First off let me say that I was saved by Stardock's policy because I lost my discs when I moved down to college and I was worried that I wouldn't be able to play DA anymore, thankfully, after a quick launch of SDC, and a few minutes later, I was kicking some Drengin butt. Similar to this is when I lost my SimCity 4 discs. Guess what I had to do? that's right, go out and shell ANOTHER $30 for a game that I already owned.

But anyhow to second-hand games. When you, the BUYER, purchases a used copy of ANY game, you, the BUYER, are required to do any research needed or confirm that ALL materials related to the game are present, in this case, INCLUDING the registered account info. Stardock actually ALLOWS for the changing of email addresses so as long as you had the info, you COULD change it at NO extra cost to yourself.

But instead we have people complaining that well "I OWN the (physical) game, or the disc, or blah blah blah" OK, well we're gonna use the Used Car example. Its not perfect but I want to illustrate a specific point.

Manufacturer makes automobile, John Doe buys automobile. John Doe sells car to Jane Smith. Only ONE car is in existence and at some point was fully paid for.

But here what is what Stardock wants to prevent (as they should be):

Manufacturer makes car. John Doe buys car. John Doe sells car to Jane Smith but KEEPS registration (i know you can't do this in "real" life). Few months later, John Doe uses registration to replace for FREE his car. Now, TWO cars with the same registration are in existence but only ONE was paid for. Jane was a legit customer yes, but failed to make sure she had everything in her purchase. meanwhile, John is actually PIRATING the car because he, for all intents, sold his original. Theoretically, the Manufacturer is NOT entitled to do anything for Jane because they have no record of her PURCHASING the car from them, also they COULD take action against John for stealing/pirating.

Meanwhile, Stardock has been EXTREMELY magnanimous in allowing second-hand buyers to get a license for a reduced cost. It is NOT Stardock's fault you (the BUYER) failed to make sure you got everything from the SELLER.

So take all your trolling and complaints and go elsewhere.

Well, yes, all true.
But I think the point for some people was that they were John Doe in your example and weren’t allowed to resell the car.
As far as I can tell, changing the register account email address means selling your house, your plane and your favourite chair too, not just the car.
And one problem can be that some people are not even aware they don’t have a right to resell. Yeah, they *should* have read the licence. Nonetheless, when you can’t read the licence before buying, it's not really surprising they assume the most frequent rights are granted. I rather doubt just telling them to go elsewhere will alleviate their problems, or even make things better in the future. Which is regrettable, because Stardock is a great company and deserve all the good will it can get. Maybe there is no other way to do things, so ok they are necessary collateral damage. Still, I can’t help but wonder if that could not have been avoided too. Very good is great. Best is even more.
Note that I’m not complaining in any way:
- I knew the content of the licence before buying, and was perfectly happy to accept it
- I never did resale any software I bought, no matter how bad (though I may have brought some back to the store). So I rather doubt I will ever envision reselling great software. I’m keeping my Stardock licences.

Silverbeacher's example is all wet becuase even he/she admits such an example doesn't happen in real life. Once again, we are NOT talking about making multiple copies for resale profiteering piracy.We are NOT even talking about making one personal use only backup copy to keep in a fire safe in case the original disk gets damaged or destroyed.

I have NEVER lost a game disk in my life and if anyone is stupid enough to do so then they deserve to have to pay again.

What is a good example for cars is the warrantee: The great majority ARE TRANSFERABLE, like Hyundai's 60,000 mile plan. The manufacturers realise the resale of their cars would be greatly reduced if the warrantee wasn't transferable. This would disuade people from buying their product in the first place, and hinder future sales.


I would GLADLY have copy protection on the disk, LIKE EVERY OTHER GAME I OWN, if it meant and end to a transfer policy that NO other(to the best of my knowledge) game manufacturer employs.

Maybe when Stardock changes this insane policy I might spend money on some of their other products.

Stardock: HEED THE MASSES !!!!!!

Well, while Silverbeacher's example may be a little incorrect, the case he/she is aiming to illustrate *can* happen in software industry, and it is Stardock right, I think, to try and avoid it. And I'm not so sure I would say that someone that got his or her disk lost because, say for example, their notebook batteries took fire really deserve to have to pay again. But that's only my point of view.
And while I, for one, am in no way sure I speak for the masses, I am not urging them to change their policies.
I very much prefer to have no copy protection, no disc to carry, and the possibility to install on my desktop and my notebook and play without having to think in advance whether I should get the CD with me or not.
And I'm still buying new Stardock products and plan to continue to do so as long as they are good.
Beside, given the success of the GalCiv series, one may consider a lot of people like it that way too. I do believe Stardock noticed it too, so perhaps arguments calling the policy insane and leading to a loss of the majority of customers should be a little more constructed and documented for them to listen.
Well, they are great guys as can be seen in the forum, so I'm sure they are listening. But for them to listen as in "being convinced" might take a little more work.
Say, I have a question for you. Would you be ready to pay a premium for being given the right to transfer your ownership? And if yes, how much would that be?

May I point out that is has been stated prior that while Stardock does not support used games, a person DOES retain the right to sell the game at a later date. What people seem to be missing (and what the second-hand users need to make sure they get) is that if you are going to sell your game, you must sell EVERYTHING that comes with it, this INCLUDES your registration. It is UNFAIR and UNETHICAL to sell the game for a profit for YOURSELF (NOT the company) and yet retain the ability to still play it, while the new buyer gets screwed since the SELLLER didn't send all materials. While it is "officially" against Stardock's EULA and policies against resell of the materials and registration, they seem to be at least willing to give a "blind eye" toward FULL transference (1 for 1).

And Mongo, your comments were uncalled for. I find it hard to believe that you've never misplaced or lost anything in your life. It was not that I was unwilling to go out and repurchase my game discs, as I did, just that Stardock makes it much easier for the consumer and less costly.

OK, so I just logged onto SDC to see how to go about updating (ie if my registration was to change hands). yes, it is easy and possible to switch that information. now however, if i were to have OTHER stardock products, I would lose the ability to update them. I can understand how this could be an issue to SOME individuals, since you would be losing the ability to update your other legitimate products.

Unfortunately, with today's technology, companies feel the need to take steps to insure that their product and costs are protected. Someone earlier stated the used book market, and how it benefits the book market and why wasn't the game market able to do the same thing? because when my mom gives me her "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows", there is only one copy, and since its in book form, its also not easily copyable. now, as the book market, becomes more digitalized, it may actually become harder to transfer a book to another user since the ability to copy/paste (in simplest terms) is readily available.

the general rule with music and DVD is as such. To have a media copy of a song or movie on your computer, Ipod, or other media-playback device, you must have a hard copy of that said item, or proof of online purchase (if it was a digital purchase). Technically, if you decide to sell your copy of "Blades of Glory" (not that I wouldn't blame you) you are supposed to delete the copy you have on your computer.

games get a lil trickier, especially newer ones. unlike a DVD or a song that requires you to be logged in to reach the next track, some games have either online MP, or later bonuses to registered users (which is what the galciv patches are by the way; since the original game is "playable" (albeit not anywhere as good as later editions), the Courts would NOT rule that users are entitled to the updates), or other such features that make it necessary for companies to protect their interests.

most companies have gone the route of installing and equipping their media with third-party programs that are required for use. In many cases this software can not be removed even if the product is, and also is often known for damaging a person's computer.

i like not having a CD to carry around. I like that I don't have invasive malware on my computer. I like that a company is even debating on actions about these issues.

I guess my sympathy goes out to more those in places that want to play a game like GalCiv II but can't easily (costs), but its not Stardock or another company's fault, and I wish more could be done to accommodate those individuals within reason. but at the end of the day, its a business geared to make a profit, and they gotta do, what they gotta do. all i know, is that as it stands, this particular company is taking a stand that is easy and convenient for me.

I think we are in agreement then.
Now the only thing I wonder is whether Stardock *could* set up a way to transfer one registered product (Well actually I'm sure they can) and for what price (though once automated te price tag may be quite resonable on a per user basis).
Hence my question to Mongo64...

I still wish I didn't have one email address for GC2 and one for DA. Makes patching a pain, though that's entirely my fault. I'll likely have a third for Arnor when I get it (taking a wait and see approach after DA- espionage made DA a bit disappointing to me)

Just contact [email protected] and request an account merge with the two addresses.

To plang75015: They should do it for free as a goodwill gesture for people who are currently using their products (even the most mercenary credit card company doesn't charge a "change of address fee")(nor do most car DMV offices). It should also be free as a way to entice people into making new purchases.

That being said, I suppose a transfer fee of something less than $5 would probably (VERY GRUDGINGLY) pass muster with most gamers.

Side note to (Citizen)Silverbeacher: I have not claimed that I've never misplaced ANYTHING in my life, just that I have every game disk from games I have chosen to keep.(Wan't to by my 3.5" floppies of 5th Fleet?) ..... Also, if your ego can't handle a simple "all wet" comment, you need to develope slightly thicker skin.

Thanks for the heads-up on that. As for my friend, he ended up returning it and getting a Mario game instead. Wasn't too happy with the way things were handled, but I think he blames Gamestop mostly for that.

Generally, while you guys aren't perfect, I think the way you do things works for 99% of the people out there, which is a lot better then the big box folks.
I think a sufficiently sized warning on the back of the box would solve the issue- something like "Support and updates on used copies will not be avaliable- buy a new copy to get full Stardock support."

This isn't an issue for directly downloaded copies (as you can't buy those used), it's an issue more for retail customers (and the used PC software market is almost dead as is)
If a customer doesn't read the box before buying, well then that's their problem.

Yes, a warning on the box would be nice, I think...Real good deals (like in Win-Win) usually have both parties fully informed. But it's probably a bit late for that particular game.

To Mongo64: Thanks for your answer. Knowing a bit of both software programming and marketing, I tend to agree with you. Doing it "for free" would be a good idea. Of course nothing really is free. Most credit card companies simply have everyone pay a little more to compensate for the costs of address changes. Never mind that changing the address cost a one time development for probably not much more than a few thousands dollars, and 5 minutes work from someone each time you want to change.
What's interesting there is that while I dont want the rights to transfer ownership, I probably still would have bought GalCiv had it cost a few more dollars.
Mind you, I do not *want* to pay to give you the possibility to transfer now that I know. But if nobody had told me I might pay less when not having the right, I would not even have thought of the possibility.
I don't know if it is so for the majority of the other satisfied buyers, but if it is, maybe it's the way to go for Stardock for it's next titles.

***Personal opinions, not those of Stardock***

The difference is that the credit card company and the government already have the person changing the address as a customer/taxpayer--they're not losing a thing by doing it. In this case, if someone buys the game used then we haven't gotten a cent from them. And for budget-minded people who actively seek out used copies to begin with, chances are they'd do the same for subsequent purchases.

I don't think it comes as a surprise that I personally prefer we make money on sales of our products so that I can continue to have a job...

Having us transfer serials has been suggested in the past, but I don't expect it to happen--there's potential for abuse (stolen copy, forged/misprinted serial, etc) that could leave legitimate owners with their registrations revoked in any such system, in addition to the above reasons that encouraging used sales is not a good idea.

Okay, I've been mostly defending Stardock, but here's where I take offense.

Yes you have made money from it, from the original purchase.

Don't like that? Well, tough. Just about everything exists in a second hand market. You could make the same argument for anything, just about.

And indirectly, you do make money on it. There are still quite a few people out there who buy new games, play them for a while, sell or trade them in, and then buy another new one. If they can't trade it in or sell it, they won't buy it in the first place. Game sellers make more money off these guys than the average game, because they are always buying new stuff.

Okay, some of them will buy used as well, but the trade in system still used at many game stores is a testament to the fact that this still works.

One could even argue the legality of not allowing your customers to transfer the licenses that they bought and that they own. I'm not going to bother, and it seems to be precedent that the customers, unlike any other product, have no rights when they purchase a license. (notice I didn't say purchase the game, since I know the difference)

Anyhow, you system isn't a bad one, but it sort of ticks me off when you go complaining about people not giving you money because they want to buy used games. Well boo hoo. It seems a immature attitude, if you ask me.

Actually, as it *does* cost them something to do the change, they are losing abit of money. Still, I understand your point: if they didn't make the change they would not get money anymore, so it is in their best interest to do so.

Well, maybe they will, maybe they wont. As someone pointed out finding new copies of Dreadlords is not so easy anymore...and sometimes it's not a matter of actively seeking used copies, simply of trying games we are not sure about for a lesser price, and if convinced, then go for the full priced ones of the same studio. Only speaking for myself there, of course, but I believe I'm not alone to see it that way...And I stopped buying used copies once I got enough money. But I still buy games from companies I liked at the time


Well I wont fault you on that one, seeing that you do it quite well in my opinion. Still, if I understand your point correctly what you were advocating was that people seeking used titles wont buy new one anyway...so you can hardly say you are effectively loosing new sales because of that. And if they *may* buy new titles, maybe giving them a way to use the used one they bought and keep them happy is not such a bad idea....especially when a game got extension packs



Yes, I remember reading that. One question though: how are the risks greater with a transfer of *one* registration than with the possibility of transfer of a full account as suggested earlier by Silverbeacher?
Mostly out of curiosity but if you think there are risks, I would be happy oo know my current account (and/or future purchases) is not in jeopardy for the same reason

The risks/problems would apply when someone has gotten a copy with a preregistered serial, by whatever means, and wants to register it himself without the details or involvement of the previous owner. We would have no way to know if one or the other party involved is being dishonest, or if a manufacturing mistake was made, etc. So the situation is better avoided. OTOH, handing off the account can only be done if the seller gives the buyer the login details, in which case there's no involvement on our part, or risk of loss to uninvolved parties.

Ok, I see .Actually I thought handing off the registration would then work the same way as handing off the account. that is, that it would be the responsibility of the first buyer to transfer its rights to the second hand buyer or at least free the registration number.
Like creating a way to merge accounts by hand for the users, and product by product. Which would beside have given a way to arstal to solve his/her problem by herself earlier.
Of course if the first buyer is not involved, there is a high risk of seeing registrations hijacked, I agree.
On second thoughts, of course there would be no way to make sure a seller did that before selling his software to a shop, so that probably wouldn't solve most the problems...though maybe there could be a market among game shops for the verification system then needed
Ok, just dreaming here...Anyway, as I aid earlier, I dont plan to transfer any licence.
Still, I can understand what Mongo64 do not like there, I think. By reselling your software, he is not using the full life span of the rights you did sell to him (which are, more or less for an entire lifetime). Thus he feels that in some way you did not provide the whole service (yes, that is a matter of point of view) and it is not obvious why if providing those services to him was in your opinion covered by the sale price, providing those exact same services to another individual but not to him anymore would cause you some unexpected expenses. Beside, Mongo64 will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that according to what he said, he would be happy with a way to do the transfer to another account by himself. Not "from", "to"

And by the way, thanks, Kryo, for your answer

Well I sale my used games on Amazon.com and feel that if you buy it you should have the rights to it even if it is used. Now I don't know if GalCiv or GAlCiv2 is on a console but if it is you can buy sale trade those games, why not PC games. This has never made any sense to me.

In addition, I debated with EA about piracy, and there is no way of telling if there has been any piracy with fact. Piracy is considered to be wide spread so that copy protection can be added with about a $10 cost to us the consumer for each game. Truth be told Piracy is over rated and that is a fact that many software companies don't want let out of the bag.

When they make a game no one wants and has a big budget in it yet it sales are way down "It's Piracy" When a game is good it makes a good sale then "It's Good Copy Protection" That is how Software companies think, but that is the wrong thinking.

If you make a good game it will sale, if you make a good game and have anti-costumer copy protection it does not take long for it to be on the web, and that will cause sale's to drop, and cracks to be made (Bioshock anyone).

If the game is just bad well nobody wants it so sales wont happen. It has nothing to do with piracy. It is how you make the game, and how hard you make it to play it. I prefer installing it, D/L any updates and then playing it. No numbers on it just have the protection on the disc itself. Simple and unseen by the player/consumer.


Stardock has a better copy protection then most. StarForce, SecurRom, Valve, Etc. However, I like Paradox it is the best when it comes to copy protection. There CP is on the disc, and once you load it on the computer you no longer need the disc. Good old-fashioned computer gaming. No internet required, and guess what they are making good money because of that reason, plus they have made good games also. They have a win win style and that is why they are growing very fast. Once they used a publisher now they are the publisher and game maker.

This is how i obtained my game (DL) and account. Bought game off ebay, was lucky enough to have a very good seller. We had all details and transfer stuff researched before proceeding.. After transfer I notified stardock of the account transfer. They were very helpful in assisting a smooth switch.

Had it not been for seeing this game on ebay I do think i would have never found this..

I see this topic still active after thoses 2 years and half I bought my Used Copy of Galactic Civilization Collector Edition. I was lucky the seller transfered me all his account and password. And I was lucky that at this time, Stardock allowed me to play it. It was a legal and honest transaction.

I think peole should have right to to do so. However, when I did it, I was not aware of Stardock Position since it was not an issue at this time.

I then bought Dark Avatar and paid the full price. I also intend to buy the coming TA when it is out for release on a disk. I'll pay the full price again. I'll keep supporting this team of devellopers who remind me the one of bioware in term of investment in theirs games.


And yes, I agree with Mongo64. Someone stupid enough to lose his game have to pay again to play it. Every year for the past 5 years I switched appartement. I never lost anything in the process. I always pack all my games in the same box and it's always a good time to make an inventory of what you have and to see if everything is there. (box, discs, manuals) An adult person should always do so.

But someone BRIGHT ENOUGH to give nice game A SECOND LIFE by buying a USED COPY of someone who dont like the game or dont want to play it anymore should not have to pay more. As explained, it all depends if the seller is willing to give account acess in the sale.

In the UK you are allowed to return a product within 14 days if not totally satisfied, and the retailer can resell the item again as "new" again (not sure if north america is the same).
This is what happened to me, I bought Galactic Civilization 2 new and so I had no need in asking for the registed details as it is "new", and when I came to registering it, I found it was already regsitered a few weeks ealrier. Someone had bought it, registered it and then took it back to the store as they wern;t totally happy with it, I then bought it from the store unknowing it had been sold once before. So it is not just used game sales but "new" game sales too that are effected. I cannot think of a way around these kinds of occurance, but I do think Stardock should look at the Consumer rights in various contry's before selling in that country

While I see the reason behind this secutiry measure, I also know that Stardock has said that they weren't doing anything to prevent piracy.

No copy protection on the retail discs doesn't mean we don't care about piracy.

In truth, it is because Stardock DOES care about preventing piracy that they decided to take a non-traditional approach to combating it. While the path they took has its detractors, it should not be construed as the company not caring. There are much more draconian ways of dealing with the issue than the non-intrusive path that Stardock decided upon.