all the consoles, they can get the word out directly to the right consumers.

I think the only reason developers haven't gone after retailers for this is probably because the publishers are in the way, and have probably told the developers to back off. I've done trade-ins at Gamestop and it's down right criminal, and I've only bought one used game ever and after doing some reading on that and I felt ripped off.

Maybe I'm just a little cynical on the whole deal, but I just don't really see publishers going after retailers for this. Not when the bottom line and money is involved anyways.

See, I treat trade in as a long term thing. I pay into the cards. I only go for store credit (which they are willing to give oodles of over straight up cash). I get rewards and contests, and it works for me. Sure there are clasics I'll probably never trade in, but there are plenty of games I beat completely and just collect dust. It's an investment. You're not gong to turn a quick profit. Plus some of that store credit goes to me buying brand new games, which I wouldn't be able to get at all otherwise.

I know I can't afford to buy new every time. It's just not practical. Do I think I'm ripping off a developer or publisher. Hell no. Console games are owned property (it's not like PC) if I want to sell it to my friend down the street it's perfectly legal.

It's perfectly legal to sell PC games to your friend too, it's just that publishers have made it impractical and if we put up with it, they will do the same with console games.

I can't stress enough that our example of what it is to come for console games is to look at PC games.

Actually no it's not. Selling PC software in the States is like selling a leased car. You can't do it legally because you're paying for the use of it. It's draconian and stupid but I don't think that EULA has changed since I read it so long ago. They spell out quite specifically that you are leasing the software from the company and they basically could come into your hose and take it back if you break the EULA.

They could go to whoever you sold it too and just take it from them without offering any compensation either. That's part of the reason I don't do PC much anymore.

No you're wrong, you can still sell PC games as the EULA has no legal power until someone takes you to court for it.

I have a used copy of Diablo 2 around here somewhere, saw it the other day. Guess what, I bought it legally at a garage sale. I have a used copy of alot of PC games actually but most were made for Windows 9x and too obsolete for me to even take out of storage.

Can you show me one person who has been arrested and charged with a crime for selling a used PC game? PC games are not special, you buy them and you own them and you can resell them.

It has power, it's just not enforced until a court gets involved. I'm no wrong. Just because no one gets sued doesn't make it not legal. I'm sure there have been cases of people being sued for EULA violations and second-hand sales. I don't know if it's games specifically.

Still, most come with one time codes or if you register they block whoever you sell it to from playing. So illegality aside I couldn't do it in good moral health because I'm basically selling someone a hamstrung product they might not be able to use. Diablo 2 doesn't have that, but Civ 5 would. It's one steam account only. I'm sure corps only want to go after bigger fish but that doesn't make it right for me to take the money that flies out the bags when the bank robbers flee the scene.

Ok, show me the law that says EULA's are legally binding.

 

[theultimateend]

I'm sick of people bitching about not getting a full game when they don't pay full price.

I think the RAGE game messed up tho... they should have removed much more than they allegedly have.

EDIT: I'm going to go preorder RAGE now. It looks like an awesome game.

I imagine the hate lies in this being the only industry that does this.

Video games are not prioritizing properly if they can't survive used game sales and trading. This is a feature in basically all other mediums, gaming is the only one apparently imploding from it.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

Or the factor of them being developers meens that they set the standards for what you must do. I know some buisness practices are wrong, thats very obvious. Not including stuff to prevent people from torrenting it or getting second hand sales a few days after seems pretty reasonable to me because it isnt effecting those that purchases the game. And thats just it, they are requireing you to merely, "BUY" the game. Explain to me what is wrong with this. I may be overlooking some huge factor but currently I don't see it with this complaint.

I would like to know how this is wrong too.

I'd like to know that as well.

If you don't like it then why don't you go after the retailers for this, why do you have to hurt and go after the developers for this?

The problem is that consumers who buy used are still considered (legally) to be legitimate consumers but they aren't being treated as such. At this point, those who pirate get more content.

It's the developers (publishers really) who should be "going after" the retailers. They are the morons who aren't stealing back their customers with better trade ins and used prices. Have you ever seen the used prices/trade-in values at gamestop? It isn't exactly competitive. And with online connectivity to all the consoles, they can get the word out directly to the right consumers.

I think the only reason developers haven't gone after retailers for this is probably because the publishers are in the way, and have probably told the developers to back off. I've done trade-ins at Gamestop and it's down right criminal, and I've only bought one used game ever and after doing some reading on that and I felt ripped off.

Maybe I'm just a little cynical on the whole deal, but I just don't really see publishers going after retailers for this. Not when the bottom line and money is involved anyways.

They aren't going after them because they would lose and they know it. This is why they are using underhanded techniques to discourage used game sales.

That's what I mean. It would hurt them financially and that's really the last thing publishers want to do. Retailers have way too much power and they can get away with this crap because they know they can. I don't like those underhanded techniques, but it has to be done I suppose. Not that I like it, but not a whole lot I can do about it.

No it doesn't have to be done. These underhanded techniques are publishers trying to get money they are not entitled to. If you tried it, it would be theft or fraud or something but corporations have different rules.

They would lose because it is legal (and shall remain legal) for consumers to resell what they buy. Imagine the economy if you could not resell things. Purchasing anything would become a much bigger risk and would result in less money being spent all around. Not sure about that stereo? Better not risk it because if it sucks, you're stuck with it. No more garage sales, flea markets, etc...

Oh btw, no matter how many people say it, the game industry is not special. You can sell Legend of Dragoon at a garage sale just like the TV made by the same manufacturer (Sony if you didn't know).

Oh I know it's perfectly legal and should be legal, but what I'm saying is that if they even tried they would take a hit due to court costs and everything that deals with that.

I know very well that publishers use underhanded techniques to get money that they are not entitled to, it's very similar to the music industry, and the game industry is certainly not special, I don't know why people say that. Funny you should mention Legend of Dragoon, I owned a copy at one point and sold it to a friend of mine.

That game has been on my mind recently, I have been playing FF7 on the PSP and thought it would be nice if they brought LOD to the PS Store. Tomorrow though, Breath of Fire IV comes out and I am looking forward to that. Never had a chance to play it on the PS1 and the used prices for that game are outrageous.

That would be nice, wouldn't it? I've kicked myself for selling LOD off, I must have been brain damaged that day or something. Is it really? I kinda forgot about that game, and I just looked at the prices for it used, and good God you weren't kidding. Hooray for that then.

 

[RagTagBand]

I am all for this kind of business practice, it essentially boils down to

"If you pay full price, you get the full game. Doing this supports us, the makers of the game."

"If you buy the game second hand, at a reduced cost, you still get 99% of the game, but buying used doesn't support us, the makers of the game, so we're going to withold some of that content until you throw a lil money our way. After all, WE MADE THE FUCKING GAME."

I think that system is MORE than fair.

 

[Keava]

This 'buy it new to play things that would have been included otherwise!' crap needs to end. im sick of game companies thinking that they can do this to us, as consumers.

that they can do this to us, as consumers

The moment you don't buy a game from retail (as in new), you stop being their consumer. Sorry. They have no obligations towards you, they can freely ban you from any service they provide, and it just happens, that playing a game, even single-player, offline game, is a service a developer provides. In the end you end up owning a plastic disc with data on it, nothing else.

 

[GraveeKing]

You know, I see this thread and thought the 4th or 5th comment would already have an image of amusing value claiming 'oh this thread again.' or 'here we go again'.
Looks like we're taking this one seriously so hell why not!

To be honest I do -KIND OF- agree. I see where develops are coming from, we're all used to TF2 free updates and certain other games but, you have to remember, they do need to make money and we need to respect that. Even if it does towards Gabe's ever large donuts collection, games are pretty damn cheap, we really shouldn't pretend they are. I think l4d2 was... a bit much but that's the only game that in my eyes has ever really done it terribly.

I also think sometimes a new engine or vastly improved one, graphically or AI-wise will require something more than a simple update.

If we allow this to continue, what will happen to games like Skyrim? do you want to only be able to access 15 quests if you buy it new? or to a new extreme: you can only dual wield if you buy it new?

What you are mentioning here is downloadable content. It's even cheaper, and gives develops spark to add to their games, while still making money. With no offense sir. I do think you can agree with me if I were to say 'The shivering isles was worth every penny and more'. They wouldn't have been able to afford to develop that properly if it hadn't been a downloadable content.
A recommendation I always say - if you're really that poor to not be able to afford a new game DLC or whatever, there's always a err you know.... 'alternative' option of downloading them... from other places... so you can see what it's like, and if you enjoy it pay for it later. You know - so the developers stay in business? You think notch would still work on mine-craft if he didn't get funding? Hell no it'd have been a pet project he'd have quit years ago!
I doubt it'd have even reached beta (or if it had it wouldn't have gone further)

Being fair though, if it's the same engine, graphics etc, it should be a cheap DLC and no more. L4D2 - I still bought it don't get me wrong but things like that shouldn't happen.

 

[No_Remainders]

WE decide to put money down for a title they release.

Your entire argument, I feel, revolves around this. So I'd like to focus in on this, as it's one of the most retarded things I've ever seen in my life.

You're arguing against the DRM of Rage, in particular. So, let's look at it this way. This will ONLY affect you if you buy it second hand, and I'm sure we can all agree on this. Now, let's think about this for a second. If you buy it second hand, no money goes to the developers. At all. They get the money from the original sale, and then nothing else. You only give them money if you're buying it new.

Honestly, I think what id are doing is the right thing. No online passes, just restrict part of the content to people getting the game without giving the devs any money.

 

[WaruTaru]

Ok, show me the law that says EULA's are legally binding.

[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDY_Indus._LLC_v._Blizzard_Entm't,_Inc.]You don't wanna go there.
[/link]Really, you don't.

 

[StBishop]

I choose to buy my games new.

I feel that as far as second hand sales go, it's no different from Piracy. Especially so in the eyes of a Developer/Publisher.

Why is me buying Command and Conquer at like age 7 and burning it for my friend any different to me selling it to him, or selling it to a store who then sell it on to him?

I don't see why you're against paying 5 dollars (or $10) more for a game that's new and comes with free DLC. It's a matter of perspective.

If you want to boycott something, make it intrusive DRM. Not project $10

They made a sale on the physical copy of the game. The second part only differs in that now what your doing is illegal because there are two people playing the game from one physical copy if you burn it. If you sold it it's still one player per copy.

I know that now. In 97 it wasn't common knowledge.

Well at least not in my primary school.

Obviously I see the difference but from a dev's/pub's perspective they're pretty much the exact same thing.

 

[Epona]

Or the factor of them being developers meens that they set the standards for what you must do. I know some buisness practices are wrong, thats very obvious. Not including stuff to prevent people from torrenting it or getting second hand sales a few days after seems pretty reasonable to me because it isnt effecting those that purchases the game. And thats just it, they are requireing you to merely, "BUY" the game. Explain to me what is wrong with this. I may be overlooking some huge factor but currently I don't see it with this complaint.

I would like to know how this is wrong too.

I'd like to know that as well.

If you don't like it then why don't you go after the retailers for this, why do you have to hurt and go after the developers for this?

The problem is that consumers who buy used are still considered (legally) to be legitimate consumers but they aren't being treated as such. At this point, those who pirate get more content.

It's the developers (publishers really) who should be "going after" the retailers. They are the morons who aren't stealing back their customers with better trade ins and used prices. Have you ever seen the used prices/trade-in values at gamestop? It isn't exactly competitive. And with online connectivity to all the consoles, they can get the word out directly to the right consumers.

I think the only reason developers haven't gone after retailers for this is probably because the publishers are in the way, and have probably told the developers to back off. I've done trade-ins at Gamestop and it's down right criminal, and I've only bought one used game ever and after doing some reading on that and I felt ripped off.

Maybe I'm just a little cynical on the whole deal, but I just don't really see publishers going after retailers for this. Not when the bottom line and money is involved anyways.

They aren't going after them because they would lose and they know it. This is why they are using underhanded techniques to discourage used game sales.

That's what I mean. It would hurt them financially and that's really the last thing publishers want to do. Retailers have way too much power and they can get away with this crap because they know they can. I don't like those underhanded techniques, but it has to be done I suppose. Not that I like it, but not a whole lot I can do about it.

No it doesn't have to be done. These underhanded techniques are publishers trying to get money they are not entitled to. If you tried it, it would be theft or fraud or something but corporations have different rules.

They would lose because it is legal (and shall remain legal) for consumers to resell what they buy. Imagine the economy if you could not resell things. Purchasing anything would become a much bigger risk and would result in less money being spent all around. Not sure about that stereo? Better not risk it because if it sucks, you're stuck with it. No more garage sales, flea markets, etc...

Oh btw, no matter how many people say it, the game industry is not special. You can sell Legend of Dragoon at a garage sale just like the TV made by the same manufacturer (Sony if you didn't know).

Oh I know it's perfectly legal and should be legal, but what I'm saying is that if they even tried they would take a hit due to court costs and everything that deals with that.

I know very well that publishers use underhanded techniques to get money that they are not entitled to, it's very similar to the music industry, and the game industry is certainly not special, I don't know why people say that. Funny you should mention Legend of Dragoon, I owned a copy at one point and sold it to a friend of mine.

That game has been on my mind recently, I have been playing FF7 on the PSP and thought it would be nice if they brought LOD to the PS Store. Tomorrow though, Breath of Fire IV comes out and I am looking forward to that. Never had a chance to play it on the PS1 and the used prices for that game are outrageous.

That would be nice, wouldn't it? I've kicked myself for selling LOD off, I must have been brain damaged that day or something. Is it really? I kinda forgot about that game, and I just looked at the prices for it used, and good God you weren't kidding. Hooray for that then.

Yeah, my nephew had the game and I played his copy, never finished it though. I do hope no one here calls me a pirate for playing the game without owning it...LOL

 

[Stall]

If you care about video games you'll protest this greed on the part of publishers before they destroy the entire industry. More and more people hate the publishers everytime some new BS DRM is introduced and doubly so when they are using that DRM to harm the used market because unlike piracy, the used market is legitimate and tied to consumer rights.

Nope. As someone else pointed out, you don't have rights as a consumer when you buy used since you are neither the customer of the publisher nor developer. You aren't their customer... they don't CARE about your rights. If you buy used, you are the customer of whoever you bought the game used from... not the publisher nor developer.

So your argument is pointless. The publisher isn't inclined to do ANYTHING for the used market since they aren't their customers. They don't give a shit about what rights you have since you aren't giving them money. How can you have consumer rights if you aren't even a consumer in their eyes?

So you are wrong on that account. The used market is pointless. If you want to support the industry, then buy new. When you buy new, then you are the customer of the publisher or developer, and they make sure you are rewarded for your patronage. If you don't give a shit about the industry and want to buy used, then why should publishers or developers care about you since you are NOT their customer?

 

[Inkidu]

Or the factor of them being developers meens that they set the standards for what you must do. I know some buisness practices are wrong, thats very obvious. Not including stuff to prevent people from torrenting it or getting second hand sales a few days after seems pretty reasonable to me because it isnt effecting those that purchases the game. And thats just it, they are requireing you to merely, "BUY" the game. Explain to me what is wrong with this. I may be overlooking some huge factor but currently I don't see it with this complaint.

I would like to know how this is wrong too.

I'd like to know that as well.

If you don't like it then why don't you go after the retailers for this, why do you have to hurt and go after the developers for this?

The problem is that consumers who buy used are still considered (legally) to be legitimate consumers but they aren't being treated as such. At this point, those who pirate get more content.

It's the developers (publishers really) who should be "going after" the retailers. They are the morons who aren't stealing back their customers with better trade ins and used prices. Have you ever seen the used prices/trade-in values at gamestop? It isn't exactly competitive. And with online connectivity to all the consoles, they can get the word out directly to the right consumers.

I think the only reason developers haven't gone after retailers for this is probably because the publishers are in the way, and have probably told the developers to back off. I've done trade-ins at Gamestop and it's down right criminal, and I've only bought one used game ever and after doing some reading on that and I felt ripped off.

Maybe I'm just a little cynical on the whole deal, but I just don't really see publishers going after retailers for this. Not when the bottom line and money is involved anyways.

See, I treat trade in as a long term thing. I pay into the cards. I only go for store credit (which they are willing to give oodles of over straight up cash). I get rewards and contests, and it works for me. Sure there are clasics I'll probably never trade in, but there are plenty of games I beat completely and just collect dust. It's an investment. You're not gong to turn a quick profit. Plus some of that store credit goes to me buying brand new games, which I wouldn't be able to get at all otherwise.

I know I can't afford to buy new every time. It's just not practical. Do I think I'm ripping off a developer or publisher. Hell no. Console games are owned property (it's not like PC) if I want to sell it to my friend down the street it's perfectly legal.

It's perfectly legal to sell PC games to your friend too, it's just that publishers have made it impractical and if we put up with it, they will do the same with console games.

I can't stress enough that our example of what it is to come for console games is to look at PC games.

Actually no it's not. Selling PC software in the States is like selling a leased car. You can't do it legally because you're paying for the use of it. It's draconian and stupid but I don't think that EULA has changed since I read it so long ago. They spell out quite specifically that you are leasing the software from the company and they basically could come into your hose and take it back if you break the EULA.

They could go to whoever you sold it too and just take it from them without offering any compensation either. That's part of the reason I don't do PC much anymore.

No you're wrong, you can still sell PC games as the EULA has no legal power until someone takes you to court for it.

I have a used copy of Diablo 2 around here somewhere, saw it the other day. Guess what, I bought it legally at a garage sale. I have a used copy of alot of PC games actually but most were made for Windows 9x and too obsolete for me to even take out of storage.

Can you show me one person who has been arrested and charged with a crime for selling a used PC game? PC games are not special, you buy them and you own them and you can resell them.

It has power, it's just not enforced until a court gets involved. I'm no wrong. Just because no one gets sued doesn't make it not legal. I'm sure there have been cases of people being sued for EULA violations and second-hand sales. I don't know if it's games specifically.

Still, most come with one time codes or if you register they block whoever you sell it to from playing. So illegality aside I couldn't do it in good moral health because I'm basically selling someone a hamstrung product they might not be able to use. Diablo 2 doesn't have that, but Civ 5 would. It's one steam account only. I'm sure corps only want to go after bigger fish but that doesn't make it right for me to take the money that flies out the bags when the bank robbers flee the scene.

Ok, show me the law that says EULA's are legally binding.

God, you've got to be a teenager. It's called contract law. They have an arrangement. By clicking yes you are agreeing to (Legalese for signing) a contract to abide by the terms and service of the EULA. There are three ways to void the contract. You have to be a minor (under 18 in the US), you have to be impaired by nature or by substance, or your have to be forced to do it.

So unless you can prove you were a minor, or drunk; mentally incapable of understanding the terms, or held at gunpoint you've signed a contract.

http://www.cpearson.com/excel/EULAFAQ.htm Example.

 

[Epona]

Why is the gaming industry the only industry that can throw a *****-fit and fuck with consumers, while having people whiteknight them? Where are the RIAA fanboys?

Indeed and no one seems to notice the disconnect between the industry growing and at the same time whining that piracy and used sales are killing them. DRM is all about greed. Digital Restrictions Management so they can sell you more.

 

[Rednog]

Snip

Snip 1

Snip

I'll be honest I actually read it wrong, I read it as 2 billion in profits. My line of thought was that thiosk was saying hey they only make 2 billion but you make it sound like they are making hundreds of billions (I think it was the whole gazillion thing). Thus my retort under my misconception was logically one of 2 billion is still more than 1 billion. My mistake, I admit I was wrong, but still my original point still stands that this is a very different set of transactions then ebay or a friend selling to another friend.

 

[Epona]

Or the factor of them being developers meens that they set the standards for what you must do. I know some buisness practices are wrong, thats very obvious. Not including stuff to prevent people from torrenting it or getting second hand sales a few days after seems pretty reasonable to me because it isnt effecting those that purchases the game. And thats just it, they are requireing you to merely, "BUY" the game. Explain to me what is wrong with this. I may be overlooking some huge factor but currently I don't see it with this complaint.

I would like to know how this is wrong too.

I'd like to know that as well.

If you don't like it then why don't you go after the retailers for this, why do you have to hurt and go after the developers for this?

The problem is that consumers who buy used are still considered (legally) to be legitimate consumers but they aren't being treated as such. At this point, those who pirate get more content.

It's the developers (publishers really) who should be "going after" the retailers. They are the morons who aren't stealing back their customers with better trade ins and used prices. Have you ever seen the used prices/trade-in values at gamestop? It isn't exactly competitive. And with online connectivity to all the consoles, they can get the word out directly to the right consumers.

I think the only reason developers haven't gone after retailers for this is probably because the publishers are in the way, and have probably told the developers to back off. I've done trade-ins at Gamestop and it's down right criminal, and I've only bought one used game ever and after doing some reading on that and I felt ripped off.

Maybe I'm just a little cynical on the whole deal, but I just don't really see publishers going after retailers for this. Not when the bottom line and money is involved anyways.

See, I treat trade in as a long term thing. I pay into the cards. I only go for store credit (which they are willing to give oodles of over straight up cash). I get rewards and contests, and it works for me. Sure there are clasics I'll probably never trade in, but there are plenty of games I beat completely and just collect dust. It's an investment. You're not gong to turn a quick profit. Plus some of that store credit goes to me buying brand new games, which I wouldn't be able to get at all otherwise.

I know I can't afford to buy new every time. It's just not practical. Do I think I'm ripping off a developer or publisher. Hell no. Console games are owned property (it's not like PC) if I want to sell it to my friend down the street it's perfectly legal.

It's perfectly legal to sell PC games to your friend too, it's just that publishers have made it impractical and if we put up with it, they will do the same with console games.

I can't stress enough that our example of what it is to come for console games is to look at PC games.

Actually no it's not. Selling PC software in the States is like selling a leased car. You can't do it legally because you're paying for the use of it. It's draconian and stupid but I don't think that EULA has changed since I read it so long ago. They spell out quite specifically that you are leasing the software from the company and they basically could come into your hose and take it back if you break the EULA.

They could go to whoever you sold it too and just take it from them without offering any compensation either. That's part of the reason I don't do PC much anymore.

No you're wrong, you can still sell PC games as the EULA has no legal power until someone takes you to court for it.

I have a used copy of Diablo 2 around here somewhere, saw it the other day. Guess what, I bought it legally at a garage sale. I have a used copy of alot of PC games actually but most were made for Windows 9x and too obsolete for me to even take out of storage.

Can you show me one person who has been arrested and charged with a crime for selling a used PC game? PC games are not special, you buy them and you own them and you can resell them.

It has power, it's just not enforced until a court gets involved. I'm no wrong. Just because no one gets sued doesn't make it not legal. I'm sure there have been cases of people being sued for EULA violations and second-hand sales. I don't know if it's games specifically.

Still, most come with one time codes or if you register they block whoever you sell it to from playing. So illegality aside I couldn't do it in good moral health because I'm basically selling someone a hamstrung product they might not be able to use. Diablo 2 doesn't have that, but Civ 5 would. It's one steam account only. I'm sure corps only want to go after bigger fish but that doesn't make it right for me to take the money that flies out the bags when the bank robbers flee the scene.

Ok, show me the law that says EULA's are legally binding.

God, you've got to be a teenager. It's called contract law. They have an arrangement. By clicking yes you are agreeing to (Legalese for signing) a contract to abide by the terms and service of the EULA. There are three ways to void the contract. You have to be a minor (under 18 in the US), you have to be impaired by nature or by substance, or your have to be forced to do it.

So unless you can prove you were a minor, or drunk; mentally incapable of understanding the terms, or held at gunpoint you've signed a contract.

http://www.cpearson.com/excel/EULAFAQ.htm Example.

The EULA is not a two way contract and an EULA can have anything in it. An EULA cannot take away consumer rights and the right to resell is a consumer rights.

Reselling is impractical thanks to DRM but it is not illegal.

BTW, I am probably older than you and I know that just repeating something alot of times, does not make it true. Show me a precedent where a person was charged with a crime for selling a used PC game.

 

[Winthrop]

And thats just it, they are requireing you to merely, "BUY" the game. Explain to me what is wrong with this. I may be overlooking some huge factor but currently I don't see it with this complaint.

I would like to know how this is wrong too.

This is long but I have a tldr. First off somebody already payed for the game, and when they sell it to a secondhand gamer, they lose their copy. As such no additional products are created and the same number of people have it. If the original gamer decides they want the game again, they can buy it new same number sold, same number played. Now I understand the counterpoint that they have already enjoyed the game once and may have no desire to play it again. Fair enough but it reminds me of used DVD sales.

Second part is that it has high potential for collateral damage. How often do systems break? My old HP caught fire twice from a faulty power supply and I know a lot of people who got the RROD on the xbox 360. So if the system breaks, I would need to pay another 10 dollars for the game if I decide to replace the system. Not a lot for one game but if they all made me do it the price would climb to ridiculous extremes.

Another example of harm to first hand buyers is a party type situation. I have a lot of friends who like COD:BlOps but I am not a fan so I didn't buy it. Sometimes my friend brings it over when we are having a lan party or just all gaming together and with this second hand buyer protection we couldn't.

Sometimes if one person in a family is in college and another is not they may have two of the same system. Sharing games between the two is reasonable. With this protection it would not be possible to share them.

Finally, what about folks who don't have internet? Sure you can argue that they shouldn't be gaming if they can't even afford internet but it can happen. When it blocks something in the single player, they are kind of screwed over. Same goes for people without wireless adapters. This does not matter for online multiplayer however.

I don't know if it checks with something on the system or with gamertag, the above are aimed more at on the system but if someone doesn't have the password to recover their gamertag they would still be a problem. If it is by gamertag, some games only allow one save (Dead Rising and such) and if you wanted to start a new game but still keep your endgame one should you ever want to just mess around, or be high leveled or for nostalgia or whatever you wouldn't be able to or would need to but another copy.

TLDR: It hurts first hand gamers as well and the same number of games are in circulation so no harm is done.