Like I said before, Stardock should put a disclaimer on the box before it starts withholding support. They have to make users aware of these facts BEFORE purchase.

Well, for those of you who run into these problems there's always another way. You're moving in a legal gray zone, so to speak, though. Stardock really should make this clear on their website.

If you can't get hold of the box, why not pay for it online, and use the download option???

There's no real legal gray area here. If I buy a washing machine from my neighbor, the manufacturer/store has no obligation to offer me warranty or support services. While you have the rights of first sale to re-sell your own copy (but only your copy, and only once), you can't transfer your warranty/service plan. Stardock has no obligation to extend support indefinitely down the line to whoever the game passes to.

I mean which would you prefer a game that you cant resell or.........wait for it.........................Starforce?

If Gal Civ 2 had come with Star****, I wouldn’t have touched it with a barge pole. Make's me wonder how many more people wouldn’t have bought Gal Civ 2 if it had come with the dreaded SF.

I have a very simple solution actually very simple. Stardock should charge $9.95 to re-register the game to the new owner. I'm glad Stardock did not use Starforce and like others I would not have touched this game with a ten foot pole.

A question, and seriously off topic. (though related)

Who invented copy Protection, and why it it being called Starforce?



As to the support issue?

Two options. 1: The charge to re-register the serial code to those who can prove they have the physical (original) game and box/manual.

2: Stardock needs to make a very simple press announcement. Stating. "We do not offer support to those who have bought used copies of our games, as company policy does not allow re-selling of our games."

I think that would solve the whole problem. If not, the lawyers can figure out what is right or wrong. (every company has their own "pet" lawyer, so they don't end up with legal fees)

I think offering a discounted serial number for used copy purchasers is fine.

The problem people are running into is, imo, unfamiliar territory. Most* game companies use CP and have for a long time. Everyone is used to CP instead of serial number security. If serial numbers and no re-sell had been used from the dawn, it would not even be a question.

Frankly, I am glad to see a company moving in a new direction and with it's sucess, hopefully in a few years (cough) this will be common knowledge.

I would rather have a game I can't resell than to have one with draconian copy protection.

That being said, I disagree with the EULA about resale. I should be able to re-sell ANYTHING I bought through legitimate channels. I am certainly not talking about piracy here (where you make a copy and sell the original). I am talking about an honest resale of a game.

For example is my situation. I bought the game (at a store) but had quite a bit of trouble running the game because my computer has a graphics controller and not a video card. I had no idea of the differences between the two. I am not a computer guru, nor do I have the desire to have to learn a new carreer just to play a game. Fortunatly I was able to get a new computer (was needed anyway) so system requirements are no longer a problem. But in absence of that, I would re-sell the game to someone that had a computer that could handle it. Being denied the ability to re-sell a good game I can't use because of my computer is like kicking someone when their down. You can't afford the game at walmart? awww, TFB for you.

The argument that they didn't make any money from the resale is moot. They made their money from the original sale, why should SD care who is playing the game as long the CD was obtained through non-pirated methods. It just seems to me their position regarding resale flies in the face of how SD handles everything else regarding this game.

If I did have to dump the product, I certainly would take whatever measures were necessary for the new ower to be able to get it going (email SD to reset the number, whatever) but that is me. I know most people would not go that extra mile. If they did, none of this would be necessary. Damn Terrans. Can't trust them with a postage stamp.

I realise both positions appear conflicting so in a nutshell, I understand why they are handling it this way though I don't necessarily agree with it. Anti-piracy measures and the legitimate re-sale of a product are two seperate issues that have been combined, sadly so.

I am not asking SD to reverse their current position. Just that they keep an open mind for other possible solutions for future games. Right now it flies, but lands like an albatross. It's a good idea that needs a lot of refining, imo.

Allow me to clarify things, since I feel people aren't checking the Knowledgebase article.

Stardock cannot stop you from reselling your game, it's just not possible to put chip implants in people to control your actions.   The point of this post is that we will not provide support on re-sold copies of GalCiv II that have been previously registered with us past the v1.0X update.

We are offering people who fall into this category an option to purchase a valid license to receive support from us; they just need to check the Kb article.

I suppose I don't really understand the issue. If I was going to legitimately sell the game, I'd clear out my account info & characters and stuff, and send the logon along with the CD/serial. What stops someone from doing that?

Nothing stops you from doing it. it's just that according to the license agreement (which you "sign" via installing the game) it states that it is against the agreement to resell the game.

-HM

Why is everyone up in arms over this? Its not as though this is a new concept. MMORPGs are exactly the same way. You can't sell your copy to someone else, becuase you're already registered with that serial.

This doesnt stop people to sell their mmorpg accounts.
I know enought people who bought/ selled their EQ/ WOW/ whatever account to someone else (sometimes they sold it and bought it back some months later)

Regarding support for used games:
Person A buys GC2 in the shop -> Stardock gets money and has to suport this serial
Does it really mater wheter person A or Person B downloads the patch with this serial as long its ONLY ONE person at the same time (And Im not talking of A playing monday, B tuesday and C sunday, I m talking about A not playing GC2 anymore)?
Stardock did get the money for the game in the moment A bought it.
Well maybe thats only my opinion and it is not my decision how to handle this but I agree there has to be at least a warning "You are not allowed to resell this game/ 2hand games are not suported" that you can see BEFORE buying.
This is important becasue of two main reasons:
First: You bought it second hand and either you cant patch it or you have to pay extra... Wouldn't you feel cheated?
Second: In countries like germany/ austria EULAs are not valid because you cant see them before you buy the product and since shops have the "box is open-> no trade possible" you cant give it back in case you dont agree with it...
So you should at least make it possible for customers to know about that "no resell" before to avoid pissed customers and legal problems in europe (I doubt that someone would really try to go to court, but still)

This information is presented in-full during installation. By continuing installation, you are agreeing to the EULA (which are fully enforcable in North America, btw) and its terms. If you don't like the terms, you can return the product to your point of purchase. Technically, you could even install the game and as long as you didn't register it with us, could still sell it to someone else, etc. and we would not know.

However, once someone takes the step of registering their specific copy of GalCiv II with us either via the website or activation, you have made a solid commitment to your specific serial number. As I have said before, it is not easy or trivial for us to alter those records in our system and it's against our license regardless. This is where we draw the line. It's more than fair.

This information is presented in-full during installation. By continuing installation, you are agreeing to the EULA (which are fully enforcable in North America, btw)

I have no doubt that this is so in amercia, at least somewhere in the world they must be valid.
However this NOT the case in europe (at least in germany/ austria, I dont know for sure for the others)
because our courts say: You cant read the Eula before you bought the game (and thats true I have never seen the eula printed on the case) and almost no shop takes opened software back (Logical from their point of view, you could have made a copy ) so you cant give it back.

And I dont believe many people read EULAs anymore because 99% of the EULAs say the same...
By the way I just read the the eula in my manual and there is still the "you are only allowed to install this software on ONE PC" part in
and there is another point in it that says:
a lizensed version is either "a regstriated one" OR "a functional orginal version of the software"
And in the manual there is no point that forbids selling the cds.
Yes there is a point that says no selling of serials.
But once i sold the cd the buyer would have a licensed game.....


Plz dont get me wrong:
I dont say your way is wrong and even if I would, it would not matter because I bought my game in the shop and not second hand hand.

However it would be a good idea to:
put a big sticker on the box labeled: "You are not allowed to resell this game/ 2hand games are not suported" or whatever.
change the eula in the manuals (I own a german one) because it has some mistakes in it.

For what it's worth, a license for software is a contract between the purchaser and the software company (or a company the software company has contracted in one way or another to "sell" its product), so unless the contract (EULA) explicitly states that the license is transferrable, it isn't.

This is why Stardock's method of distribution is ideal, you can't get the "latest" version of the software without registering on their server, but there is really nothing whatsoever stopping you from making an illegal copy, downloading an ISO, upgrading to 1.0x, or whatever.

Would you play 1.0X if you could? I wouldn't, not when I could play 1.11, because despite its imperfections it is far better than 1.0X or 1.0. This basically turns the CD version and 1.0X into a sort-of demo version, though I doubt it was intended to be. Personally, I used a pirated copy to try out GC2, because no matter what the price in some stores, it is too high for software I may not like at all. It turned out to be so good that I paid the FULL price for the game right from the website ($45US) in order to always have the latest updated version. I don't play GC2 much anymore (I will likely pick up playing it again after a few months), but I've gotten my money's worth out of that $45 - 100's of hours of entertainment for less than the price of 4 movie tickets or roughly a dozen movie rentals.

For what it's worth, a license for software is a contract between the purchaser and the software company (or a company the software company has contracted in one way or another to "sell" its product), so unless the contract (EULA) explicitly states that the license is transferrable, it isn't.

Thats not correct. It is transferable unless it is prohibited. Another issue that some seem to be missing is that you are bound by the laws where the product is sold. EULAs are not enforceable everywhere so where the user is located dictates what goes. Now that does not mean Stardock must live by those rules. They only have to follow the laws where they themselves are located. So in this case, it may not be illegal to copy a game somewhere or use a used copy, but unless Stardock does business/has locations there, they don't necessarily have to support it.

Post #42 (what irony) exactly summs it up as I see it.

I am pretty sure that if you are in a European country and have bought a used copy you can demand a new serial and a working game.

Games and software have been established by the courts to be goods and not licenses many times, and as such they subject to normal sales laws which means that it is resellable.

Microsoft have been forced quite a few times to accept transfers of licenses eventhough they claim it's impossible.

I hate seeing "disposable" software. However, small fees for transfer of license (or a new serial) is generally acceptable - especially where it's considered goods.

#2 by Breaon

This reply is out of date regarding Electronic Beautique, or GAME as they like to be known now. They stopped taking PC games about 2 years or so ago, because of the fact that people would buy a game, register it, and then take it back within their "10 Day - no fuss" returns policy, or else trade it back for something else.

I for one agree with this policy. I worked in a game store part time for a while and people would come in, mostly teenage boys, and brag about how they do not pay for PC games--just pirate them. The results, PC game sales are down because of the user is being stuck with awful protection software that mucks up there machines. My feeling is that these people do not buy anyway, not it they can steal, and that StarDocks approach on behalf of the legetimate user needs to be applauded here.

So buy the game NEW. That way you vote for this game design philosophy by giving some monetary award to the developer and encourage this style of game development. This is a good thing people.

This information is presented in-full during installation. By continuing installation, you are agreeing to the EULA (which are fully enforcable in North America, btw) and its terms. If you don't like the terms, you can return the product to your point of purchase. Technically, you could even install the game and as long as you didn't register it with us, could still sell it to someone else, etc. and we would not know. However, once someone takes the step of registering their specific copy of GalCiv II with us either via the website or activation, you have made a solid commitment to your specific serial number. As I have said before, it is not easy or trivial for us to alter those records in our system and it's against our license regardless. This is where we draw the line. It's more than fair.

It may be permissible in North America to enforce a term in the EULA that the licence is non-transferable but there are some countries where the law specifically provides that a software licence is transferable despite any term in the EULA to the contrary. By selling GC2 in those countries you submit to their laws. As a reputable company you ought not adopt a position that contravenes the law.

I am 42 and I have been buying/playing and selling my old PC games for twenty years and IMHO GC 2 is the best sci-fi 3x game I have played in a VERY long time.

But, this attitude by Stardock bothers be quite a bit. I get this crap from Sony, Microsoft, etc (ex. unable to make my LEGAL a back up due to encryption because of 11 year-old pirates, etc). Now I have to put up with it from small outfits as well?

Frankly, at this point, if Stardock released GC 3 tomorrow and it is twice as good as GC2 I am not sure I would purchase it because I am so disgusted with companies screwing their LOYAL customers and defending this attitude by saying it is "legal" or they are "just protecting themselves".

(IOW: Ya' know that small group of vocal people that you talked about in those meetings that you might lose as customers when chose this strategy... That's me.)

My (only) two cents,
GG

Nowhere have we said that customers could not make backup copies of GalCiv II. In fact, we are allowing legal purchasers of the game to re-download the latest version of GalCiv II forever. I fail to see how this is screwing people over. All we have said - and we feel is quite reasonable - is that we will not support previously registered copies of GalCiv II that were sold to someone other than the original buyer past version 1.1.  Any other company would leave people who fall into this category "twisting in the wind" with no support at all. Instead we are supporting them up to v1.1 and have provided a path where they can receive the same support as if they had bought an original version for a small, one-time fee.

People have to remember that providing support and perpetual access to re-download the game costs money. It's not crazy to ask those people from whom Stardock is not receiving one penny to pick up some of that burden if they want the same support as a first-hand consumer is getting.