Poll: Boycott Rage

[Epona]

You are not paying for the box or the manual. You paying for the game. So far (with some exceptions) you have been getting the exact same experience buying a game used as someone who buys a game new. All good things must come to an end.

I am buying a game, not an experience. Trying to sell an experience = trying to control how you use your game.

Oh and BTW, some people only buy new because the box, manual and the condition of the disc matter so much. So yes, when you buy a game new you are buying the box, manual and game. When you buy used you may or may not get those things.

What consumer rights are being violated? How are they being paid multiple times? You want one copy of the game, you pay them for one copy of the game. If you want to buy it used, you can, you simply accept the consequences. What's so hard to understand?

You buy used you don't get parts of the game, you then have to buy them. That's getting paid multiple times for the same copy of the game. That's exactly what Project $10 is.

They are trying to destroy the used games market which would take away the ability to resell your games. That would be the consumer right they are trying to violate.

Nothing they are doing is illegal but just like PC games, they will make the used market impractical and completely destroy it without breaking any laws. Are you ok with that?

What the fuck is this? You're telling me "But I could buy a really nice used car." Ridiculous. Good for you I guess? The only thing I can say is one will cost more and one will cost less. I wouldn't be surprised if this dropped the price of used copies of Rage faster than other games.

Nice how you cut the next sentence that explained what I was saying. I am done with you.

 

[dillinger88]

Nope. If I released a game, I'd probably give those who gave me the money for it more than those who didn't.

I would reward those that bought it new AT THE VITAL TIME WHERE SALES DECIDE WHETHER MY STUDIO GETS SHUT DOWN. Additionally, I'd give the people who got it by other means the opportunity to actually give me some money and receive more content too.

You think your fighting for a cause but (if you're talking about Rage) boycotting a new IP for rewarding people who buy it new, you're damning the the industry to recycling the same old game so that they can make money.

Granted, if publishers start taking the piss then I'll boycott a game (I'm not buying MW3), but seriously, stop being an arse.

To the guy that said Gamestop doesn't make money from new sales - that's bullshit. They don't buy games from a publisher for sale cost. They're just trying to make more money buy selling used copies.

I don't have a problem with new games, in the same way I'd buy a used car. However, I don't expect the same as someone who bought it new, like a manufacturers warranty.

You're just the sort of person that Jim was talking about... And now I've just realised this is probably a troll thread.

EDIT:

You buy used you don't get parts of the game, you then have to buy them. That's getting paid multiple times for the same copy of the game. That's exactly what Project $10 is.

They are trying to destroy the used games market which would take away the ability to resell your games. That would be the consumer right they are trying to violate.

HOLY SHIT. Really? No they don't get twice for the whole game. They're saying you can have the stuff that's reserved for people who supported the developer/publisher if they support the developer/publisher.

If you're pissed that you're having to "pay more for a used game", blame the game stores for overpricing used games. They're not trying to destroy the used game market, they're just trying to get a bit of money out it.

They industry is still fledgling, we need to support it where we can and if they want to rewards when we do so. I've all for it.

 

[Dolos]

No, it doesn't need to stop. Developers don't get a CENT from someone buying the game used. Gamestop and other used game companies keep all the profits from used games; they don't politely give the developers or publishers some money for that game. THAT is why they are doing these day 1 DLC things... so they can try to still earn profits from used sales.

If you care about video games and want to support the industry, then buy new. If you don't give a shit and just want to save yourself money, then feel free to buy used, but don't ***** when game developers are trying to recuperate the loses of someone playing their game without giving them money because you don't want to support the industry.

Go boycott something fucking meaningful... not this.

this is exactly the same why i feel about buying new or used, I buy new to support the developers and let them now that I enjoy their games. The only time I buy used is if its a game I have never seen or I cant find a new version because it is older.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Another post by Generation ME. Gods be damned, what kind of economics are they teaching in high school these days?
Dev's do NOT repeat do NOT make money on used games. Nor do they make money on DLC packs that are included for "free" in new copies of games. That money is a recoup of the LOSS they get on every game title that is bought used. It does not actually cover the full cost of a used title taking up a new title's purchase.
Please inform yourselves on how business works before you rage about how companies do business please. If you buy it used, you're not entitled to shit because in actuality you didn't pay the person who produced the item you paid for. Take up your rage with the used games merchants because its their business practices that is allowing for these situations to arise in the first place. Or buy PC titles, because you always have to pay full price for them as there is NO used market for those games.

 

[Epona]

You must have missed this part:

No court has ruled on the validity of EULAs generally; decisions are limited to particular provisions and terms.

So, in general EULA's have no legal binding until challenged in a court of law and found to be legally binding and this is on a PER basis.

I win.

Very mature

and no you dont, it doesn't says that a court has ruled that EULAS aren't valid, it says that it hasn't been ruled if they are or not. Besides i wasn't debating against you I was providing information.

There's no difference because by default, EULA's aren't valid until a court rules that they are and that hasn't happened yet.

 

[Susan Arendt]

It's this concept that "it would've been included otherwise" that I find baffling. According to whom? Obviously, it varies from game to game, but some content is only being developed because the developer/publisher believes extra money can be made from it via DLC - even if it's ready to go on Day One, that doesn't mean it "would've been included otherwise" were it not for its intended purpose. It's not like companies are making games, then when they're done saying "Hmm...now what could we cut out of this to sell as DLC?" That may have been the way decisions were made when DLC was in its infancy, but that's certainly no longer the case.

And as many others have already pointed out, I fail to see the issue with encouraging consumers to buy a game new. It's in the company's best interests for you to do so, but no-one is twisting your arm forcing you to. You wanting to save money by buying used is perfectly reasonable - but so is the game company wanting to make as much profit from their efforts as possible.

 

[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.

Yawn, really is that all you've got? Dude, there are two groups of contracts. Bilateral (I do something for something) and unilateral (you do something) actually the EULA is a bilateral contract. You agree to their terms and you get to use the software.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license_agreement

It's entirely possible to sue someone for selling a leased product. I can't very well sell the leased car I own to my friend. If you're leasing the software the same inference can be made. Do I know of any legal precedent? No, but it's a big world, and I'm sure they let small fish go, but does that still make it legal then? No.

You need to read your own link better. I have already pointed it out above if you are too lazy to read though.

Here's something you can try though. Call Wal Mart and ask them if they sell games or lease games. You don't lease games no matter what you are told by publishers, your own epxerience should tell you that you buy and when you buy, you own.

 

[Mark Flanagan]

No, If YOU dislike something in the games industry or something it a particular game (as is this case) then YOU don't buy it.

What they've done with Rage is create a game where consumers that purchase the game new; therefore supporting the developer get something extra (and non critical to boot). Rather save £5 and support your national game chain store? go ahead, It's your right as a consumer. Personally I feel its a massive middle finger to the developer as your effectively saying "Fuck you I'm going to enjoy this game you put millions of pounds and thousands of man hours into making but your not going to see a single penny from it". But again that is your right as a consumer.

 

[Dastardly]

With Jim Sterling's new video about boycotting on the front page the timing of this thread couldn't have been worse.

Vote with your wallet. End of story.

If players still doesn't buy games new then they're obviously going to have wise up and make games better and actually WORTH buying new.

But even then, that wouldn't work. Think about it -- if they make the game better, that just means people buying used are getting a better used game. It's not going to entice them to buy it new.

The benefit to used games is that they are cheaper. That's it. Now, there are different reasons for why people like "cheaper," but it all comes back to price. The only way publishers can try to draw those sales is to make sure that "new product" and "used product" are no longer identical.

That's what makes games different from other goods. You buy a car new, you pay more, but you get a brand new car. You buy it used, you pay less, but it's got some miles on it. You aren't getting the exact same car.

With games, that's not the case. If you buy Arkham City brand new, or you buy it used, it's the exact same game. But the guy selling it used can offer it for far less because he has precisely zero overhead. In a way, because of this difference, the used game market borders on "unfair competition." (NOTE: Borders. Didn't say it is.)

So the only way publishers can hope to compete with their own product is to assure some kind of "artificial depreciation." Something has to be there when you buy new that isn't when you buy used.

 

[00slash00]

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. we dont have to put up with this bull anymore. WE decide whether or not their game gets bought. WE decide to put money down for a title they release. they dont get to decide that for us. im tired of the companies thinking that they can get away with this, just because they assume we will always buy their games no matter what.

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?

i think you're blowing this out of proportion. a game like mercenaries where you can play it once and then it's useless...yeah, thats flat out stupid and evil. but whats wrong with developers giving extra content to those who are willing to actually pay them. if you dont like the game enough to buy it new, then you probably didnt want it that much to begin with. if you cant afford to buy it new then either save your money or ask if getting some of that extra content (for the sake of this example, i am referring to Rage) is really that important to you. if you will never be able to afford to buy it new, then video games really shouldnt be a very high priority for you right now.

id say about 90% (not counting pc games) of my games are used. that being said, however, i have no problem with developers doing this

 

[hermes]

Ok for everyone who is saying boycotting this game is wrong I have to ask aquestion.

Why is it that the games industry gets the ability to circumvent and work around the law based on their interactivity?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the used market. By supporting this "Lets make sure we support the developers" tripe, your also supporting putting both people and whole industries out of work. All the while making the PUBLISHER... not the developers even more profitable than they already are. This sort of action has zero impact on piracy and as such should not be even considered a part of it. What this is for is to destroy the used and rental markets. So because you think the people slaving away for their art should be compensated for their work, your ensuring that that its actually those who are above them are the only ones seeing the excess profit, all the while throwing vast scores of other people under a bus.

If it takes 100 people to develop and distribute a physical game, then it takes another 1000 to sell it and all this does is perpetuates the dangerous precedent that has been building for the last decade that is designed to do nothing but hurt vastly more people than it could ever hope to help.

Honestly its this sort of short sighted thinking that explains just exactly why were in the sort of economy we are in today, but I expect little else from the MEs. I fully support boycotting this game to combat a dangerous precedent that needs to be stopped immediately before even more damage can be done.

In the end, its a question of what you choose to support. Do you support the developer or the store? Note that by buying new, you support both; by buying used, you only support the store. Make no mistake, the publishers are not the only one that get money from new games. Developers and Hardware companies DO get a share too. For used games, the only one that gets a share is the store vault (since commissions for clerk doesn't change if its used or new).

The problem most people don't seem to realize is that the profit gamestop gets from used games is incredibly high for the investment. What they pay people for used games is nowhere near what they charge for it. In most other industries, the used market prices are less than half of the price of the new product. In the case of video games, its as high as 90%. In fact, every content provider company has issues with big distribution used markets (for them, they are no different than pirates), but in most cases its not big enough to be worth fighting for. The fact this company has a pretty big distribution network makes this case more damaging than the flea markets for books, for example...

If anything, people should be boycotting gamestop. I don't know why should I support a company that pays 15 $ for a game and then sale it for more than 3 times that.

 

[Keava]

Selling a used good is a ownership change (I just read that) the second buyer should be transfered the first buyer rights.

Yes. To the disk, box, manual, pamphlet, data on the disk but no the licence. Read EULA, for eg. From StarCraft2 EULA:

1. Grant of a Limited Use License. Subject to your agreement to and continuing compliance with this License Agreement, Blizzard
hereby grants, and you hereby accept, a limited, revocable, non-transferable, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive license

Key words, revocable and non-transferable. The moment you fire up the game on your console/PC you agree to that licence.

 

[Crimsane]

I'm not buying it just because it doesn't look very good or interesting, tbh. If I were interested, maybe their cutting content might matter to me.

 

[Epona]

It's this concept that "it would've been included otherwise" that I find baffling. According to whom? Obviously, it varies from game to game, but some content is only being developed because the developer/publisher believes extra money can be made from it via DLC - even if it's ready to go on Day One, that doesn't mean it "would've been included otherwise" were it not for its intended purpose. It's not like companies are making games, then when they're done saying "Hmm...now what could we cut out of this to sell as DLC?" That may have been the way decisions were made when DLC was in its infancy, but that's certainly no longer the case.

And as many others have already pointed out, I fail to see the issue with encouraging consumers to buy a game new. It's in the company's best interests for you to do so, but no-one is twisting your arm forcing you to. You wanting to save money by buying used is perfectly reasonable - but so is the game company wanting to make as much profit from their efforts as possible.

Some content is being pulled from the game, some content is developed specifically to be used as DLC and/or DRM. You don't which is which and neither do we so we guess. Your guess is as good or bad as anyone else's. Still baffled?

Encouraging customers to buy new? It's a little more than that isn't it? It's more like punishing customers who don't buy new.

Me wanting to save money by buying used is reasonable. On the other hand, me wanting to save money by pirating the game would not be legal. My example is designed to show that me wanting to save money doesn't condone "by any means possible". Likewise, it is reasonable that publishers want to increase sales and make money but it is not reasonable to punish customers to do it as it will only lead to some people resorting to piracy to get the full game. No one would need to do that without this restriction.

 

[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.

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.

Yawn, really is that all you've got? Dude, there are two groups of contracts. Bilateral (I do something for something) and unilateral (you do something) actually the EULA is a bilateral contract. You agree to their terms and you get to use the software.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license_agreement

It's entirely possible to sue someone for selling a leased product. I can't very well sell the leased car I own to my friend. If you're leasing the software the same inference can be made. Do I know of any legal precedent? No, but it's a big world, and I'm sure they let small fish go, but does that still make it legal then? No.

You need to read your own link better. I have already pointed it out above if you are too lazy to read though.

Here's something you can try though. Call Wal Mart and ask them if they sell games or lease games. You don't lease games no matter what you are told by publishers, your own epxerience should tell you that you buy and when you buy, you own.

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.

Yawn, really is that all you've got? Dude, there are two groups of contracts. Bilateral (I do something for something) and unilateral (you do something) actually the EULA is a bilateral contract. You agree to their terms and you get to use the software.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license_agreement

It's entirely possible to sue someone for selling a leased product. I can't very well sell the leased car I own to my friend. If you're leasing the software the same inference can be made. Do I know of any legal precedent? No, but it's a big world, and I'm sure they let small fish go, but does that still make it legal then? No.

You need to read your own link better. I have already pointed it out above if you are too lazy to read though.

Here's something you can try though. Call Wal Mart and ask them if they sell games or lease games. You don't lease games no matter what you are told by publishers, your own epxerience should tell you that you buy and when you buy, you own.

The wikipedia page was just so you could do some tangential reading. Try following some references.

Sure, I can call up Mr. Wallmart man and he'll say sell because that's the common word for it. However, have you ever tried to return a piece of software to Walmart and get your money back? Returns work for nearly everything but opened game software? Why is that? Because they can't legally resell it and why? Because of the EULA. I've been there. That's the reason I got. Software plays by its own rules. I can return my Xbox game, but not my computer software.

 

[Epona]

Selling a used good is a ownership change (I just read that) the second buyer should be transfered the first buyer rights.

Yes. To the disk, box, manual, pamphlet, data on the disk but no the licence. Read EULA, for eg. From StarCraft2 EULA:

1. Grant of a Limited Use License. Subject to your agreement to and continuing compliance with this License Agreement, Blizzard
hereby grants, and you hereby accept, a limited, revocable, non-transferable, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive license

Key words, revocable and non-transferable. The moment you fire up the game on your console/PC you agree to that licence.

Do you see "Punishable by law" in there anywhere?

 

[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.

Yawn, really is that all you've got? Dude, there are two groups of contracts. Bilateral (I do something for something) and unilateral (you do something) actually the EULA is a bilateral contract. You agree to their terms and you get to use the software.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license_agreement

It's entirely possible to sue someone for selling a leased product. I can't very well sell the leased car I own to my friend. If you're leasing the software the same inference can be made. Do I know of any legal precedent? No, but it's a big world, and I'm sure they let small fish go, but does that still make it legal then? No.

You need to read your own link better. I have already pointed it out above if you are too lazy to read though.

Here's something you can try though. Call Wal Mart and ask them if they sell games or lease games. You don't lease games no matter what you are told by publishers, your own epxerience should tell you that you buy and when you buy, you own.

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.

Yawn, really is that all you've got? Dude, there are two groups of contracts. Bilateral (I do something for something) and unilateral (you do something) actually the EULA is a bilateral contract. You agree to their terms and you get to use the software.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license_agreement

It's entirely possible to sue someone for selling a leased product. I can't very well sell the leased car I own to my friend. If you're leasing the software the same inference can be made. Do I know of any legal precedent? No, but it's a big world, and I'm sure they let small fish go, but does that still make it legal then? No.

You need to read your own link better. I have already pointed it out above if you are too lazy to read though.

Here's something you can try though. Call Wal Mart and ask them if they sell games or lease games. You don't lease games no matter what you are told by publishers, your own epxerience should tell you that you buy and when you buy, you own.

The wikipedia page was just so you could do some tangential reading. Try following some references.

Sure, I can call up Mr. Wallmart man and he'll say sell because that's the common word for it. However, have you ever tried to return a piece of software to Walmart and get your money back? Returns work for nearly everything but opened game software? Why is that? Because they can't legally resell it and why? Because of the EULA. I've been there. That's the reason I got. Software plays by its own rules. I can return my Xbox game, but not my computer software.

Wrong, it isn't because they would be breaking the law by reselling it. It's because it's more trouble than it's worth because the game has been rigged by the publishers.

Wal Mart has to worry about selling a returned copy of a game because of the DRM, not because of the law.

 

[Keava]

Do you see "Punishable by law" in there anywhere?

Were you imprisoned/fined for re-selling a game? Law has nothing to do with it. Its a consumer-developer agreement that pretty much voids your right to demand "full product" if you bought used, because you are not, in the developers view, their consumer at all.

 

[Macrobstar]

Im going to but this game new just to spite all you fools who think that depriving a studio of money is the best way to get them to give up hese business practices when the only reason they're doing them is to earn more money
My suggestion would be, if you want the game buy it, you only live once, don't let some busy bodies spouting sensationalist bullhit stop you